Question to Libertarians Re: Schooling

Search

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
the amish are a great example of a sustainable libertarian like lifestyle that has grown counter to america's ever growing unsustainable statism/socialism/liberalism

their numbers almost double in the past 15 years

and they give their kids the option to leave at the end of the day

and 4 outta 5 stay

even some moved up to your neck of the woods X.....small community of um in ontario

-----------------------------------

Amish increase their range, numbers
Minnesota, Wisconsin see expansions
By Mark Scolforo
Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 08/23/2008 03:15:39 AM CDT

LANCASTER, Pa. — The Amish are expanding their presence in states far beyond Pennsylvania Dutch country as they search for affordable farmland to accommodate a population that has nearly doubled in the past 16 years, a new study found.

States such as Missouri, Kentucky and Minnesota have seen increases in their Amish populations of more than 130 percent. The Amish now number an estimated 227,000 nationwide, up from 123,000 in 1992, according to researchers from Elizabethtown College's Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies.

Over the same period, Amish settlements have been established in seven new states, putting them in at least 28 states from coast to coast. The new states are: Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, Washington and West Virginia.

"When we think they might be dying out or merely surviving, they are actually thriving," said Elizabethtown professor Don Kraybill, a leading expert on the Amish who shared his research from an upcoming book with the Associated Press.

Also known as Anabaptists, most Amish reject modern conveniences and rely on horse-drawn carriages. They began arriving in eastern Pennsylvania around 1730. Along with English, they speak a German dialect called Pennsylvania Dutch or Pennsylvania German.

Amish couples typically have five or more children. With more than four out of every five deciding in young adulthood to remain within the church, their population has grown steadily. More than half the population is under 21.

A small portion of the increase is also due to conversions to the faith.

The Amish are attracted to areas with relatively cheap farms, a rural lifestyle and nonfarming jobs such as construction or cabinet making that fit their values and allow them to remain independent. In some cases, they have migrated to resolve leadership problems or escape church-related disputes.

In Intercourse, a town just east of Lancaster popular with tourists, Amish goat farmer Lester Stoltzfus said a number of area families had moved recently to other states in search of affordable farmland.

"It's fine with me if people move out," Stoltzfus, 37, said from his farm along a country lane hemmed in by cornfields. "There are too many people living here anyway."

Down the road at Fisher's Tin Shop, where stove pipes and decorative items fashioned out of tin hung on the walls, Ben Fisher could not offer any explanation for why the Amish are doing so well. But he said families are on the move all the time.

"They've got to go somewhere," Fisher said.

As they move into new areas, some of the conflicts that occurred years earlier in established Amish settlements are playing out again, often involving issues such as building codes or waste treatment.

In Mayfield, Ky., an area into which a few hundred Amish have moved in recent years, nine men are fighting charges they operated horse-drawn buggies without the flashing lights or orange safety triangles that state law requires.

"They are moving into new states and settling or establishing new settlements in communities where local officials aren't acquainted with them. That creates some misunderstanding on zoning issues or other unique factors in Amish practice," Kraybill said.

At the same time, some businesses have been glad to accommodate the Amish. In Mayfield, hardware store owner Dan Falder said his business is one of several to install hitching posts where the Amish can tie up their horses.

Now when Falder looks across the parking lot, he sees horse manure.

"That's new within the last few years," he said.

Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana continue to be the geographic center for the Amish, accounting for about two-thirds of their population. They also accounted for more than half of the total population gain.

But eight states with at least 1,000 Amish residents had higher rates of growth, led by Kentucky, which saw its population jump 200 percent, from 2,835 to 8,505, the study found.

The number of Amish "districts" — congregations that usually consist of two or three dozen families — has increased by 84 percent in the past 16 years, from 929 to 1,711.

The arrival of the Amish can raise land prices, and their self-reliance translates into a relatively low burden on public services.

Dennis Hubbard, a government official in Sheldon Township, Wis., said the newcomers seldom appear in the court system, require long-term care or attend public schools.

