Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[Conservative65]

It ran the way it was designed to run.

well, no, guy. It was designed to keep the slave states happy so they didn't try to form their own country, which they tried anyway. So it didn't even do that.

And for the 20th century, it was largely ignored because no one would be so arrogant as to try to be president after the people said no.

Good thing the people won then, huh?

People like Joe don't get it. The Constitution set up a system to elect the President and left much of the details to the States. That every State except Maine and Nebraska do a winner take all with their electoral votes isn't a requirement but a choice of those States. The Constitution mentions nothing about popular votes when electing a President. That States determine their electoral vote winner using popular votes is also a choice not a mandate. It could be argued that the founders never envisioned doing that.

Those that argue Trump is a minority President either don't understand the system or are so pissed they lost they can't face reality.

It ran the way it was designed to run.

well, no, guy. It was designed to keep the slave states happy so they didn't try to form their own country, which they tried anyway. So it didn't even do that.

And for the 20th century, it was largely ignored because no one would be so arrogant as to try to be president after the people said no.

Good thing the people won then, huh?

People like Joe don't get it. The Constitution set up a system to elect the President and left much of the details to the States. That every State except Maine and Nebraska do a winner take all with their electoral votes isn't a requirement but a choice of those States. The Constitution mentions nothing about popular votes when electing a President. That States determine their electoral vote winner using popular votes is also a choice not a mandate. It could be argued that the founders never envisioned doing that.

Those that argue Trump is a minority President either don't understand the system or are so pissed they lost they can't face reality.

If things were the way the losers said, the team gaining the most yards and getting the most first downs would win the game and points wouldn't matter. In a Presidential election, the points (electoral votes) are what matters and yards gained aren't.

It's like I wrote earlier about the pool scenario I created.

We want to see which one of us is the better pool player, so we play a game of 8 ball to decide.

You break and get a stripped ball in the pocket, so you continue to hit the striped balls until you miss. In the process, you accidentally hit a couple of my solid balls into the pocket. My turn comes around and I get all my solid balls in the pocket and of course, get the 8 ball and I win.

Even though I won, you claim you are the better pool player because you got more balls in than I did, and you should have actually won.

This is what Joe and his ilk do not understand. We were not playing to see who can hit the most balls in, we were playing to hit certain balls in. If we were playing to hit the most balls in regardless of what balls they were, we would have played the game differently.

There is no way to know who won the popular vote because neither candidate campaigned to get the most votes.

With the way the electoral college is designed, it's easy to see how the electoral vote winner can get less popular votes. Currently, the EV winner has to only win the 11 most populous states. All of them are winner take all, therefore, the winner of what would be 270 need only win those 11 states by ONE popular vote not having to get a single popular vote in any of the other 39 states or D.C.

What it boils down to is that the left still focuses on a type of vote the Constitution doesn't mention and ignores the type it does say takes to win. Again, they're wanting to decide the winner using things like yards gained or in your case balls knocked in (popular votes) instead of points (electoral votes). In competitions where the best score is the winner, points are what matters. In a Presidential election, points matter and those points are the electoral votes. The rest of it (yards, balls, etc.) are nothing more than something the analysts look at.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It ran the way it was designed to run.

well, no, guy. It was designed to keep the slave states happy so they didn't try to form their own country, which they tried anyway. So it didn't even do that.

And for the 20th century, it was largely ignored because no one would be so arrogant as to try to be president after the people said no.

Good thing the people won then, huh?

People like Joe don't get it. The Constitution set up a system to elect the President and left much of the details to the States. That every State except Maine and Nebraska do a winner take all with their electoral votes isn't a requirement but a choice of those States. The Constitution mentions nothing about popular votes when electing a President. That States determine their electoral vote winner using popular votes is also a choice not a mandate. It could be argued that the founders never envisioned doing that.

Those that argue Trump is a minority President either don't understand the system or are so pissed they lost they can't face reality.

It ran the way it was designed to run.

well, no, guy. It was designed to keep the slave states happy so they didn't try to form their own country, which they tried anyway. So it didn't even do that.

And for the 20th century, it was largely ignored because no one would be so arrogant as to try to be president after the people said no.

Good thing the people won then, huh?

