"No" to Kentuckians but "yes" to foreigners

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 05
    Location
    South of Cincinnati
    Posts
    160

    "No" to Kentuckians but "yes" to foreigners

    When you summarize the effects of the vote on Proposals 3, 9, and 20, you find that the public schools have discriminated against their neighbors and fellow Kentuckians but protected students from other countries.
    By defeating Proposition 9, the publics have shown support for full participation in all state playoffs by foreign exchange students.
    However, by passing Proposal 20, this same group has forbidden many of its fellow citizens (and school tax payers) from such participation merely because they have the audacity to attend a private school.
    Further, the publics, through the passing of Proposal 3, completely remove any and all of the residents of our neighboring states from any athletic participation in Kentucky.
    All in all, I guess we can conclude that, according to the publics, nonresident, nontaxpaying, noncontributing foreign students have more rights than do our neighbors and even our own citizens. Does this seem discriminatory to anyone else?
    Advertisement

  2. #2
    TigerKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 04
    Location
    Sunny Side of St. Matthews
    Posts
    1,848

    Quote Originally Posted by StThomasMore
    When you summarize the effects of the vote on Proposals 3, 9, and 20, you find that the public schools have discriminated against their neighbors and fellow Kentuckians but protected students from other countries.
    By defeating Proposition 9, the publics have shown support for full participation in all state playoffs by foreign exchange students.
    However, by passing Proposal 20, this same group has forbidden many of its fellow citizens (and school tax payers) from such participation merely because they have the audacity to attend a private school.
    Further, the publics, through the passing of Proposal 3, completely remove any and all of the residents of our neighboring states from any athletic participation in Kentucky.
    All in all, I guess we can conclude that, according to the publics, nonresident, nontaxpaying, noncontributing foreign students have more rights than do our neighbors and even our own citizens. Does this seem discriminatory to anyone else?
    AMEN[I][U]

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Aug 04
    Posts
    276

    Quote Originally Posted by StThomasMore
    When you summarize the effects of the vote on Proposals 3, 9, and 20, you find that the public schools have discriminated against their neighbors and fellow Kentuckians but protected students from other countries.
    By defeating Proposition 9, the publics have shown support for full participation in all state playoffs by foreign exchange students.
    However, by passing Proposal 20, this same group has forbidden many of its fellow citizens (and school tax payers) from such participation merely because they have the audacity to attend a private school.
    Further, the publics, through the passing of Proposal 3, completely remove any and all of the residents of our neighboring states from any athletic participation in Kentucky.
    All in all, I guess we can conclude that, according to the publics, nonresident, nontaxpaying, noncontributing foreign students have more rights than do our neighbors and even our own citizens. Does this seem discriminatory to anyone else?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 03
    Location
    I like taters...
    Posts
    9,317

    Well stated.

    What are the possiblities of getting a tax break for parents of private school kids that are no longer allowed to compete for the one true State Championship?

    Is it now legal for the government to seize our assets and provide no service or value in return? ( I already know the answer to this one... it's been going on for years. )

Top