"As they live their lives, they really do not become very involved with government," said Hubbard, whose state has seen its Amish population climb 117 percent since 1992.

At least 350 Amish families migrated into Missouri, New York or Wisconsin between 2002 and 2007. Over the same period, about 520 families moved out of Ohio and some 470 left Pennsylvania.

"One family doesn't go — there is a group of them that goes, like two or three or four," said Fannie Erb-Miller, national editor of The Budget, a weekly newspaper serving the Amish that is based in Sugarcreek, Ohio.

Once a settlement has six families and at least one minister, it qualifies to send The Budget dispatches about its activities, often with an invitation for others to join it.

"They can continue to let people know: We're here, come visit us, how the land is, the orchards do great or whatever," Erb-Miller said.

Kraybill said only families who use horse-drawn buggies and call themselves Amish were considered Amish for purposes of his research.

Researchers combed Amish publications and mined other sources to determine where new settlements were being established and to count the total number of districts.

They used a figure of 135 people per church district to calculate population estimates, but the study cautions that its method could result in numbers that are too high for newer settlements and too low in long-established Amish communities.

In Ontario, the only Amish community outside the United States also is growing. It consists of about 4,500 people, up from 2,300 in 1992.

The Amish have noticed their changing demographics. The population boom is posing practical challenges for a people who, for example, often pay non-Amish "taxis" — private vehicles — to take them on longer trips.

"An Amish woman said, 'We joke among ourselves, if we keep growing at this rate, soon half the world will be Amish and the other half will be taxi drivers,' " Kraybill said.
 

Everything's Legal in the USofA...Just don't get c
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,199
Tokens
nah alot of the libertarians their kids are the employees eventually and no they don't hire help for the other stuff they own the business and take care of that other stuff on their own using the family......they are self sufficient

like an iowa farmers life is very libertarian in nature where the kids take a part in the family business and it gets handed down generation to generation

your nanny staters are the ones that hire help for the chores while both parents work to have nice shit and spoil their kid with goodies rather than investing in their education and making the kids work and being a contributor to the family


Yea, the Iowa farmer's life is very libertarian until you ask him to give up his subsidies or develop ethanol without government funding.
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
subsidies are killing the small farmer

so many corporate farms now

the small farmer is a dieing a slow death

all part of america's corportism where corporations not individuals own the land and thus their own destiny

reminds me of a quote from o brother where art thou "you ain't any kind of man if you don't own land"

the small farmer of old times was very similar to the amish lifestyle for example (my dad grew up on a small iowa farm) just a different religion and they don't reject modern conveniences
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
here's an example of a iowa farmer libertarian family

met them along the way in the ron paul journey

great family and cute kids

just had #8 i see....good for them....need more people like um in america....

http://www.keaglefamily.com/
 

Everything's Legal in the USofA...Just don't get c
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,199
Tokens
here's an example of a iowa farmer libertarian family

met them along the way in the ron paul journey

great family and cute kids

just had #8 i see....good for them....need more people like um in america....

http://www.keaglefamily.com/


They seem like nice enough people, but...

THE FRIGGIN CONSTITUTION PARTY. ARE YOU SERIOUS???

That's like the anti-RonPaul when it comes to things like personal freedom and morality. Which is just about the only thing that RP had right.
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
y the hard core christian people that were active behind paul are moving over to constitution party

as for me probably voting for barr but not active in the movement

just no real good options 3rd party no real libertarian

i respect anybody voting 3rd party regardless if its green, constitution or libertarian....hopefully we can make a big statement as group this election taking a big chunk of the vote as a whole....and maybe one like libertarian can muster some federal funding....to breakup this two party sham system.....or at least make up sweat a little and realize american's slowly waking up to how crooked both the right and left really are.....
 

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
7,373
Tokens
y the hard core christian people that were active behind paul are moving over to constitution party

as for me probably voting for barr but not active in the movement

just no real good options 3rd party no real libertarian

i respect anybody voting 3rd party regardless if its green, constitution or libertarian....hopefully we can make a big statement as group this election taking a big chunk of the vote as a whole....and maybe one like libertarian can muster some federal funding....to breakup this two party sham system.....or at least make up sweat a little and realize american's slowly waking up to how crooked both the right and left really are.....