People like Joe don't get it. The Constitution set up a system to elect the President and left much of the details to the States. That every State except Maine and Nebraska do a winner take all with their electoral votes isn't a requirement but a choice of those States. The Constitution mentions nothing about popular votes when electing a President. That States determine their electoral vote winner using popular votes is also a choice not a mandate. It could be argued that the founders never envisioned doing that.

Those that argue Trump is a minority President either don't understand the system or are so pissed they lost they can't face reality.

If things were the way the losers said, the team gaining the most yards and getting the most first downs would win the game and points wouldn't matter. In a Presidential election, the points (electoral votes) are what matters and yards gained aren't.

It's like I wrote earlier about the pool scenario I created.

We want to see which one of us is the better pool player, so we play a game of 8 ball to decide.

You break and get a stripped ball in the pocket, so you continue to hit the striped balls until you miss. In the process, you accidentally hit a couple of my solid balls into the pocket. My turn comes around and I get all my solid balls in the pocket and of course, get the 8 ball and I win.

Even though I won, you claim you are the better pool player because you got more balls in than I did, and you should have actually won.

This is what Joe and his ilk do not understand. We were not playing to see who can hit the most balls in, we were playing to hit certain balls in. If we were playing to hit the most balls in regardless of what balls they were, we would have played the game differently.

There is no way to know who won the popular vote because neither candidate campaigned to get the most votes.

With the way the electoral college is designed, it's easy to see how the electoral vote winner can get less popular votes. Currently, the EV winner has to only win the 11 most populous states. All of them are winner take all, therefore, the winner of what would be 270 need only win those 11 states by ONE popular vote not having to get a single popular vote in any of the other 39 states or D.C.

What it boils down to is that the left still focuses on a type of vote the Constitution doesn't mention and ignores the type it does say takes to win. Again, they're wanting to decide the winner using things like yards gained or in your case balls knocked in (popular votes) instead of points (electoral votes). In competitions where the best score is the winner, points are what matters. In a Presidential election, points matter and those points are the electoral votes. The rest of it (yards, balls, etc.) are nothing more than something the analysts look at.

Like I said, if we had a contest for the popular vote, both candidates would have switched their strategies. Both would have campaigned in very populated areas and not wasted time in the less populated states. Trump spent little time in New York and even less time in California. I'm sure there were Trump supporters in both those states that didn't bother to vote for obvious reasons.

That's why it's a stupid assertion that Hillary won the popular vote. She just happened to end up with the popular vote which is an entirely different thing.

 

[Conservative65]

It ran the way it was designed to run.

well, no, guy. It was designed to keep the slave states happy so they didn't try to form their own country, which they tried anyway. So it didn't even do that.

And for the 20th century, it was largely ignored because no one would be so arrogant as to try to be president after the people said no.

Good thing the people won then, huh?

People like Joe don't get it. The Constitution set up a system to elect the President and left much of the details to the States. That every State except Maine and Nebraska do a winner take all with their electoral votes isn't a requirement but a choice of those States. The Constitution mentions nothing about popular votes when electing a President. That States determine their electoral vote winner using popular votes is also a choice not a mandate. It could be argued that the founders never envisioned doing that.

Those that argue Trump is a minority President either don't understand the system or are so pissed they lost they can't face reality.

well, no, guy. It was designed to keep the slave states happy so they didn't try to form their own country, which they tried anyway. So it didn't even do that.

And for the 20th century, it was largely ignored because no one would be so arrogant as to try to be president after the people said no.

Good thing the people won then, huh?

People like Joe don't get it. The Constitution set up a system to elect the President and left much of the details to the States. That every State except Maine and Nebraska do a winner take all with their electoral votes isn't a requirement but a choice of those States. The Constitution mentions nothing about popular votes when electing a President. That States determine their electoral vote winner using popular votes is also a choice not a mandate. It could be argued that the founders never envisioned doing that.

Those that argue Trump is a minority President either don't understand the system or are so pissed they lost they can't face reality.

If things were the way the losers said, the team gaining the most yards and getting the most first downs would win the game and points wouldn't matter. In a Presidential election, the points (electoral votes) are what matters and yards gained aren't.

It's like I wrote earlier about the pool scenario I created.

We want to see which one of us is the better pool player, so we play a game of 8 ball to decide.

You break and get a stripped ball in the pocket, so you continue to hit the striped balls until you miss. In the process, you accidentally hit a couple of my solid balls into the pocket. My turn comes around and I get all my solid balls in the pocket and of course, get the 8 ball and I win.

