NationStates Jolt Archive

Both of his kids went to private schools, yet he was against making private schooling more available to other less wealthy people's children.
'
I'm glad he didn't get elected, because by his very actions he is a liar. In other words, he believes that what is good for your family is not good for his.

That doesn't make him a hypocrite....

That doesn't make him a hypocrite....

Yes it does.

He believes in public schools for everyone buit him and his elite friends.

At least Bush is up front about the class divide.

other less wealthy people's children.I don't know why but that phrase doesn't sound right.

Yes it does.

He believes in public schools for everyone buit him and his elite friends.

At least Bush is up front about the class divide.

I'm not saying Kerry isn't bad, but that's the incorrect use of "hypocrisy." It is not hypocritical of him to believe that private schools should only be available to the rich.

I'm not saying Kerry isn't bad, but that's the incorrect use of "hypocrisy." It is not hypocritical of him to believe that private schools should only be available to the rich.


It is because of his adamant stance against school vouchers and tax cresdits for private school tuition. In other words, he wishes to highten the barrier to entry of the private school system, not lower it, all the while giving his children the adavanteges of it.

If it is so undesriable as not to increase access to it, why did his own kids go there. Thus he is a hypocrite.

It is because of his adamant stance against school vouchers and tax cresdits for private school tuition. In other words, he wishes to highten the barrier to entry of the private school system, not lower it, all the while giving his children the adavanteges of it.

If it is so undesriable as not to increase access to it, why did his own kids go there. Thus he is a hypocrite.

Maybe it's not that it's undesirable. Maybe he's even snobbier than you think and he doesn't want "lesser" people sending their kids to the same schools his kids went to.

News flash : the election campaign is over.
This information was brought to you by Psylos Agence Press.

News flash : the election campaign is over.
This information was brought to you by Psylos Agence Press.

True. I'm only disagreeing with him in a semantical sense.

John Kerry is a hypocryte

As are all politicians... so?

Maybe it's not that it's undesirable. Maybe he's even snobbier than you think and he doesn't want "lesser" people sending their kids to the same schools his kids went to.

Which, oddly enough, is in stark contrast with his vision about everyone else should live.

Thus making him a hypocrite.

True. I'm only disagreeing with him in a semantical sense.
This "information" was specifically designed for Lacadaemon who seems to be trying to discredit John Kerry when Kerry is already buried.

This "information" was specifically designed for Lacadaemon who seems to be trying to discredit John Kerry when Kerry is already buried.


Where is the love ?

This "information" was specifically designed for Lacadaemon who seems to be trying to discredit John Kerry when Kerry is already buried.

well actually if enough people die he'll be the president
:)

he's a senator, right? i'm sure they're also on the "list" if people start dieing. president -> vide president -> no idea -> no idea -> etc -> etc ->.....-> kerry ;)

Look, this thread is about is awful hypocracy.

He is a foul liar on this subject. Let's stay on topic.

Look, this thread is about is awful hypocracy.

He is a foul liar on this subject. Let's stay on topic.

And you're a brick wall. Enjoy convincing everyone.

Look, this thread is about is awful hypocracy.

He is a foul liar on this subject. Let's stay on topic.
And the world is full of hypocracy. What is your point? We live in hypocracy.

"Freedom for all" Yet most things are banned.

"Peace and goodwill" Yet our leaders go to war for their own gain.

Stop being a liberal bashing crybaby, and face the fact that life sucks.

And you're a brick wall. Enjoy convincing everyone.

And how am I a brick wall?

And how am I a brick wall?

Because you're impossible to debate with. You've decided your opinion and you'll be damned if anything but what you've already accepted is even close to being right.

Don't worry... somtimes people will believe what they believe in, and there's no way you can convince them otherwise... like Christians.

Because you're impossible to debate with. You've decided your opinion and you'll be damned if anything but what you've already accepted is even close to being right.


No, I'm not. Just yesterday I addmitted I was wrong.

...and face the fact that life sucks.
And then you die.

Because you're impossible to debate with. You've decided your opinion and you'll be damned if anything but what you've already accepted is even close to being right.
Schisse, theres a lot of brick walls taking up this whole forum. Kinda stops people from getting anywhere if they all stand side-by-side.

lol

Just think about that.

And then you die.

Yeah but thats the fun part.

Where is the love ?

It's in another thread, where nobody is called a "foul liar". You started the thread to complain about John Kerry being a bit of a hypocrite. If it's love you want, start The Official Super Love Thread or something.