I can't vote for Barr or Baldwin.
I will write in ron paul if I can or probably just not vote for president.
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
we just really need a 3rd party right now on the national scale to stick its nose between this toxic left/right debate you see on this very forum

i respect anybody voting 3rd party regardless of who its with

much more than i respect anybody voting for either mccain or obama
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
I can't vote for Barr or Baldwin.
I will write in ron paul if I can or probably just not vote for president.

not gonna get everything you want nimue

make a choice buddy and help our numbers

i hope you will....:toast:

its not like they are gonna win anyway :lolBIG:

at least make a statement against the one party (right/left) system with your vote won't take much effort on your part

not voting is the worst thing you can do IMO

as for writing in ron paul the way the system is it won't even get counted.....so kinda pointless
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
5,412
Tokens
Just cause I'm brief, doesn't mean I'm being snotty.

I know where you stand on public education, Darryl. No worries there. The 'prove it' comment was more rhetorical than anything, and not directed at you, any more than comments like 'crime would go up' are really your thoughts.

Sorry to give the wrong impression.

OK no problem. Sorry for overreacting.

Do you mean that "crime would go up" might not be my thoughts?

They are, but I can't prove it, simply because it's beyond the closed and wonderful world of mathematics and formal logic.

I just thought it was more or less self-evident, seeing as lots of parents are lazy and complacent these days, and kids like to get into mischief if they aren't tied down with stuff to do. I'm not talking about middle to upper class educated families. They'd more than likely know what to do.

I'm thinking of all the welfare single moms out there who are addicted to drugs and change their lovers like they change their underwear. I'm not sure I can see them implementing a homeschooling regimen, nor paying for school. To be sure, their kids can (and do) still commit crimes as it is, but you'll add another 6-hour window for them if you take away school and also expose them to more violence, give them more time to organize gangs and that sort of thing.

If I'm missing something I'd be more than glad to know what it is. I don't claim to be an authority on the issue. Part of my reason for making this thread was to learn from others' experiences.
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
crime and drugs is low within the amish community LOL

and they even let their kids experiment and 4 outta 5 reject it

devil's playground interesting documentary on that subject

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0293088/
 

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
7,373
Tokens
not gonna get everything you want nimue

make a choice buddy and help our numbers

i hope you will....:toast:

its not like they are gonna win anyway :lolBIG:

at least make a statement against the one party (right/left) system with your vote won't take much effort on your part

not voting is the worst thing you can do IMO

as for writing in ron paul the way the system is it won't even get counted.....so kinda pointless

I don't need everything. I voted for Harry Browne and Badnarik and I voted for Ron Paul in the Primary. But I have hated Barr for a long time, maybe you weren't familiar with him during his years in the Congress but Barr is anything but a libertarian and even if he begged for forgiveness I would never vote for someone who did what he did. As for Baldwin, he is anti-gambling, too anti-abortion, and other stuff.
 

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
3,255
Tokens
I love Wayne Root ( not his pics, his politics)

Government Should Leave Home Schooling Families Alone, Says Wayne Allyn Root
Monday, August 11, 2008, 08:11 AM
Henderson, NV -- .There is no more important task for a parent than the education of one.s children. That responsibility belongs to parents, not the government,.
insists Wayne Allyn Root, the Libertarian Party candidate for vice president. .As a home school parent myself, I know how important it is for government to not
interfere in the education process..

Yet the city of Washington, D.C. has issued new regulations that for the first time in 15 years anywhere in America increase government control over
home-schooling. .Given the abysmal job performed by the District public schools, the D.C. government should be encouraging, not discouraging home schooling,.
says Root. .It is the height of arrogance for this school system with its poor performance to sit in judgment over the quality of parental instruction..