Even though I won, you claim you are the better pool player because you got more balls in than I did, and you should have actually won.

This is what Joe and his ilk do not understand. We were not playing to see who can hit the most balls in, we were playing to hit certain balls in. If we were playing to hit the most balls in regardless of what balls they were, we would have played the game differently.

There is no way to know who won the popular vote because neither candidate campaigned to get the most votes.

With the way the electoral college is designed, it's easy to see how the electoral vote winner can get less popular votes. Currently, the EV winner has to only win the 11 most populous states. All of them are winner take all, therefore, the winner of what would be 270 need only win those 11 states by ONE popular vote not having to get a single popular vote in any of the other 39 states or D.C.

What it boils down to is that the left still focuses on a type of vote the Constitution doesn't mention and ignores the type it does say takes to win. Again, they're wanting to decide the winner using things like yards gained or in your case balls knocked in (popular votes) instead of points (electoral votes). In competitions where the best score is the winner, points are what matters. In a Presidential election, points matter and those points are the electoral votes. The rest of it (yards, balls, etc.) are nothing more than something the analysts look at.

Like I said, if we had a contest for the popular vote, both candidates would have switched their strategies. Both would have campaigned in very populated areas and not wasted time in the less populated states. Trump spent little time in New York and even less time in California. I'm sure there were Trump supporters in both those states that didn't bother to vote for obvious reasons.

That's why it's a stupid assertion that Hillary won the popular vote. She just happened to end up with the popular vote which is an entirely different thing.

Hillary campaigned little to none in state she thought where a given for her.

Hillary focused on yards and first downs instead of points.

 

[Cecilie1200]

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

The CONSTITUTION says the electoral votes chooses the President. What's so hard for you to understand about that? Why do you hate the Constitution?

Because he didn't get his way and now he is crying, if the situation was reversed he would have been praising the Electoral College and the process. If that is all you got, then that is all you got.

How long are these idiots going to bring up popular votes when the Constitution says absolutely nothing about them when it comes to choosing the President. It's safe to safe when the founders created a system where each State got electoral votes based on representation in Congress they didn't consider the concept of using popular votes to determine how those electoral votes within each State would be decided. The choice to use popular votes to determine how a State's electoral votes are decided is a State decision not one set by the Constitution.

They will continue to bring it up for as long as they think someone is impressed by it.

The more they bring it up after being taught what they say doesn't matter only proves their lack of intelligence.

You're not wrong. But since they live in an echo chamber that constantly tells them how brilliant and insightful they are, they're completely oblivious to how stupid everyone else considers them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

First, there aren't enough private schools to accommedate all the kids.

Supply would grow to meet demand.

Second, the private schools will cherry pick the kids they want, not the ones who probably need the help.

Difficult students could carry with them a higher voucher payment.

Third, you increase demand for something, the price will go up. Which means that it will cost more to voucher a kid than to send him to a public school. That will waste tax dollars.

Supply will grow to meet demand. Private schools are often cheaper than public schools.

Why don't you want to offer students options?

Keep telling yourself lies and you will wallow in ignorance forever.

Consider: http://archive.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/1126coulson1126.html

Educating Our Children: Catholic Schools Doing More With Less

Great article! [\sarcasm]

Let's see the national stats instead of a blanket statement without any support. BTW, Catholic schools are not the only private schools.

*sigh* That whooshing noise you just heard was the point flying over your head.

 

[Conservative65]

The CONSTITUTION says the electoral votes chooses the President. What's so hard for you to understand about that? Why do you hate the Constitution?

Because he didn't get his way and now he is crying, if the situation was reversed he would have been praising the Electoral College and the process. If that is all you got, then that is all you got.

How long are these idiots going to bring up popular votes when the Constitution says absolutely nothing about them when it comes to choosing the President. It's safe to safe when the founders created a system where each State got electoral votes based on representation in Congress they didn't consider the concept of using popular votes to determine how those electoral votes within each State would be decided. The choice to use popular votes to determine how a State's electoral votes are decided is a State decision not one set by the Constitution.

They will continue to bring it up for as long as they think someone is impressed by it.

The more they bring it up after being taught what they say doesn't matter only proves their lack of intelligence.

