Rick Santorum opposes public schooling

[JoeTheJuggler]

Where did I say it works for me. I am only saying no where has he indicated "He wants to get rid of public schools" like the quote in the opening paragraph.

Maybe not, but he is certainly expressing his disdain for public education.

 

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by eeyore1954
Maybe is he against funding for public schools?

How is this distinguishable from not wanting public schools?

I was responding to the question is he hypocritical for sending his children to a school paid for with public funds.

My answer was as above except I forgot the comma. I meant
Maybe, is he against funding for public schools?
Meaning maybe he is hypocritical if he is against public funding of schools.
Without the comma the meaning was certainly different.

 

[RandFan]

Porkbusters. The Wall Street Journal editorial page. The Cato Institute.

"They". I didn't say "someone". I didn't say "porkbusters". I didn't say "TWSJ". We're talking about the Tea Party. I would have found the Tea Party compelling if the Tea Party had started their protests before Obama. Got it?

 

[RandFan]

Where did I say it works for me. I am only saying no where has he indicated "He wants to get rid of public schools" like the quote in the opening paragraph.
I am not saying I agree with his position.

I do agree he said it was an artifact.

Here are quotes about what his views on public education. I do not see get rid of in there. Change yes

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57381049/santorum-parents-should-run-schools/

Thanks for the response. At best I see a distinction without much difference.

When asked what he would do as president, Santorum said he would "get the state government out" and put parents "in charge, working with the local school district to try to design an educational environment for each child that optimizes their potential."

What exactly is he keeping and what exactly is he changing? Does he not know about locally elected "school boards"? And, how exactly does the state micro manage?

Look, I get your argument. I really do. But I honestly don't think he has a coherent idea about what he's talking about. Would you not agree with that proposition? You agree that he doesn't like public education and he wants to "change" it. Do you understand how he would change it to keep the schools public but make them better?

 

[pgwenthold]

How is this distinguishable from not wanting public schools?

Well, see, he doesn't opposed public schools, he just opposes using public funds to pay for schooling.

It's kind of like how Stewie Griffin says about Lois, "I don't want her dead, I just want her to no longer be alive"

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Nothing on the scale of Obama's deficits occurred under Bush, either. Not even close.

That is an amazing claim. It is false. It is so false, it is truly false. Not even close. I cannot imagine how you could make such a claim that can be so easily refuted. Go here and slide down to the Appendix.

I did. There is a substantial difference between the numbers I cited and the ones you cited. The ones in the wiki article are well referenced. The ones in your cite have no reference at all. Guess which I'll trust.

1. There's a substantial difference between "deficit" (what I said) and "debt" (the subject of your wikipwdia link). But you want official government numbers? Okay. Go here
2. From your "well referenced" link...

From 2000 to 2008 debt held by the public rose from 35% to 40%, and to 62% by the end of fiscal year 2010.[15] During the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008 ... Under President Barack Obama, the debt increased from $10.7 trillion in 2008 to $14.2 trillion by February 2011...

Let's see:...A debt increase of $5 trillion in eight Bush years and a debt increase of $3.5 trillion in three Obama years. 5/8 < 3.7/3 last I looked.

Want to give it another shot?[/QUOTE]

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

"They". I didn't say "someone". I didn't say "porkbusters". I didn't say "TWSJ". We're talking about the Tea Party. I would have found the Tea Party compelling if the Tea Party had started their protests before Obama. Got it?

Not really. We (well, Zig and Matt) were talking about hypocrisy and double standards when Johnny wrote "It's like when the Tea Party suddenly decided to become upset about 'reckless government spending' ". The Tea Party is people who complained about government debt, deficits, and bailouts. They existed before the the Tea Party began, in the Obama Presidency, just as Darwin existed before The Origin of Species was published. To say: "the Tea Party did not complain during the Bush administration" is like saying "the author of The Origin of Species did not exist before 1859". That's just word trickery.
It is a reasonable question to ask why deficit opponents were not more vocal before Rick Santelli's Feb. 2009 rant on CNBC. I suspect there are many answers. People who insist on calumnating those with whom they disagree may use "hypocrisy" as an explanation. This seems to mean a tribal application of double standards. Maybe. But maybe also the surge in deficit spending after 2008 had something to do with it. I suspect a tribal application of double standards in the decision when to call "hypocrisy".

 

[RandFan]

Not really. We (well, Zig and Matt) were talking about hypocrisy and double standards when Johnny wrote "It's like when the Tea Party suddenly decided to become upset about 'reckless government spending' ". The Tea Party is people who complained about government debt, deficits, and bailouts. They existed before the the Tea Party began, in the Obama Presidency, just as Darwin existed before The Origin of Species was published. To say: "the Tea Party did not complain during the Bush administration" is like saying "the author of The Origin of Species did not exist before 1859". That's just word trickery.
It is a reasonable question to ask why deficit opponents were not more vocal before Rick Santelli's Feb. 2009 rant on CNBC. I suspect there are many answers. People who insist on calumnating those with whom they disagree may use "hypocrisy" as an explanation. This seems to mean a tribal application of double standards. Maybe. But maybe also the surge in deficit spending after 2008 had something to do with it. I suspect a tribal application of double standards in the decision when to call "hypocrisy".

