Is Boehner a hypocrite?

good lord

He's against the government getting involved and letting the states or the people themselves do it for themsleves.

Once people get addicted to entitlements, they riot if it's taken away, like spoiled children that have thier blankies taken.

so why is he crying about children having the american dream being taken away, when he is the one who has the power to give it to them, but he consistently votes not to?

You just don't get it, do you?

No.....so why don't you explain it to us?
 
Can you give me one reason why I need the federal government to teach my kids? I only ask this because I can give you several reasons why I don't want the federal government teaching my kids.

I suppose a good argument could be made for doing away with the DOE. Education is not my field and to be honest, I'm not sure I understand what it is that agency does, or is supposed to do. But the federal government has MONEY -- far more than the states. Not just direct funding for education, but also for food (free lunch programs) and other ancillary services.

I don't know how things are where you live, but here in Cleveland, public education is in freefall. The buildings themselves are decrepit and unsafe. We need every dollar. If you don't, or don't want them no matter what, please feel free to redirect them here.

The highest-funded districts also tend to be the lowest performing.

Gee....you think that just might be because they are the most needy? The ones without enough local property taxes to buy decent educational material or provide good enough pay to attract the best teachers? The ones without two parent homes? The ones whose parents (or parent) either cannot or will not get involved in their kids education?

I'm guessing you have no clue as to the correlation between local (property tax), state and federal funding.
 
I suppose a good argument could be made for doing away with the DOE. Education is not my field and to be honest, I'm not sure I understand what it is that agency does, or is supposed to do. But the federal government has MONEY -- far more than the states. Not just direct funding for education, but also for food (free lunch programs) and other ancillary services.

I don't know how things are where you live, but here in Cleveland, public education is in freefall. The buildings themselves are decrepit and unsafe. We need every dollar. If you don't, or don't want them no matter what, please feel free to redirect them here.

The highest-funded districts also tend to be the lowest performing.

Gee....you think that just might be because they are the most needy? The ones without enough local property taxes to buy decent educational material or provide good enough pay to attract the best teachers? The ones without two parent homes? The ones whose parents (or parent) either cannot or will not get involved in their kids education?

I'm guessing you have no clue as to the correlation between local (property tax), state and federal funding.

Wow are you stupid.
So the most needy get the highest level of fundings but still turn in the worst performance, despite getting the most money.
How do you explain poorly funded districts that nonetheless perform well? They don't need the money because all the children there are Einsteins?
 
On "60 Minutes," Boehner told Stahl that he couldn't visit schools anymore; that he got too upset, worrying about whether today's schoolchildren will have the same opportunities that he and his generation had. As he spoke, he started to weep. Why?

He does, I believe, worry about the children, and yet his entire political philosophy is devoted to limiting the federal government's ability to help them. He has voted against providing health insurance for children (many times), against student aid, against unemployment benefits, against equal pay, against food safety, against money for teachers, against raising the minimum wage, against tobacco education, mine safety, alternative energy, pollution control, whistle-blower protection, science and technology research. If he were making his decisions based on what government programs might help today's schoolchildren reach their dreams, like the Kennedy- and Johnson-era programs that helped him, his voting record would be very different. It is a deep enough contradiction to make him weep for the future.

John Boehner crying: What's behind Boehner's tears - latimes.com

How does this make him a hypocrite? I too worried about my children, yet I educated them, housed them, fed them, provided them with medical care and other things, never had to rely on minimum wage, food safety, etc., all without public assistance. The idea that we need ever increasing government involvement in all these things is evidence enough that Boehner is right. Sounds like Boehner is an anti-nanny stater... good for him.
 
The highest-funded districts also tend to be the lowest performing.

Gee....you think that just might be because they are the most needy? The ones without enough local property taxes to buy decent educational material or provide good enough pay to attract the best teachers? The ones without two parent homes? The ones whose parents (or parent) either cannot or will not get involved in their kids education?

I'm guessing you have no clue as to the correlation between local (property tax), state and federal funding.

Wow are you stupid.
So the most needy get the highest level of fundings but still turn in the worst performance, despite getting the most money.
How do you explain poorly funded districts that nonetheless perform well? They don't need the money because all the children there are Einsteins?

DaGoose regurgitates whatever is posted at the IBEW hall... don't mind him, there's a reason he's in a union; and you just read it.
 
A two parent family is the most critical factor to a child's well-being, including getting an education.

Considering how the government has systematically destroyed family creation, especially among African Americans, we should all be crying.