You're not wrong. But since they live in an echo chamber that constantly tells them how brilliant and insightful they are, they're completely oblivious to how stupid everyone else considers them.

When it comes to lefties, this sums it up:

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

well, no, guy. It was designed to keep the slave states happy so they didn't try to form their own country, which they tried anyway. So it didn't even do that.

And for the 20th century, it was largely ignored because no one would be so arrogant as to try to be president after the people said no.

Good thing the people won then, huh?

People like Joe don't get it. The Constitution set up a system to elect the President and left much of the details to the States. That every State except Maine and Nebraska do a winner take all with their electoral votes isn't a requirement but a choice of those States. The Constitution mentions nothing about popular votes when electing a President. That States determine their electoral vote winner using popular votes is also a choice not a mandate. It could be argued that the founders never envisioned doing that.

Those that argue Trump is a minority President either don't understand the system or are so pissed they lost they can't face reality.

Good thing the people won then, huh?

People like Joe don't get it. The Constitution set up a system to elect the President and left much of the details to the States. That every State except Maine and Nebraska do a winner take all with their electoral votes isn't a requirement but a choice of those States. The Constitution mentions nothing about popular votes when electing a President. That States determine their electoral vote winner using popular votes is also a choice not a mandate. It could be argued that the founders never envisioned doing that.

Those that argue Trump is a minority President either don't understand the system or are so pissed they lost they can't face reality.

If things were the way the losers said, the team gaining the most yards and getting the most first downs would win the game and points wouldn't matter. In a Presidential election, the points (electoral votes) are what matters and yards gained aren't.

It's like I wrote earlier about the pool scenario I created.

We want to see which one of us is the better pool player, so we play a game of 8 ball to decide.

You break and get a stripped ball in the pocket, so you continue to hit the striped balls until you miss. In the process, you accidentally hit a couple of my solid balls into the pocket. My turn comes around and I get all my solid balls in the pocket and of course, get the 8 ball and I win.

Even though I won, you claim you are the better pool player because you got more balls in than I did, and you should have actually won.

This is what Joe and his ilk do not understand. We were not playing to see who can hit the most balls in, we were playing to hit certain balls in. If we were playing to hit the most balls in regardless of what balls they were, we would have played the game differently.

There is no way to know who won the popular vote because neither candidate campaigned to get the most votes.

With the way the electoral college is designed, it's easy to see how the electoral vote winner can get less popular votes. Currently, the EV winner has to only win the 11 most populous states. All of them are winner take all, therefore, the winner of what would be 270 need only win those 11 states by ONE popular vote not having to get a single popular vote in any of the other 39 states or D.C.

What it boils down to is that the left still focuses on a type of vote the Constitution doesn't mention and ignores the type it does say takes to win. Again, they're wanting to decide the winner using things like yards gained or in your case balls knocked in (popular votes) instead of points (electoral votes). In competitions where the best score is the winner, points are what matters. In a Presidential election, points matter and those points are the electoral votes. The rest of it (yards, balls, etc.) are nothing more than something the analysts look at.

Like I said, if we had a contest for the popular vote, both candidates would have switched their strategies. Both would have campaigned in very populated areas and not wasted time in the less populated states. Trump spent little time in New York and even less time in California. I'm sure there were Trump supporters in both those states that didn't bother to vote for obvious reasons.

That's why it's a stupid assertion that Hillary won the popular vote. She just happened to end up with the popular vote which is an entirely different thing.

Hillary campaigned little to none in state she thought where a given for her.

Hillary focused on yards and first downs instead of points.

That's why I think that if it was a contest of popular vote, Trump would have won that as well.

 

[Conservative65]

Good thing the people won then, huh?

People like Joe don't get it. The Constitution set up a system to elect the President and left much of the details to the States. That every State except Maine and Nebraska do a winner take all with their electoral votes isn't a requirement but a choice of those States. The Constitution mentions nothing about popular votes when electing a President. That States determine their electoral vote winner using popular votes is also a choice not a mandate. It could be argued that the founders never envisioned doing that.

Those that argue Trump is a minority President either don't understand the system or are so pissed they lost they can't face reality.

People like Joe don't get it. The Constitution set up a system to elect the President and left much of the details to the States. That every State except Maine and Nebraska do a winner take all with their electoral votes isn't a requirement but a choice of those States. The Constitution mentions nothing about popular votes when electing a President. That States determine their electoral vote winner using popular votes is also a choice not a mandate. It could be argued that the founders never envisioned doing that.

