Jump to content

Republican Hypocrisy, Part VIII.... Public Education


Recommended Posts

Here's the eighth installment of a 24-part series that exposes the blatant hypocrisy of republicans by presenting various policies they once supported but have summarily rejected when America had the audacity to elect a Democrat of African ethnic heritage POTUS.

We've watched the forum minions do all kinds of dancing and twisting, dodging and weaving, excuse-making, projection, and denial of the obvious, but they've been unable to shrug off the shroud of hypocrisy that stems from their irrational hatred of the current president.

 

 

hypocrite |hip' e krit| noun

1. a person who puts on a false appearance of virtueor religion

2. a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

 

 

Public Education

Even the Founding Fathers believed in education for all. Every Republican President in United States history has been supportive of the public education system in this country. Ronald Reagan campaigned on axing the Department of Education but not only did he NOT eliminate it, he amped up its budget. It is only now that President Obama seeks to improve the education system that Republicans are against public education. When President Bush sought to improve public education, Republicans were on board but now that Obama is President, Republicans have decided that all public schools are evil liberal institutions that must be destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Public Education

Even the Founding Fathers believed in education for all. Every Republican President in United States history has been supportive of the public education system in this country. Ronald Reagan campaigned on axing the Department of Education but not only did he NOT eliminate it, he amped up its budget. It is only now that President Obama seeks to improve the education system that Republicans are against public education. When President Bush sought to improve public education, Republicans were on board but now that Obama is President, Republicans have decided that all public schools are evil liberal institutions that must be destroyed.

 

 

Recognizing that our public education system is a failure isn't hypocritical.

Look at how it produced idiots like you and Lisa.

 

I love watching liberals blame racism for opposition to Obama's failed policies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recognizing that our public education system is a failure isn't hypocritical.

Look at how it produced idiots like you and Lisa.

 

I love watching liberals blame racism for opposition to Obama's failed policies.

Yeah. I'm sure it's got nothing to do with rethuglicans waging war against teachers and cutting education budgets to pay for tax breaks for corporations and plutocrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is only now that President Obama seeks to improve the education system that Republicans are against public education.

 

What is he doing in an effort to improve our education system?

 

Choice?

 

Competition?

 

Merit pay?

 

 

What are these evil Republicans not going along with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the eighth installment of a 24-part series that exposes the blatant hypocrisy of republicans by presenting various policies they once supported but have summarily rejected when America had the audacity to elect a Democrat of African ethnic heritage POTUS.

We've watched the forum minions do all kinds of dancing and twisting, dodging and weaving, excuse-making, projection, and denial of the obvious, but they've been unable to shrug off the shroud of hypocrisy that stems from their irrational hatred of the current president.

 

 

hypocrite |hip' e krit| noun

1. a person who puts on a false appearance of virtueor religion

2. a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

 

 

Public Education

Even the Founding Fathers believed in education for all. Every Republican President in United States history has been supportive of the public education system in this country. Ronald Reagan campaigned on axing the Department of Education but not only did he NOT eliminate it, he amped up its budget. It is only now that President Obama seeks to improve the education system that Republicans are against public education. When President Bush sought to improve public education, Republicans were on board but now that Obama is President, Republicans have decided that all public schools are evil liberal institutions that must be destroyed.

 

 

what's more hypocritical is all of the democrats who vote against any form of voucher system which would allow poor voters a chance to get their kids out of the prison system of the miserable public education system, yet they send their kids to a private school. Take the Big O for instance who sends his kids to a prestigious private school that has 12 armed securtity guards at it at all times while he whines like a schoolmarm against protecting kids with guards on the campus where your kids go.

 

The public school system, once a hallmark of the USA, has been kidnapped by lazy ass union workers who need to keep a monopoly on the system becasue they know that when that government controlled monoploy ends their dismal performance rfecord will lose out to the superior privatew schools who rely on providing a better product or they die.

 

Conservatives desire to end this monoploy because they actually care about the kids who are suffering while democrats only care about the unions that they support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what's more hypocritical is all of the democrats who vote against any form of voucher system which would allow poor voters a chance to get their kids out of the prison system of the miserable public education system, yet they send their kids to a private school. Take the Big O for instance who sends his kids to a prestigious private school that has 12 armed securtity guards at it at all times while he whines like a schoolmarm against protecting kids with guards on the campus where your kids go.

 

The public school system, once a hallmark of the USA, has been kidnapped by lazy ass union workers who need to keep a monopoly on the system becasue they know that when that government controlled monoploy ends their dismal performance rfecord will lose out to the superior privatew schools who rely on providing a better product or they die.

 

Conservatives desire to end this monoploy because they actually care about the kids who are suffering while democrats only care about the unions that they support.

The voucher system is merely a rethuglican sham that would force taxpayers to fund thier children's private education while further eliminating funding for public education. Vouchers are not intended to help "poor voters".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The voucher system is merely a rethuglican sham that would force taxpayers to fund thier children's private education while further eliminating funding for public education. Vouchers are not intended to help "poor voters".