When Black History Month was celebrated in 1950, according to State University of New York research, 77.7 percent of black families had two parents. As of January 2010, according to the Census Bureau, the share of two-parent families among African Americans had fallen to 38 percent.

We know that children, particularly young male African Americans, benefit from parental marriage and from having a father in the home. Today, the majority of black children are born to single, unmarried mothers.

Celebrate? Let's celebrate.

Three years ago, I wrote about young girls in our city who are not learning what they are really worth, young men who aren't being taught to treat young women with respect, and boys and girls who are learning how to make babies but not how to raise them ["A Tragedy That Is Ours to Stop," op-ed, July 19, 2008].

Those conditions, the column suggested, find expression in youth violence, child abuse and neglect, school dropout rates, and the steady stream of young men flowing into the city's detention facilities.

Boys get guns, girls get babies. ...


Colbert I. King - Celebrating black history as the black family disintegrates
 
A two parent family is the most critical factor to a child's well-being, including getting an education.

Considering how the government has systematically destroyed family creation, especially among African Americans, we should all be crying.

When Black History Month was celebrated in 1950, according to State University of New York research, 77.7 percent of black families had two parents. As of January 2010, according to the Census Bureau, the share of two-parent families among African Americans had fallen to 38 percent.

We know that children, particularly young male African Americans, benefit from parental marriage and from having a father in the home. Today, the majority of black children are born to single, unmarried mothers.

Celebrate? Let's celebrate.

Three years ago, I wrote about young girls in our city who are not learning what they are really worth, young men who aren't being taught to treat young women with respect, and boys and girls who are learning how to make babies but not how to raise them ["A Tragedy That Is Ours to Stop," op-ed, July 19, 2008].

Those conditions, the column suggested, find expression in youth violence, child abuse and neglect, school dropout rates, and the steady stream of young men flowing into the city's detention facilities.

Boys get guns, girls get babies. ...


Colbert I. King - Celebrating black history as the black family disintegrates

The logical conclusion when policies de-emphasize responsibility and promote dependence.
 
Gee....you think that just might be because they are the most needy? The ones without enough local property taxes to buy decent educational material or provide good enough pay to attract the best teachers? The ones without two parent homes? The ones whose parents (or parent) either cannot or will not get involved in their kids education?

I'm guessing you have no clue as to the correlation between local (property tax), state and federal funding.

Wow are you stupid.
So the most needy get the highest level of fundings but still turn in the worst performance, despite getting the most money.
How do you explain poorly funded districts that nonetheless perform well? They don't need the money because all the children there are Einsteins?

DaGoose regurgitates whatever is posted at the IBEW hall... don't mind him, there's a reason he's in a union; and you just read it.

GREAT non-answers!!!! :clap2:

So now instead of simply attacking me try answering and/or explaining the correlation between local (property tax), state and federal funding. I can do it due to my wife being a school teacher and my previous position as a local elected official.

But anyway Soggy in Nola proves he knows as little about organized labor as he does about education funding. Probably because he's content buying knee pads for his visits with his boss.
 
Last edited:
A two parent family is the most critical factor to a child's well-being, including getting an education.

Considering how the government has systematically destroyed family creation, especially among African Americans, we should all be crying.

When Black History Month was celebrated in 1950, according to State University of New York research, 77.7 percent of black families had two parents. As of January 2010, according to the Census Bureau, the share of two-parent families among African Americans had fallen to 38 percent.

We know that children, particularly young male African Americans, benefit from parental marriage and from having a father in the home. Today, the majority of black children are born to single, unmarried mothers.

Celebrate? Let's celebrate.

Three years ago, I wrote about young girls in our city who are not learning what they are really worth, young men who aren't being taught to treat young women with respect, and boys and girls who are learning how to make babies but not how to raise them ["A Tragedy That Is Ours to Stop," op-ed, July 19, 2008].

Those conditions, the column suggested, find expression in youth violence, child abuse and neglect, school dropout rates, and the steady stream of young men flowing into the city's detention facilities.

Boys get guns, girls get babies. ...


Colbert I. King - Celebrating black history as the black family disintegrates

The logical conclusion when policies de-emphasize responsibility and promote dependence.

How would you know? You probably couldn't find an African American even if I drew you a map.
 
Last edited:
Post #1: Bitch about hyperbole

GREAT non-answers!!!! :clap2:

So now instead of simply attacking me try answering and/or explaining the correlation between local (property tax), state and federal funding. I can do it due to my wife being a school teacher and my previous position as a local elected official.

