exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:30 am Post subject: Re: Conservative Paradox |
 |
|
|
| cornopean wrote: |
no...it's an intrusion of govt that they force you to send your child to the school in your district. |
So...you'd be satisfied if children were allowed to go to schools in other districts, if their parents were willing to drive them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Turk
Forum Elder
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3340
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Its an intrusion when the government makes the public pay out of their pockets to send kids that are not theirs to school. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joeyjock
Forum Elder
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2108
Location: Fort Lauderdale
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
This Grover Norquist "Let it die on the vine" strategy has been working for the republicans until now
it's all dead ... and we're finding out that the privatization bandwagon
ain't all what it was cracked up to be
instead of funding the schools where they NEED to be and giving them the HELP they need....we're telling the parents that it's the TEACHERS fault
when there are no books to teach with and the walls are falling down
and the health dept in some cases have said that these schools are unsafe to be in
but the shining white knight is here....VOUCHERS!!!!
you can save your children from this fate worse than death by sending them to a PRIVATE SCHOOL..... OOOOOOOOH! Ivy covered walls Plaid skirts
A Private school...
But they didn't tell you that these "Private Schools"
Pay their teachers less and were made up just for this purpose
kinda like the Blackwater corporations of "educmacation"
and almost without exception they do no better than the public schools they replaced |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Turk
Forum Elder
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3340
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
education should be privitized
health care should be privitized
i agree although that some things are not meant to be privitized |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joeyjock
Forum Elder
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2108
Location: Fort Lauderdale
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
you just hit upon two that most definitely should not be
...we're living the reasons why
Healthcare>>>>>>>>>>privatized?
when there is a profit motive in healthcare where do you think the cost goes?.........up
look at the profits and the CEO salaries of the major ins companies
it's ludicrous
single payer healthcare is the only way to go
and as far as education
you have to have a single institution system because of the tax system in this country and the influence of things like religion and other special interest groups |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Turk
Forum Elder
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3340
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
well the government fucks up everything that it gets itself involved with
regulations get high and quality and affordability go through the roof and who loses?
You guessed it the poor and the workers.
http://www.huntsmancancerfound.....ut_hcf.php
See mr huntsman did what no tax payer funded hospital could do.
He has had more breakthoughs with technology in fighting cancer than any tax payer funded hospital. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joeyjock
Forum Elder
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2108
Location: Fort Lauderdale
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
So you're sayin' that because we have a basically private healthcare system here in the US that healthcare should be cheap?
Because every other country witha single payer healthcare plan seems to have it less expensive.... Odd that it seems that way |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Turk wrote: | | Its an intrusion when the government makes the public pay out of their pockets to send kids that are not theirs to school. |
No, it isn't. We don't send your kids to school to benefit you. We send your children to school to benefit everyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joeyjock
Forum Elder
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2108
Location: Fort Lauderdale
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The republicans like it this way...
an "unedumacated" public is a republican populace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Turk
Forum Elder
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3340
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| exton wrote: | | Turk wrote: | | Its an intrusion when the government makes the public pay out of their pockets to send kids that are not theirs to school. |
No, it isn't. We don't send your kids to school to benefit you. We send your children to school to benefit everyone. |
How collectivist of you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cornopean
Forum Elder
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:03 pm Post subject: Re: Conservative Paradox |
|
|
|
| TrespassersW wrote: |
Some of those same people used to openly make the same complaint about mixed-race households.
|
well they were wrong. but gender is more important than race in a parenting situation. the man does something for kids that woman generally don't.
| Quote: | | cornopean wrote: | | ...cons operate on the presumption that a mother and father is the ideal parenting relationship. |
In a society based on personal liberty, is it really enough to take that liberty from others because of commonly held presumptions?
|
well we are going to be ruled by someone's presumptions. its either the presumptions of the libs (i.e. men and women are essentially the same) or the presumptions of cons (i.e. men and women are essential different).
| Quote: | We're not talking about cartoon people here; they are "real." And if you are sincere in believing that government has an obligation to keep kids from being born into bad situations, are we going to have government decide which heterosexuals can and can't marry? Or perhaps we can just let them decide who gets to breed.
|
they are real people in that they are humans but a family is not ideal unless there is a father and a mother. now where the govt can help make this happen, it should IMO.
and the govt doesn't interfere much with hetero marriages but it does interfere when it judges that children are not in a good situation. so the intrusion is already there....we just have to decide whose values are going to guide the decision when a situation is bad enough to warrant yanking the kids.
| Quote: | | cornopean wrote: | | ...yes...children that grow up in a gay household are more likely to be gay themselves..yes? |
Got a study you can cite to support that?
|
no. what you guess if you had to?
| Quote: | | cornopean wrote: | | ...I regard the gay lifestyle as a serious health hazard. |
So is the redneck lifestyle; should we stop them from marrying and breeding? If I get AIDS from a blood transfusion, are you going to have the government take my children away?
|
we dont have to keep rednecks from marrying...just from having custody of children.