It's in another thread, where nobody is called a "foul liar". You started the thread to complain about John Kerry being a bit of a hypocrite. If it's love you want, start The Official Super Love Thread or something.
I LOVE YOU CHICKEN PI

Lac, no personal offense and all; but do you ever have anything positive?

Because you're impossible to debate with. You've decided your opinion and you'll be damned if anything but what you've already accepted is even close to being right.

Ya, you should appologize. After all, this forum is full of people who are willing to look at Bush's side of the story and not automatically judge anything that he or conservative people do :rolleyes:

Lac, no personal offense and all; but do you ever have anything positive?

He's saving all his positive comments for The Official Super Love Thread, in which he will declare his true love for all the members of this forum, great and small.

It's in another thread, where nobody is called a "foul liar". You started the thread to complain about John Kerry being a bit of a hypocrite. If it's love you want, start The Official Super Love Thread or something.


Well I think it is true of JK. That's all.

Even If I think he is a foul liar, I can still love him becuase that it what jesus wants.

Sorry if I annoyed you with the Official Super Love Thread thing, by the way.

Sorry if I annoyed you with the Official Super Love Thread thing, by the way.

No. I enjoy that kind of thing.

No. I enjoy that kind of thing.

How absolutely lovely!

http://img125.exs.cx/img125/2681/i20love20you8kp.jpg

How absolutely lovely!

http://img125.exs.cx/img125/2681/i20love20you8kp.jpg

That, however, I do not appreciate.

That, however, I do not appreciate.

LOL

It is because of his adamant stance against school vouchers and tax cresdits for private school tuition. In other words, he wishes to highten the barrier to entry of the private school system, not lower it, all the while giving his children the adavanteges of it.

If it is so undesriable as not to increase access to it, why did his own kids go there. Thus he is a hypocrite.
He's against the voucher system. That doesn't make him a hypocrite.
He's against a right-wing idea that will end up giving Private schools Public money, with no rules as to how they are going to spend it, and no rules as to whether they will need to lower their fees. He isn't against poor ppl going to private school, but he thinks vouchers aren't going to help them get in.
How is that hypocritical?
I'd argue that supporting a right-wing proposal would make Kerry,a Democrat, a hypocrite.

Considering the voucher system was discussed at length in another thread you posted in I see no purpose for this one, other than to bash Kerry and let you harp on about the bloody voucher system again, which is pretty sad and pathetic of you, imo.

well actually if enough people die he'll be the president
:)

he's a senator, right? i'm sure they're also on the "list" if people start dieing. president -> vide president -> no idea -> no idea -> etc -> etc ->.....-> kerry ;)

haha, yeah he might eventually get there, but the president, his cabinet, the vice president and enough of the republicans to give the democrats a majority would have to die, and then the democrats would have to elect kerry as president pro temp of the senate and then everyone who filled in the positions above him in the line of succession would have to die again
:mp5: :gundge: :sniper:

He's against the voucher system. That doesn't make him a hypocrite.
He's against a right-wing idea that will end up giving Private schools Public money, with no rules as to how they are going to spend it, and no rules as to whether they will need to lower their fees. He isn't against poor ppl going to private school, but he thinks vouchers aren't going to help them get in.
How is that hypocritical?
I'd argue that supporting a right-wing proposal would make Kerry,a Democrat, a hypocrite.

Considering the voucher system was discussed at length in another thread you posted in I see no purpose for this one, other than to bash Kerry and let you harp on about the bloody voucher system again, which is pretty sad and pathetic of you, imo.

Yes, because he wants his kids to have the advantage. And not yours.

That is why he is a hypocrite.

News flash : the election campaign is over.
This information was brought to you by Psylos Agence Press.

:eek: Oh no! Jimmy! Tell me it isn't so! :headbang:

I hate to interrupt a good flame contest such as this, but I think I have an explanation for Lac. Vouchers aren't a fix at all. Private schools outperform public schools because they can be selective in who they admit. While public schools have to accept everyone, a private school can reject and accept people on almost any criterion they want. Vouchers may give a few kids a chance at a better education, but the majority would receive exactly zilch. Private schools would probably just accept the best behaved, best performing students and the rest would be kicked back into the already underfunded public school system. That is, unless you propose requiring private schools to accept anyone with a voucher, which would eliminate the benefits of the program.

But that's just me.
~

Yes, because he wants his kids to have the advantage. And not yours.

That is why he is a hypocrite.