But anyway Soggy in Nola proves he knows as little about organized labor as he does about education funding. Probably because he's content buying knee pads for his visits with his boss.

Post #2: Engage in hyperbole

How would you know? You probably couldn't find an African American even if I drew you a map.

I'm don't know about Boehner, but DaGoose is definitely a hypocrite.
 
Post #1: Bitch about hyperbole

GREAT non-answers!!!! :clap2:

So now instead of simply attacking me try answering and/or explaining the correlation between local (property tax), state and federal funding. I can do it due to my wife being a school teacher and my previous position as a local elected official.

But anyway Soggy in Nola proves he knows as little about organized labor as he does about education funding. Probably because he's content buying knee pads for his visits with his boss.

Post #2: Engage in hyperbole

How would you know? You probably couldn't find an African American even if I drew you a map.

I'm don't know about Boehner, but DaGoose is definitely a hypocrite.

If you "don't know about Boehner" why are you even commenting in this thread? Oh, I know. You're just into flaming and not serious political discussion.

Move along. Nothing to see here.
 
good lord

He's against the government getting involved and letting the states or the people themselves do it for themsleves.

Once people get addicted to entitlements, they riot if it's taken away, like spoiled children that have thier blankies taken.

:clap2: :clap2: :clap2:
 
He does, I believe, worry about the children, and yet his entire political philosophy is devoted to limiting the federal government's ability to help them. He has voted against providing health insurance for children (many times), against student aid, against unemployment benefits, against equal pay, against food safety, against money for teachers, against raising the minimum wage, against tobacco education, mine safety, alternative energy, pollution control, whistle-blower protection, science and technology research. If he were making his decisions based on what government programs might help today's schoolchildren reach their dreams, like the Kennedy- and Johnson-era programs that helped him, his voting record would be very different. It is a deep enough contradiction to make him weep for the future.

Which is 100% true of MOST conservatives. Did you notice that not one person who claims to be conservative cared to explain these facts?
 
Post #1: Bitch about hyperbole

GREAT non-answers!!!! :clap2:

So now instead of simply attacking me try answering and/or explaining the correlation between local (property tax), state and federal funding. I can do it due to my wife being a school teacher and my previous position as a local elected official.

But anyway Soggy in Nola proves he knows as little about organized labor as he does about education funding. Probably because he's content buying knee pads for his visits with his boss.

Post #2: Engage in hyperbole

How would you know? You probably couldn't find an African American even if I drew you a map.

I'm don't know about Boehner, but DaGoose is definitely a hypocrite.

If you "don't know about Boehner" why are you even commenting in this thread? Oh, I know. You're just into flaming and not serious political discussion.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Let me rephrase that. When I said I don't know, I meant I'm not passing judgement on Boehner. Why? Because two people can care about the same issue very deeply and come to very different conclusions about what must be done to address that issue.

You, on the other hand, posted blatantly hypocritical comments right next to each other. Not only are you a hypocrite, you don't want to admit you're a hypocrite. And that makes you a coward. Congrats.

If you consider your performance in this thread "serious political discussion", I'd hate to see what stupidity you post when you're being whimsical. People should take your advice whenever they see your posts because there really is nothing to see there.
 
Post #1: Bitch about hyperbole



Post #2: Engage in hyperbole



I'm don't know about Boehner, but DaGoose is definitely a hypocrite.

If you "don't know about Boehner" why are you even commenting in this thread? Oh, I know. You're just into flaming and not serious political discussion.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Let me rephrase that. When I said I don't know, I meant I'm not passing judgement on Boehner. Why? Because two people can care about the same issue very deeply and come to very different conclusions about what must be done to address that issue.

You, on the other hand, posted blatantly hypocritical comments right next to each other. Not only are you a hypocrite, you don't want to admit you're a hypocrite. And that makes you a coward. Congrats.

If you consider your performance in this thread "serious political discussion", I'd hate to see what stupidity you post when you're being whimsical. People should take your advice whenever they see your posts because there really is nothing to see there.

You can "rephrase" it until the cows come home but it won't change the fact that you jumped into a thread and contributed nothing of any value. So your pitiful attempt to back track failed.

Would you like to start contributing to the thread now? Or just make some more cowardly attacks and then run away like a little girl?
 