Those that argue Trump is a minority President either don't understand the system or are so pissed they lost they can't face reality.

If things were the way the losers said, the team gaining the most yards and getting the most first downs would win the game and points wouldn't matter. In a Presidential election, the points (electoral votes) are what matters and yards gained aren't.

It's like I wrote earlier about the pool scenario I created.

We want to see which one of us is the better pool player, so we play a game of 8 ball to decide.

You break and get a stripped ball in the pocket, so you continue to hit the striped balls until you miss. In the process, you accidentally hit a couple of my solid balls into the pocket. My turn comes around and I get all my solid balls in the pocket and of course, get the 8 ball and I win.

Even though I won, you claim you are the better pool player because you got more balls in than I did, and you should have actually won.

This is what Joe and his ilk do not understand. We were not playing to see who can hit the most balls in, we were playing to hit certain balls in. If we were playing to hit the most balls in regardless of what balls they were, we would have played the game differently.

There is no way to know who won the popular vote because neither candidate campaigned to get the most votes.

With the way the electoral college is designed, it's easy to see how the electoral vote winner can get less popular votes. Currently, the EV winner has to only win the 11 most populous states. All of them are winner take all, therefore, the winner of what would be 270 need only win those 11 states by ONE popular vote not having to get a single popular vote in any of the other 39 states or D.C.

What it boils down to is that the left still focuses on a type of vote the Constitution doesn't mention and ignores the type it does say takes to win. Again, they're wanting to decide the winner using things like yards gained or in your case balls knocked in (popular votes) instead of points (electoral votes). In competitions where the best score is the winner, points are what matters. In a Presidential election, points matter and those points are the electoral votes. The rest of it (yards, balls, etc.) are nothing more than something the analysts look at.

Like I said, if we had a contest for the popular vote, both candidates would have switched their strategies. Both would have campaigned in very populated areas and not wasted time in the less populated states. Trump spent little time in New York and even less time in California. I'm sure there were Trump supporters in both those states that didn't bother to vote for obvious reasons.

That's why it's a stupid assertion that Hillary won the popular vote. She just happened to end up with the popular vote which is an entirely different thing.

Hillary campaigned little to none in state she thought where a given for her.

Hillary focused on yards and first downs instead of points.

That's why I think that if it was a contest of popular vote, Trump would have won that as well.

As the strategy would have changed. Trump played the game the way it was supposed to be played. If a football game was based on yards gained, first downs made, etc., no team would have a kicker or a punter. They'd go for it on 4th down instead of a field goal and wouldn't worry that not punting deep in your own territory would make it easier for the other team to score points.

Many on the left call Trump an idiot. It really must be hard on them knowing that someone they think is stupid bettered them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

At the risk of confusing people, I'm going to take the radical step of returning to the thread topic, which is the expansion of school choice.

Welfare state aside, it is the parents who are going to bear the brunt of consequences from a child who is not educated and prepared for adult life. They are the ones who are going to be stuck with a 30-year-old living in their house, fapping to the Internet all day. Therefore, it only makes sense that they should be the ones making the decisions about education while that child is still young enough to be turned into a useful, productive citizen.

Leftists can yabble on all they like about society's "vested interest in educated citizens" in an attempt to classify all children as wards of the state, but the fact is, that "vested interest" is best served by having the people who know the individual child best raising him.

 

[JoeB131]

You keep making claims about how well you did yet provide no proof. Where's the proof. Without it, your claims are invalid. What about that do you not get? It's easy to understand. Anyone stupid enough to support a social experiment like Obama for President doesn't understand reality.

What's in it for me, if let's say, I sent you my W-2? I can't think of any good reason to let a fucking sociopath have my real name and address... So when you can think of a way I can prove it that doesn't let the crazies know where I live, let me know.

Oh Obama won because Bush fucked up everything. I know you have selective amnesia about that.

Those that argue Trump is a minority President either don't understand the system or are so pissed they lost they can't face reality.

If things were the way the losers said, the team gaining the most yards and getting the most first downs would win the game and points wouldn't matter. In a Presidential election, the points (electoral votes) are what matters and yards gained aren't.