Home schoolers also have been under attack in California, Root observes, where a court recently ruled against home school parents, declaring that there is no
constitutional right to home school. However, he notes, .the U.S. Supreme Court once blocked a state attempt to outlaw private schools, explaining that 'the
child is not the mere creature of the state.' That principle is equally valid for home schooling..

"The good news in California," Root adds, "is that the state has dropped its action against the home schooling family. But the state legislature still should
act to protect the fundamental right of parents to educate their own children. The D.C. city council should do the same,. he says.

.There may be no better example as to how government has outgrown its original role than the fact that many people now believe education to be not a family, not
a local, and not a state responsibility, but a federal responsibility. That.s entirely wrong,. says Root. .There may be no more important liberty than the right
to care for one.s own family, including to ensure the proper education of one.s children. Bob Barr and I are dedicated to promoting that right in our campaign
for president and vice president..

Wayne Root and his wife Debra home school their 4 young children. Wayne is the first home school father on a Presidential ticket in modern history.
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
y nimue kinda annoyed me they took barr guess they felt it would draw more traditional republicans over that hate mccain's liberalism

we'll see how it works out

all parties are gonna play these games and have their flaws

the main goal of libertarian party right now is to get the most votes near term to try to get some national recognition/funding

i'm a small L type of guy the party too full of one issue guys like the pro dope smokers for example

either way until a 3rd party can get in the between the right/left debate nothing will change....

although ron paul also is coming for them at the other angle trying to get more like minded people in via the campaign for liberty thing

gotta come at um from different angles

honestly too much emphasis place on presidency anyway.....this change must come with everybody of our mindset getting active at the state and local level.....and demanding true conservatism from republicans
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
i go to local republican meetings been kinda slacking off of late

but anyway

if i could get 50-100 people of my mindset to go and be active we could take over the county republican party very swiftly its all powers in numbers

and the republican party as far as active members is dead as can be due to bush and all really old

when i go usually a group of 30-40 people with average age of 60
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
bottom line nimue this change you want ain't gonna happen on its own and gonna take some sacrifice/work on your part and others as well

you can either sit around and complain about it or get up offa your libertarian ass and do something about it....

the choice is yours

and i agree with ron paul due to the way the system is easiest way is taking over the republican party....it gonna be tough work with alot of fighting along the way....but if you get enough active people involved in your local area there's nothing the neocon's can do....its all power in numbers
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
i'm libertarian when it come to the federal government

let the states keep more money and handle schools and all the other shit....

i have no problems with some socialism at the state level

that's how our system was set up to keep the socialism local....federal government wasn't intended to be doing 95% of the shit they do today

money better/more efficiently spent locally

I am pretty much on board with all of the above post.
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
i guess your gonna ignore my retort about how subsidies and government involvment help corporations infiltrate the family farms

not surprising

the subsidies all started outta the rubble of the great depression

when shit hits the fan throw more government at the problem as usual

basically government aided walmartization of the farming industry pushing mom and pop operations outta the way is what subsidies get ya

----------------------------------------

February 08, 2008
Farm Policy Needs to be Plowed Under
By Matt Danko

In December, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed another subsidy-bloated farm bill that continues to benefit wealthy farms with unlimited payments while ignoring the real needs of small American farms as well as farmers in developing nations. Soon President Bush will have the opportunity to fulfill his promise to veto this bill and end the policy of sending payoffs to some of the wealthiest landowners in America. The importance of this legislation, and the genuine reform that is needed, cannot be overstressed, as its effects will be felt by many, including American farmers, African farmers, American taxpayers and consumers.

Current U.S. farm policy dates back to the Great Depression when the first commodity subsidies were given to family farms as a financial safety net. At that time, 20 percent of Americans were farmers. Today, less than 1 percent are farmers and most of them are not full-time farmers. In fact, agriculture in the United States accounts for less than 1 percent of our entire gross domestic product.