Repeating yourself isn't going to change anything. The "Tea Party" didn't exist prior to Obama. There's nothing "trickery" about it. You don't know that the people who were concerned before Obama are the very same people who started the Tea Party. That's just rank speculation. I've said I don't know but neither do you. And I do find it rather suspicious. So go ahead. Repeat yourself one more time. Tell us abut the Beagle and Darwin and origin of the species as if argument ad nauseam will suddenly make it true.

 

[johnny karate]

You know, if we, like, extrapolate Malcolm's, like, theory, then nothing didn't ever not exist...

Totally trippy, man.

 

[eeyore1954]

Thanks for the response. At best I see a distinction without much difference.

What exactly is he keeping and what exactly is he changing? Does he not know about locally elected "school boards"? And, how exactly does the state micro manage?

Look, I get your argument. I really do. But I honestly don't think he has a coherent idea about what he's talking about. Would you not agree with that proposition? You agree that he doesn't like public education and he wants to "change" it. Do you understand how he would change it to keep the schools public but make them better?

I understand that he did not say anything similar to get rid of public schools.
I don't know enough about it to know if he has a coherrent argument
I agree that he doesn't like the current state of public education
I understand that he believes they would be become better with more control at the local level. Just off the top of my head I do not agree with him but as I said I don't really know enough about the facts.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I was responding to the question is he hypocritical for sending his children to a school paid for with public funds.

My answer was as above except I forgot the comma. I meant
Maybe, is he against funding for public schools?
Meaning maybe he is hypocritical if he is against public funding of schools.
Without the comma the meaning was certainly different.

Ah thanks. (I read it as the equivalent of saying "Maybe he's against funding public schools?" as a possible argument that he is not opposed to public schools, but only opposed to funding them.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, see, he doesn't opposed public schools, he just opposes using public funds to pay for schooling.

It's kind of like how Stewie Griffin says about Lois, "I don't want her dead, I just want her to no longer be alive"

Yeah, that's how I took it, but apparently that's not what eeyore meant.

Anyway, it's clear that Santorum holds public school in disdain, and that he is desperately in need of some education (public or private) wrt the history of public education in the U.S.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Look, I get your argument. I really do. But I honestly don't think he has a coherent idea about what he's talking about.

Amen!

And the notion that "public" is somehow exclusive of "local" is baffling.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Yeah, that's how I took it, but apparently that's not what eeyore meant.

Anyway, it's clear that Santorum holds public school in disdain, and that he is desperately in need of some education (public or private) wrt the history of public education in the U.S.

Catholics are more likely to be informed on the subject, since the Catholic Church was the victim when governments switched from a a legal environment which featured either an unsubsidized market in education services or a voucher-subsidized market, in the early decades of the 19th century US.

 

[RandFan]

I don't know enough about it to know if he has a coherrent argument

Could you think of a coherent argument? I think you are being a bit obtuse. This isn't all that difficult really. He's talking nonsense. The Federal govt doesn't run schools. There IS local control. All this BS about anachronisms and artifacts is silly propaganda. If you can't even figure out if he is or isn't coherent then I think you have your answer.

 

[RandFan]

Amen!

And the notion that "public" is somehow exclusive of "local" is baffling.

I know, and we're supposed to pretend that it's possible for his rhetoric to be somehow rational even though no one can tell us exactly how.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Repeating yourself isn't going to change anything. The "Tea Party" didn't exist prior to Obama. There's nothing "trickery" about it. You don't know that the people who were concerned before Obama are the very same people who started the Tea Party¹. That's just rank speculation. I've said I don't know but neither do you. And I do find it² rather suspicious.

1. The Cato Institute and several of the people behind Porkbusters did not change in their opposition to deficits, debt, and bailouts after the ascention of Barak Obama.
2. What is "it".

 

[RandFan]

1. The Cato Institute and several of the people behind Porkbusters did not change in their opposition to deficits, debt, and bailouts after the ascention of Barak Obama.

Doesn't mean that the Tea Party were the same people behind Porkbusters. Dude, that fact ain't gonna change.

2. What is "it".

? The topic of the discussion. The fact that the Tea Party formed after Obama became president.

 

[Ziggurat]

This thread isn't about the tea party. That's an off-topic diversion. There are plenty of threads about the tea party already, and people can always start another, but it's not relevant here.

 

[eeyore1954]

Could you think of a coherent argument? I think you are being a bit obtuse. This isn't all that difficult really. He's talking nonsense. The Federal govt doesn't run schools. There IS local control. All this BS about anachronisms and artifacts is silly propaganda. If you can't even figure out if he is or isn't coherent then I think you have your answer.

I am not being obtuse. My whole point was he never said he wanted to get rid of public schools as indicated in the opening paragraph.