 

 

The D.C. OSP has been highly successful. According to federally-mandated evaluations of the program, student achievement has increased, and graduation rates of voucher students have increased significantly. While graduation rates in D.C. Public Schools hover around 55 percent, students who used a voucher to attend private school had a 91 percent graduation rate.

And at $8,000, the vouchers are a bargain compared to the estimated $18,000 spent per child by D.C. Public Schools.

The Department of Education’s budget will increase 3.5 percent if the proposal is enacted, continuing a failed trend of spending more taxpayer dollars through Washington on a myriad of programs with a poor track record.

By contrast, the D.C. OSP has a stellar track record of increasing academic success, student safety, and parental satisfaction. And because of the nature of the District of Columbia (education in D.C. is under the jurisdiction of Congress), it is entirely appropriate for the federal government to fund the D.C. OSP.

 

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/13/presidents-budget-eliminates-funding-for-d-c-opportunity-scholarship-program/

 

 

 

 

obama appreciates your support if only at the expense of everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. I'm sure it's got nothing to do with rethuglicans waging war against teachers and cutting education budgets to pay for tax breaks for corporations and plutocrats.

 

Our country spends the second most per pupil amongst the industrial, western countries - yet we produce a product that ranks in the high teens. Money has been thrown at this for decades, based on the brainwashed notion that more money fixes everything.

 

If the public "education" system expects to improve, the fundamentals that exist need to change - throwing more and more money at a systemic failure does nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Our country spends the second most per pupil amongst the industrial, western countries - yet we produce a product that ranks in the high teens. Money has been thrown at this for decades, based on the brainwashed notion that more money fixes everything.

 

If the public "education" system expects to improve, the fundamentals that exist need to change - throwing more and more money at a systemic failure does nothing.

 

 

Bummer you shouldn't even give this loon credence...let his masterpiece series fall to the bottom of NHB where they belong..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Bummer you shouldn't even give this loon credence...let his masterpiece series fall to the bottom of NHB where they belong..

 

I don't, just stating some basic facts. Each topic in this idiots "series" that I've seen has imploded on him/her. This ones no different. Clearly, he/she is a product of the failed leftist edumacation system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The voucher system is merely a rethuglican sham that would force taxpayers to fund thier children's private education while further eliminating funding for public education. Vouchers are not intended to help "poor voters".

 

 

Then why is it that in New York City when they have lotteries for kids to go to charter schools that the lines to get in the lottery include thousands of parents? And why do both parents and kids cry when they don't get chosen? And these are POOR parents who can't afford private schools. Public education is a typical government monopoly, stifling innovation and delivering poor results. The unions are NOT there for the kids, they are there for the teachers. That's why they are called teachers unions and not student unions. And if these unions are so filled with fantastic teachers, why is it that education spending in this country has more than tripled in the past three decades and test scored have remained perfectly flat? Because the unions don't care about results. They only care about maintaining union teachers and union dues. Nothing else.

 

Education is yet another in an endless list of things that the private sector does WAY better than the government. Your refusal to acknowledge this doesn't change the fact. Hate to be the one to break it to ya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Then why is it that in New York City when they have lotteries for kids to go to charter schools that the lines to get in the lottery include thousands of parents? And why do both parents and kids cry when they don't get chosen? And these are POOR parents who can't afford private schools. Public education is a typical government monopoly, stifling innovation and delivering poor results. The unions are NOT there for the kids, they are there for the teachers. That's why they are called teachers unions and not student unions. And if these unions are so filled with fantastic teachers, why is it that education spending in this country has more than tripled in the past three decades and test scored have remained perfectly flat? Because the unions don't care about results. They only care about maintaining union teachers and union dues. Nothing else.

 

Education is yet another in an endless list of things that the private sector does WAY better than the government. Your refusal to acknowledge this doesn't change the fact. Hate to be the one to break it to ya.

Your ignorance is impressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More twisting, spinning, denial, ad hominem and excuse-making. Yet these minions cannot refute their hypocrisy. It is part of what they are and their anti-American agenda.

 

We are moving past vouchers now?? No more talk about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your ignorance is impressive.

 

Very good rebuttal. I especially like all the facts you left out in it. However, I counter it with an emphatic "Nuh uh." By the way, if you're going to make a piss poor attempt to call someone out for ad-hominems, you might want to take a look in the mirror first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Then why is it that in New York City when they have lotteries for kids to go to charter schools that the lines to get in the lottery include thousands of parents? And why do both parents and kids cry when they don't get chosen? And these are POOR parents who can't afford private schools. Public education is a typical government monopoly, stifling innovation and delivering poor results. The unions are NOT there for the kids, they are there for the teachers. That's why they are called teachers unions and not student unions. And if these unions are so filled with fantastic teachers, why is it that education spending in this country has more than tripled in the past three decades and test scored have remained perfectly flat? Because the unions don't care about results. They only care about maintaining union teachers and union dues. Nothing else.

 

Education is yet another in an endless list of things that the private sector does WAY better than the government. Your refusal to acknowledge this doesn't change the fact. Hate to be the one to break it to ya.