Obviously, times have changed, but because of the strong influence of industry lobbyists, these subsidies still exist, and for the most part, they don't go to small family farms. A study by the Heritage Foundation shows that the majority of these payments go to large corporate farms, those that already turn huge profits due to their economies of scale. These mega-farms can easily drive small farms out of business with the intent of buying them out in many circumstances.

The wealthiest 10 percent of American farmers receive 65 percent of all agriculture subsidies. The program literally rewards more farmland with more subsidies, and much of that land does not even have to be farmed. According to the Washington Post, since 2000, the government has given away more than $1.3 billion to farmers that don't farm. Many aren't even farmers, they're people with financial interests in farms. Some of these recipients include David Letterman, David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Scottie Pippen, Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen, Enron's Kenneth Lay, and some members of Congress. (To see a map of farm subsidy beneficiaries living in New York City, click here.)

Worse, 60 percent of real farmers receive no subsidies at all. This is due to industry lobbying for specific crops. The winners are corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice, of which many are processed into unhealthy foods for consumers and feed for livestock. These crops are grown primarily by corporate mega-farms. The losers, of course, are fruits and vegetables, which are often grown by smaller farms. The disproportionate rise in the price of fruits and vegetables versus that of fast food is a red flag suggesting that perhaps we're subsidizing the wrong crops.

In 1996, the Republican congress passed the Freedom to Farm Act, which continued to grant subsidies to growers, but under the condition that they would be cut off in seven years. Literally, Congress was attempting to wean farmers off of decades of subsidies. However, when 9/11 happened, security and economic concerns provided the appropriate excuses for passage of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, and so the subsidies continued.

Even as farmers are reporting near-record profits, further subsidies have been authorized in the current farm bill. The posted justifications for crop-specific subsidies remain in serious doubt. As professor, syndicated columnist, and former farmer Victor Davis Hanson has noted, there are very few small farmers left in this country, the large corporate farms own the market (and get the subsidies), so there is little benefit to the traditional family farmer; food prices continue to rise, so there is little benefit to the consumer; and we continue to import almost as much food as we export, so there little benefit to American agricultural independence.

But again, the agriculture industry, like every industry, has its lobbyists. Campaigns are funded and favors are granted, and those that benefit are the politicians and a multibillion-dollar industry that will only continue to grow as the economies of Asia continue to prosper and import more American food.

Reforming farm policy can be politically hazardous: any effort to reform runs the risk of being labeled as anti-farmer, which can be detrimental during an election year. But why can't mega-farmers compete in a free market just like everyone else? Even the typical full-time American farmer retains a per capita income higher than the median family income. Why should the American taxpayer bail out an industry that's doing well, especially when our government is running budget deficits?

On a global scale, subsidies to American agribusiness encourage the overproduction of certain crops, such as cotton, the surpluses of which are sold to the rest of the world. This causes the price of cotton to drop on the world market. This hurts the small farmers of developing nations who literally depend on farming to survive. According to a study by the National Center for Policy Analysis, subsidies to American farmers cost third world farmers $24 billion each year. Add to that we put trade barriers on the importation of such crops from these nations. Trade barriers (which are subsidies by another name) only contribute to the economic impoverishment and political instability of the third world while simultaneously they drive up prices for American consumers.

All of this is in violation of rules set up by the World Trade Organization, and America's disregard for these rules has actually hampered our ability to negotiate trade deals in nonagricultural sectors of the economy. It's hard to promote free markets and free trade when you're subsidizing an entire industry to the detriment of other nations.

In West Africa, cotton is their cash crop and the only source of income for many families. By reforming cotton subsidies and lifting the associated import barriers here at home, therefore raising the world market price of cotton, while simultaneously lowering the price for American consumers, we could help 10 million West Africans significantly improve their impoverished living conditions. And this is a tradition of America: to better the lives of those in developing countries. After World War II, both Germany and Japan used the domestic market of the United States to sell goods and boost their economies. Later, South Korea and Taiwan did the same. This is a type of foreign aid that costs the American taxpayer nothing.