*Yawn* *Stretch*

News flash, John Kerry lost the election last month.
News flash, he married a really really rich girl, he can afford it.
Like 80 people have to die before Kerry becomes president, so that ain't gonna happen. So stop whining.
Karl Rove won and is president. So be happy. You Repubs now get to have all the war and kooky religion you want. And my tax money to send your brats to religious schools that don't teach sex or evolution.

This is officially a boring thread. If Kerry runs in 2008, repost it.

Lac, no personal offense and all; but do you ever have anything positive?
I think we can safely decide that he can't. Check out the threads he's created:
John Kerry is a hypocrite.
Christians are Hypocrites.
Liberal hypocrisy
Photo evidence of US war crimes.
The holocaust never happened.
Liberal Lies and Taxes.
Christians are wrong.
Democrats: Explain yourself !!!!
Fatwa on Michael Moore
Apparently, France and Germany are liars

Where is the Luvvvv?

well actually if enough people die he'll be the president
:)

he's a senator, right? i'm sure they're also on the "list" if people start dieing. president -> vide president -> no idea -> no idea -> etc -> etc ->.....-> kerry ;)

Last I checked there wasn't a Senatorial list in the event that all cabinet members, Speaker of the House, VP and Pres. have been assasinated/incapacitated. Unless I am mistaken, power is divided after that level. Political power remain with the Senate, while all military and judicial (if in martial law) powers go to the Defense Department. After the SoD, it goes to the JCoS.

You Repubs now get to have all the war and kooky religion you want. And my tax money to send your brats to religious schools that don't teach sex or evolution.


I'd say "Amen", but then I'd be a hypocrite

*Yawn* *Stretch*

News flash, John Kerry lost the election last month.
News flash, he married a really really rich girl, he can afford it.
Like 80 people have to die before Kerry becomes president, so that ain't gonna happen. So stop whining.
Karl Rove won and is president. So be happy. You Repubs now get to have all the war and kooky religion you want. And my tax money to send your brats to religious schools that don't teach sex or evolution.

This is officially a boring thread. If Kerry runs in 2008, repost it.

Yes, well it was originally a little broader in scope, but I have it on good authority that I cannot blanket attack people anymore (other than jews) so I had to narrow my target a little. Hence JK.

It doesn't really matter. Kerry is now in the realm of the "has-beens." Espescially after the revelation that he held out $15 million. He could have used that money to swing more voters and stuff, but no, he was looking to campaign '08. Yeah, Kerry is gone.

Lac, aside from the fact that Kerry-bashing is very over, you've got a painfully essentialized view of how the public school/private school issue breaks down. It is one thing for people to opt out of the public school system if they pay for private schools out of pocket, as Kerry did. It is entirely another thing to move towards vouchers and to divert federal education dollars towards private schools. This diversion of resources makes the public schools less and less able to compete, which gives parents more incentive to move their kids into private schools, which repeats the cycle and causes public schools to fall further and further short of their private counterparts. Nevermind the fact that the vouchers will not cover all of the expense of the private schools and that there will therefore still be parents who are unable to afford these institutions and who will be compelled to enroll their kids in a now extremely substandard public schools.

It's the same problem with No Child Left Behind, whereby parents are able to opt out of "failing" districts by having their kids bused to better public schools. The "failing" districts lose the per-student federal money, which further limits their ability to rectify the situation and get back on the right track. Both these ideas, vouchers and opting out of districts, put the pressure on districts to meet goals, but deny them the resources to do so.

Oh, yeah, you're a terrible poet. You need less emo, more facism.

Yes, because he wants his kids to have the advantage. And not yours.

That is why he is a hypocrite.

I don't think that makes him a hypocrite... It makes him an elitist snob... But not a hypocrite.

Now if he promoted that everyone's children deserved to have the same access to private shcools regardless of wealth, but opposed vouchers (or any other method to enable that) then maybe he'd be a hypocrite.

Both of his kids went to private schools, yet he was against making private schooling more available to other less wealthy people's children.
private skill is designed for the wealthy, what a bastard, you know promoting the funding of PUBLIC school so LESS FORTUNATE kids can get a good education without paying out their ass to go to private schools


I'm glad he didn't get elected, because by his very actions he is a liar. In other words, he believes that what is good for your family is not good for his.
bush has never lied EVER :rolleyes:

Oh, yeah, you're a terrible poet. You need less emo, more facism.


I'd rather be terrible than forgetable.