He does, I believe, worry about the children, and yet his entire political philosophy is devoted to limiting the federal government's ability to help them[/url]

Can you give me one reason why I need the federal government to teach my kids? I only ask this because I can give you several reasons why I don't want the federal government teaching my kids.

I suppose a good argument could be made for doing away with the DOE. Education is not my field and to be honest, I'm not sure I understand what it is that agency does, or is supposed to do. But the federal government has MONEY -- far more than the states. Not just direct funding for education, but also for food (free lunch programs) and other ancillary services.

I don't know how things are where you live, but here in Cleveland, public education is in freefall. The buildings themselves are decrepit and unsafe. We need every dollar. If you don't, or don't want them no matter what, please feel free to redirect them here.

How much money is needed to teach reading comprehension? I ask this because you gave me a great example as to why the union is getting in the way of education. Also, if government schools in Cleveland suck, then maybe you can see if Obama would support a voucher program.

Can you give me one reason why I need the federal government to teach my kids?

Try answering it next time you quote me.
 
Can you give me one reason why I need the federal government to teach my kids? I only ask this because I can give you several reasons why I don't want the federal government teaching my kids.

I suppose a good argument could be made for doing away with the DOE. Education is not my field and to be honest, I'm not sure I understand what it is that agency does, or is supposed to do. But the federal government has MONEY -- far more than the states. Not just direct funding for education, but also for food (free lunch programs) and other ancillary services.

I don't know how things are where you live, but here in Cleveland, public education is in freefall. The buildings themselves are decrepit and unsafe. We need every dollar. If you don't, or don't want them no matter what, please feel free to redirect them here.

How much money is needed to teach reading comprehension? I ask this because you gave me a great example as to why the union is getting in the way of education. Also, if government schools in Cleveland suck, then maybe you can see if Obama would support a voucher program.

Can you give me one reason why I need the federal government to teach my kids?

Try answering it next time you quote me.

The government is doing a shitty job of educating children....Parents are also doing a shitty job of educating their children...It seems the only people concerned with it are the teachers.
 
I suppose a good argument could be made for doing away with the DOE. Education is not my field and to be honest, I'm not sure I understand what it is that agency does, or is supposed to do. But the federal government has MONEY -- far more than the states. Not just direct funding for education, but also for food (free lunch programs) and other ancillary services.

I don't know how things are where you live, but here in Cleveland, public education is in freefall. The buildings themselves are decrepit and unsafe. We need every dollar. If you don't, or don't want them no matter what, please feel free to redirect them here.

How much money is needed to teach reading comprehension? I ask this because you gave me a great example as to why the union is getting in the way of education. Also, if government schools in Cleveland suck, then maybe you can see if Obama would support a voucher program.

Can you give me one reason why I need the federal government to teach my kids?

Try answering it next time you quote me.

The government is doing a shitty job of educating children....Parents are also doing a shitty job of educating their children...It seems the only people concerned with it are the teachers.

Bwahahaha!
Teachers are concerned with their union benefits,not teaching kids. If they were actually concerned they would toss the unions and never strike.
 
How much money is needed to teach reading comprehension? I ask this because you gave me a great example as to why the union is getting in the way of education. Also, if government schools in Cleveland suck, then maybe you can see if Obama would support a voucher program.

Can you give me one reason why I need the federal government to teach my kids?

Try answering it next time you quote me.

The government is doing a shitty job of educating children....Parents are also doing a shitty job of educating their children...It seems the only people concerned with it are the teachers.

Bwahahaha!
Teachers are concerned with their union benefits,not teaching kids. If they were actually concerned they would toss the unions and never strike.

WHAT?! I taught for two years and didn't know a damn thing about the teachers union. Hell, I don't even know if I was a member of one. My wife's taught for 5 years and has never mentioned the teachers union. I know she's a member of a Texas teacher's union but I haven't heard her mention it in 5 years. The LEAST of what teachers are concerned about is the teacher's union...HERE ANYWAY. If teachers were really gung ho about teachers unions then they would be getting paid way more to do their jobs....like anyone else in a union does.
 
He is right. They will NOT get the same opportunities we had.

Why? Because we've saddled the next generation with a debt so massive they'll never dig out from under it. Everything the next generation has will be affected by that massive national debt. They wont have as much purchasing power as we have. They wont have nearly as many opportunities, because the government's massive debt is pulling this nation down.

Thats why Boehner wants huge budget cuts. To attempt to stop the lethal bleeding of this nation. Sadly, Dem's keep stabbing at the wound.
 

Forum List

Back
Top