Frequently they can, but it's kinda nice if the tax-payers foot a large chunk of the bill, then the well off can easily donate heavily at school auctions, and for fancy field trips, plus monthly budgets for supplies each teacher can spend at their discretion. Plus the well off can volunteer, and not have jobs to go to. Ergo, it's a private-like school, way better funded than typical public schools, yet the advantage of public school funding, teacher benefits, etc.

 

And it creates a terrible precedent: public funding of 80 to 90% of what's needed for a quality education, which only the well off can afford to bring their local school to or above 100% of what's needed. And rest assured they won't take special needs kids, or kids needing an individual learning plan. Those costly kids will be dumped into the schools already cash strapped for lack of well off parents kicking in the extra dough.

 

For better equality of opportunity, we need all kids to have a public education that's 100% of what's needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frequently they can, but it's kinda nice if the tax-payers foot a large chunk of the bill, then the well off can easily donate heavily at school auctions, and for fancy field trips, plus monthly budgets for supplies each teacher can spend at their discretion. Plus the well off can volunteer, and not have jobs to go to. Ergo, it's a private-like school, way better funded than typical public schools, yet the advantage of public school funding, teacher benefits, etc.

 

And it creates a terrible precedent: public funding of 80 to 90% of what's needed for a quality education, which only the well off can afford to bring their local school to or above 100% of what's needed. And rest assured they won't take special needs kids, or kids needing an individual learning plan. Those costly kids will be dumped into the schools already cash strapped for lack of well off parents kicking in the extra dough.

 

For better equality of opportunity, we need all kids to have a public education that's 100% of what's needed.

 

This is just about 100% false. Charter schools often spend LESS than regular public schools because they don't have to deal with unions and are generally not as well funded. And they don't discriminate against special needs kids as far as I know. The only reason they even resemble private schools at all, i.e. some kids can't get in, is because of the vehement opposition by teacher's unions. Unions know that charter schools tend to do much better than their schools so they fight hard against them.

 

And if our public schools is the guarantee of equality for which you are shooting, I think I'll pass. Mediocrity is not what I want my kids shooting for, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is just about 100% false. Charter schools often spend LESS than regular public schools because they don't have to deal with unions and are generally not as well funded. And they don't discriminate against special needs kids as far as I know. The only reason they even resemble private schools at all, i.e. some kids can't get in, is because of the vehement opposition by teacher's unions. Unions know that charter schools tend to do much better than their schools so they fight hard against them.

 

And if our public schools is the guarantee of equality for which you are shooting, I think I'll pass. Mediocrity is not what I want my kids shooting for, thanks.

It's absolutely true, and was exactly how my kids were schooled. Parents kicked in, with ease, $200 a month per child, and the annual auction raised north of $500 grand. And so many stay at home moms volunteered, they fought over who'd make a latte run for teachers, with tons of extra dough the got each month to buy supplies, not to mention a giant budget for the principal to buy equipment no other public schools in our district ever dreamed of.

 

Fact. And it's repeated all over America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Very good rebuttal. I especially like all the facts you left out in it. However, I counter it with an emphatic "Nuh uh." By the way, if you're going to make a piss poor attempt to call someone out for ad-hominems, you might want to take a look in the mirror first.

I'm not obliged to make you look stupid when you're doing such a fine job of that yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For better equality of opportunity, we need all kids to have a public education that's 100% of what's needed.

Typical liberal logic: "I want your kids to be as stupid as mine, so you have to send your kids to the same hellhole I send mine."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its actually quite simple. When conservatives want to improve education, its for things like constitutional history or math and science classes When liberals want to improve education, its for things like putting on condoms, lgbt awareness or how the white man is oppressing minorities by making them buy an Lcd Tv on welfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The voucher system is merely a rethuglican sham that would force taxpayers to fund thier children's private education while further eliminating funding for public education. Vouchers are not intended to help "poor voters".

Liberals believe in "choice" only when you choose ignorance, like them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh c'mon, there just couldn't be any connection between Republicans being against so many things they were for and the election of a black man to the presidency. It just can't be.

You mean like libturds supporting Obama, for the very things you all protested under Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the Founding Fathers believed in education for all. Every Republican President in United States history has been supportive of the public education system in this country. Ronald Reagan campaigned on axing the Department of Education but not only did he NOT eliminate it, he amped up its budget. It is only now that President Obama seeks to improve the education system that Republicans are against public education. When President Bush sought to improve public education, Republicans were on board but now that Obama is President, Republicans have decided that all public schools are evil liberal institutions that must be destroyed.

The Founding Fathers believed in education, not indoctrination.

 

Being "supportive" is not the same as acceptance.

 

Reagan cut the budget of the DoE by 19%.

 

Obama was not president in 2004 when the Republican Party spoke out for Home Education, giving parents more control over children's education, privacy rights, and calling for "vigilant enforcement of laws" to protect those family rights.

 

Just because you are ignorant of the past does not mean it does not exist, or that it fits your agenda attempts here.

 

Hypocrisy indeed. Yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...