The last hope for a fair farm bill was embodied in several sponsored amendments which would have allowed for a more effective safety net for all farmers regardless of what they grow while placing caps on the amount of money any one entity could receive, thus leveling the playing field between family and corporate farms. They would have also reduced trade-distorting subsidies that hurt farmers of developing nations and would have brought our farm policy into compliance with international trade rules.

Unfortunately, such amendments failed, which is discouraging to say the least. The bipartisan Lugar-Lautenberg amendment was defeated. Even more unnerving, the similar Dorgan-Grassley amendment actually won a 56-43 majority, but failed because Democratic leaders had agreed to require a 60-vote supermajority lest they be filibustered by members of their own party who want to continue paying unlimited subsidies. This same tactic was employed with Senator Amy Klobuchar's amendment to end payments to farms with more than $750,000 in annual income. Hence, the Senate bill passed without any significant income caps and is now to be reconciled in committee with the House's similarly bloated version.

Fortunately, President Bush has expressed his dissatisfaction with this legislation and is threatening to veto it anyway. Unless some form of payment limitations can be worked out in committee to avoid a veto, Congress will have to attempt an override, or extend the current policy on the books and go back to begin a new farm bill, perhaps one more equitable. This begs the question: Why is a Republican administration (so called protectors of the rich) pushing for reforms and a Democratic Congress (so called protectors of the middle class) fighting for corporate welfare? The White House has called for an income cap of $200,000 while the income cap on the farm bill from Nancy Pelosi's House is a staggering $2 million! It could be inferred that the farm vote is simply another vote Democrats are more than willing to purchase with tax dollars.

Farm policy is, above all things, boring. The fact that nonfarmers are virtually unaware of these numerous contradictions and injustices is key to the existence of such contradictions and injustices in the first place. However, the very idea of crop-selective subsidies and trade barriers should hardly be one of partisan contention. Current U.S. farm policy constitutes an outdated corporate welfare program that defies the basic tenets of a free market and thus remains long overdue for reform.

Matt Danko is a freelance writer living in Knoxville, Tennessee. He blogs at PolicyMag.com
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
OK no problem. Sorry for overreacting.

Do you mean that "crime would go up" might not be my thoughts?

They are, but I can't prove it, simply because it's beyond the closed and wonderful world of mathematics and formal logic.

I just thought it was more or less self-evident, seeing as lots of parents are lazy and complacent these days, and kids like to get into mischief if they aren't tied down with stuff to do. I'm not talking about middle to upper class educated families. They'd more than likely know what to do.

I'm thinking of all the welfare single moms out there who are addicted to drugs and change their lovers like they change their underwear. I'm not sure I can see them implementing a homeschooling regimen, nor paying for school. To be sure, their kids can (and do) still commit crimes as it is, but you'll add another 6-hour window for them if you take away school and also expose them to more violence, give them more time to organize gangs and that sort of thing.

Ok, surprised to read that these are your thoughts, to be honest.

Kids getting into crime, imo (and seemingly iyo, too) is due to bad parenting for the most part -- as opposed to a lack of public education per se. If kids have nothing to do all day, that's the fault of the parents, not the absence of whatever it is they happen to not be doing.

Sure, public education helps lazy parents keep their unruly kids busy all day, but so could hockey camp, or working around the house, or whatever. I don't think it's the responsibility of the state to do parents' job for them, and only ends up encouraging the idiocy you see now. Thus, you could easily make an argument that public education increases crime, as it increases bad parenting, a bigger correlator.

IMO, the worst consequence of public education is that everyone learns the same stuff, and way too much of it. We're totally homogeneous when we come out of it. It takes more and more education to specialise, and more and more time to master a craft. Having a high school diploma doesn't mean anything. Even an undergrad is typical now.

Side note: Dalton McGuinty (Ontario Premier) recently passed legislation that would disallow a teenager from obtaining their license unless they graduate school. What impact would not having a driver's license likely have on a high school dropout looking for a job? And what impact would not being able to find a job have on the dropout's chances of turning to crime?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,810
Messages
13,573,528
Members
100,877
Latest member
kiemt5385
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com