This isn't a game. You see, if it worked the way the Founding Slave Rapists wanted it to, some states could just not even hold a vote, and just pick electors through the legislature, which is what a lot of them did in the 19th century.

But we had a national election asking EVERYONE who they wanted for President, not just the residents of a few swing states. And the people pretty clearly said No to Trump. But he won some swing states with the help of Russian hackers...

This is what Joe and his ilk do not understand. We were not playing to see who can hit the most balls in, we were playing to hit certain balls in. If we were playing to hit the most balls in regardless of what balls they were, we would have played the game differently.

Um, no. We were playing to see 'Who did the people want".

Now, here's the thing. We still have this anachronism called an electoral college... and we probably need to fix that given the disastrous results like Bush and Trump it causes.

Could we get disastrous presidents through a popular vote. Yup. But we'd have no one to blame but ourselves.

You see, we've never had a case where we ignored the will of the people and things turned out fine. Usually, when the EC picks a president over the will of the people, it's a disaster.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Um, no. We were playing to see 'Who did the people want".

Now, here's the thing. We still have this anachronism called an electoral college... and we probably need to fix that given the disastrous results like Bush and Trump it causes.

Could we get disastrous presidents through a popular vote. Yup. But we'd have no one to blame but ourselves.

You see, we've never had a case where we ignored the will of the people and things turned out fine. Usually, when the EC picks a president over the will of the people, it's a disaster.

That's exactly what the electoral college did, they voted the will of the people. That is unless you can show me one state where Hillary won the majority of votes but the college gave it to Trump.

Yes, we do pick a President according to what the people want, and that want is expressed through the electoral vote. If you want a popular vote contest, then it has to be run that way from the beginning. That way the candidates could concentrate on that goal. But what they did was strategize to get the most electoral votes, therefore nobody knows who would have won the popular vote.

 

[Papageorgio]

Change the Constitution don't bitch to me about it. I voted for someone else, dumb ass!

A vote for third party is a vote for Trump.

That's right, I forgot you are an ignorant moron that has to lump people into two categories.

I didn't lose anything, I didn't like many of his policies and a few I supported. Sorry you aren't very smart and have to play the race card because you are smart enough to do anything else.

Now it's time to watch you lose your shit because you didn't get your way and are crying like a baby.

Naw, man, I'm in a perfect position to make out like a bandit when Trump tanks the economy. I'm just upset that stupid fucks like you were so racist and misogynistic that you put him in a position to do it to start with.

Ohhh goody, back to the name calling and race card, however if that is all you can do, then so be it. I don't expect morons to go beyond the stupid.

I was told by Trump supporters that a for for a third party was a vote for Clinton. Lol!

I expect nothing less from non thinking partisan assholes. Thanks for confirming that you are a partisan hack job.

 

[Papageorgio]

It ran the way it was designed to run.

well, no, guy. It was designed to keep the slave states happy so they didn't try to form their own country, which they tried anyway. So it didn't even do that.

And for the 20th century, it was largely ignored because no one would be so arrogant as to try to be president after the people said no.

Another lie by the left. Now, go read another leftwing site and claim it again. Sheesh, the partisan nuts are so gullible.

 

[JoeB131]

That's exactly what the electoral college did, they voted the will of the people.

Yawn, guy, your reasoning is circular.

3 million people voted for Hillary... That was the will of the people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's exactly what the electoral college did, they voted the will of the people.

Yawn, guy, your reasoning is circular.

3 million people voted for Hillary... That was the will of the people.

I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but we have state electors--not national or federal electors. But I guess to make sure your side wins, we should have to change that too.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

First, there aren't enough private schools to accommedate all the kids.

Supply would grow to meet demand.

Second, the private schools will cherry pick the kids they want, not the ones who probably need the help.

Difficult students could carry with them a higher voucher payment.

Third, you increase demand for something, the price will go up. Which means that it will cost more to voucher a kid than to send him to a public school. That will waste tax dollars.

Supply will grow to meet demand. Private schools are often cheaper than public schools.

Why don't you want to offer students options?

Keep telling yourself lies and you will wallow in ignorance forever.

Consider: http://archive.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/1126coulson1126.html

Educating Our Children: Catholic Schools Doing More With Less

Great article! [\sarcasm]

Let's see the national stats instead of a blanket statement without any support. BTW, Catholic schools are not the only private schools.