| Quote: |
Look... I don't like the idea of homosexual men raising children. Thing is, I'm wise enough to know that my idea of it isn't the actual thing.
|
I don't understand the meaning of that last sentence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cornopean
Forum Elder
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:07 pm Post subject: Re: Conservative Paradox |
|
|
|
| TrespassersW wrote: |
| Quote: | | Of course, if government steered clear of attaching any special privileges to marriage in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue. |
In my opinion, government should not be attaching any special privileges or treatment to a marriage license. Period. Let people contract to enter into civil unions if they choose, and call them what they choose, but keep government the hell out of it. |
I used to think this way too but for me, a moral society provides protection for the weakest and most vulnerable amongst us; i.e. children.
and the understanding that the govt will legislate morality no matter who is in power. liberal morals or con morals. I go with the latter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Turk
Forum Elder
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3340
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| exton wrote: | | Turk wrote: | | Its an intrusion when the government makes the public pay out of their pockets to send kids that are not theirs to school. |
No, it isn't. We don't send your kids to school to benefit you. We send your children to school to benefit everyone. |
Having children with substardard results going to a taxpayer funded school benefits no one.
Private education costs the tax payer less and you get better results
Last edited by Turk on Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TrespassersW
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject: Re: Conservative Paradox |
|
|
|
| cornopean wrote: | | well we are going to be ruled by someone's presumptions. its either the presumptions of the libs (i.e. men and women are essentially the same) or the presumptions of cons (i.e. men and women are essential different). |
First, I dispute the notion that we must be ruled by presumptions. Second, I'm not choosing between your two presumptions, I'm suggesting (as I think a lot of people are) that when we're looking for parents for kids who have none, we may need to set aside the perfect in favor of the good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cornopean
Forum Elder
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:20 pm Post subject: Re: Conservative Paradox |
|
|
|
| Quote: | [quote="fellfire"] | cornopean wrote: |
First, cons support a voucher system for funding education. |
So you believe that both sides (libs and cons) agree that it is a legitimate "business" of the state to support education through taxpayer money. |
yes...but the voucher system is much less intrusive than the lib vision for education. yes?
| Quote: |
| cornopean wrote: |
Second, with such a system, many more private schools would come into existence.
Third, these private schools would not be subject to the state laws regulating schools. |
Well now, of course their would be more private schools, since now anyone who wanted to provide daycare for kids from 5 years old through 18 years old could open a "school". All paid for by the state. You wouldn't even have to teach anything since there would be no regulations on what you did.
This is the "conservative" non-interventionist approach? Interesting.
|
well first let's establish whose plan involves more govt intrusion. I think I have established rather conclusively that the lib plan is more intrusive.
but second, you raise some problems with the voucher plan the first being that some schools might not teach anything and yet would still get federal money. now this seems really elementary to me but....how many parents (read customers) would send their kids to a school that taught nothing?
| Quote: | You don't see a problem with fraud,waste, and abuse on a profound scale with this?
|
there would be fraud, waste, and abuse with a voucher system. compared to current system of public education....uhhhhh......we are talking about the difference between the boy scouts and Stalin. I'll leave you to figure who is who.
| Quote: | | cornopean wrote: |
Fourth, one of these laws is that schools must use only certified teachers.
Fifth, hence many uncertified teachers would be able to get jobs at these schools.
Under the current system (which libs are fighting to preserve) uncertified teachers, who are nonetheless excellent teachers, are not allowed (here is the intrusion) to teach. |
Ahh ... I see now. Of course you wouldn't want these schools to have to teach anything because you don't want these schools to be able to teach anything.
I am guessing you are one of those "uncertified, but nonetheless excellent teachers"?
|
I am.  good guess.
again...do you agree that the lib plan involves more intrusion? I just want to be clear on that (even if the conservative plan is utter folly).
at any rate, you seem to think that the increased competition a voucher system would bring......would NOT eliminate the incompetent and "not teaching anythign" schools. I guess I see the opposite happening in the market place. but maybe we live in different universes.
| Quote: | You want to take money from taxpayers and provide it to anyone who hangs a school bell on their door - and leave it at that. The school does not have to teach anything, it could still claim to be a school.
|
free market competition? hello?
| Quote: | | You make an assertion that certifying the ability of a teacher to teach is a bad thing with only a statement of "uncertified, but nonetheless excellent teachers" while ignoring completely the other side of that: "uncertified and completely useless teachers". |
in a free market.....what happens to those who fail to satisfy the customer?
| Quote: | What conclusion should I draw here? Do you feel anyone can adequately teach children, so there is no need for certification? Why do you think having someone prove they know how to instill knowledge in a child properly is any different then having someone prove they know how to install a boiler in a building properly?
|
certification only certifies that someone has completed a course of study that claims to prepare someone to teach. it says NOTHING about their ability to teach.
| Quote: |
Ultimately, you are saying it is "a wise and proper use of government" to take citizens money for the purpose of educating the citizens children and give it to anyone that care to claim they can do that job without verification. |
well with the exception of the govt money part....isn't this what we do with fast food? computers? ipods? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