*sigh* That whooshing noise you just heard was the point flying over your head.

Prove me wrong then!

I spent three years studying this in graduate school. How about you?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

At the risk of confusing people, I'm going to take the radical step of returning to the thread topic, which is the expansion of school choice.

Welfare state aside, it is the parents who are going to bear the brunt of consequences from a child who is not educated and prepared for adult life. They are the ones who are going to be stuck with a 30-year-old living in their house, fapping to the Internet all day. Therefore, it only makes sense that they should be the ones making the decisions about education while that child is still young enough to be turned into a useful, productive citizen.

Leftists can yabble on all they like about society's "vested interest in educated citizens" in an attempt to classify all children as wards of the state, but the fact is, that "vested interest" is best served by having the people who know the individual child best raising him.

Mission accomplished.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Supply would grow to meet demand.
Difficult students could carry with them a higher voucher payment.
Supply will grow to meet demand. Private schools are often cheaper than public schools.

Why don't you want to offer students options?

Keep telling yourself lies and you will wallow in ignorance forever.

Consider: http://archive.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/1126coulson1126.html

Educating Our Children: Catholic Schools Doing More With Less

Great article! [\sarcasm]

Let's see the national stats instead of a blanket statement without any support. BTW, Catholic schools are not the only private schools.

*sigh* That whooshing noise you just heard was the point flying over your head.

Prove me wrong then!

I spent three years studying this in graduate school. How about you?

Studying what? How to totally misunderstand what people say? I didn't realize they actually taught a course in that.

Let me help you out here, hon. At no point in time did Thunderbird suggest or imply that Catholic schools are the only private schools in the country. He offered them as an example of how it is possible to provide good education without throwing a ton of taxpayer money at it. Furthermore, the statement "private schools are often cheaper than public schools" does not require "national stats" to prove it, because he didn't say they were ALWAYS cheaper, or cheaper EVERYWHERE.

Finally, my educational background is none of your business unless and until I choose to make it so. Graduate school is not required to have common sense or understand simple English grammar. In fact, I find that it's sometimes counterproductive to those things.

 

[Cecilie1200]

At the risk of confusing people, I'm going to take the radical step of returning to the thread topic, which is the expansion of school choice.

Welfare state aside, it is the parents who are going to bear the brunt of consequences from a child who is not educated and prepared for adult life. They are the ones who are going to be stuck with a 30-year-old living in their house, fapping to the Internet all day. Therefore, it only makes sense that they should be the ones making the decisions about education while that child is still young enough to be turned into a useful, productive citizen.

Leftists can yabble on all they like about society's "vested interest in educated citizens" in an attempt to classify all children as wards of the state, but the fact is, that "vested interest" is best served by having the people who know the individual child best raising him.

Mission accomplished.

Confusing people wasn't my mission, it was just an ancillary possibility . . . as was clear in the phrase you highlighted, if you didn't have this nasty problem with comprehending English.

But I'm very sorry you're confused.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Keep telling yourself lies and you will wallow in ignorance forever.

Consider: http://archive.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/1126coulson1126.html

Educating Our Children: Catholic Schools Doing More With Less

Great article! [\sarcasm]

Let's see the national stats instead of a blanket statement without any support. BTW, Catholic schools are not the only private schools.

*sigh* That whooshing noise you just heard was the point flying over your head.

Prove me wrong then!

I spent three years studying this in graduate school. How about you?

Studying what? How to totally misunderstand what people say? I didn't realize they actually taught a course in that.

Let me help you out here, hon. At no point in time did Thunderbird suggest or imply that Catholic schools are the only private schools in the country. He offered them as an example of how it is possible to provide good education without throwing a ton of taxpayer money at it. Furthermore, the statement "private schools are often cheaper than public schools" does not require "national stats" to prove it, because he didn't say they were ALWAYS cheaper, or cheaper EVERYWHERE.

Finally, my educational background is none of your business unless and until I choose to make it so. Graduate school is not required to have common sense or understand simple English grammar. In fact, I find that it's sometimes counterproductive to those things.

I misunderstood what? I made myself clear.

The claim is ludicrous! Some Catholic schools do a great job, but cherry-picking that tidbit to support a claim that private schools offer a better education at a cheaper cost simply is NOT true.

I guess your educational background being suspect is the reason for your confusion.