Also, I never mentioned vouchers.

private skill is designed for the wealthy, what a bastard, you know promoting the funding of PUBLIC school so LESS FORTUNATE kids can get a good education without paying out their ass to go to private schools



bush has never lied EVER :rolleyes:


Well you could vote on the issue.

Oh that's right, a tasty sandwich stopped you from expressing your opinion.

At least Bush is up front about the class divide.
By denying that it exists? (Or, at least refusing to acknowledge its existence.)

Big deal John Kerry is a liar.

Would you deny that Bush lies?

Yes, well it was originally a little broader in scope, but I have it on good authority that I cannot blanket attack people anymore (other than jews) so I had to narrow my target a little. Hence JK.

I say do it. I feel free to attack all of the whiny Democrats and uber-square dipshit Republicans. They both suck.

That's right!! I'm talkin' about you!! Yeah, you, with you're stupid blue or red states!! Your policies and candidates SUCK!! Bite me Jackasses!! :gundge:

I'm a Libertarian!!

By denying that it exists? (Or, at least refusing to acknowledge its existence.)

Big deal John Kerry is a liar.

Would you deny that Bush lies?

Bush admits it.

And no Bush lies, and everyone knows that.

Kerry does too, and that memo has yet to be circulated.

Well you could vote on the issue.

Oh that's right, a tasty sandwich stopped you from expressing your opinion.
and oh look another troll *report*

and oh look another troll *report*


See how easy that was.

Try it again at the voting booth.

Both of his kids went to private schools, yet he was against making private schooling more available to other less wealthy people's children.

If you aren't talking about vouchers, then what exactly are you talking about here with "making private schooling more available"? EDIT: Tax breaks for private school tuition constitute a transfer payment that's identical in effect, moving money from public schools to private schools, so the argument holds up for tax breaks the same as for vouchers.

I wouldn't have remembered the poem if it hadn't been for the hilarious emo Hitler reply, sorry.

he isnt. Remember bush is the one who took us 2 war not Kerry. So kerry should have been voted in not bush

Both of his kids went to private schools, yet he was against making private schooling more available to other less wealthy people's children.
'
I'm glad he didn't get elected, because by his very actions he is a liar. In other words, he believes that what is good for your family is not good for his.
Actions don't make you a liar. They might (big if there) might make him a hypocrit but you can't be both.
If you are hypocrit you say everyone should do something then don't do it. A Liar says he will do it but doesn't. The difference is usually the individual statements. If there is no I then there is no liar.



Originally Posted by Roach Cliffs
*Yawn* *Stretch*

News flash, John Kerry lost the election last month.
News flash, he married a really really rich girl, he can afford it.
Like 80 people have to die before Kerry becomes president, so that ain't gonna happen. So stop whining.
Karl Rove won and is president. So be happy. You Repubs now get to have all the war and kooky religion you want. And my tax money to send your brats to religious schools that don't teach sex or evolution.

This is officially a boring thread. If Kerry runs in 2008, repost it.

When did Karl Rove become President... I thought Cheney did :)

When did Karl Rove become President... I thought Cheney did :)

Ever see that arm sticking out of G.W.'s butt? That's Karl Rove's.
:D

If you aren't talking about vouchers, then what exactly are you talking about here with "making private schooling more available"? EDIT: Tax breaks for private school tuition constitute a transfer payment that's identical in effect, moving money from public schools to private schools, so the argument holds up for tax breaks the same as for vouchers.

I wouldn't have remembered the poem if it hadn't been for the hilarious emo Hitler reply, sorry.

Well you've never been to the Hamptons.

Hey Lac, way to "stay on message." What the hell are you talking about? What do the Hamptons have to do with my question to you? If you aren't talking about vouchers or tax breaks, what are you talking about with "increasing access to private schools"?

John Kerry is not a hypocrite in this sense. If he had said, ABOLISH ALL PRIVATE SCHOOLS and then sent his children to private schools, this is hypocritical. Saying, I don't want to make it easier for poor people to get into private school, and then sending his rich children to it is not hypocritial. It's elitist. There is a difference.

In order to be a hypocrite, John Kerry must say one thing and then do the opposite. When Bush said we were going to war with Iraq as a last resort and then launched pre-emptive battle, he was being a hypocrite.

If John Kerry was poor, fought to send his children to private school, and then said he didn't want the poor to be sent to private school, this is hypocracy.

John Kerry, ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU HAVE SAID, is not a hypocrite. He is an elitist.

Personally, I'm a little shocked to see Kerry-bashing on this front. I mean, what about the precious concept of "Personal Responsibility"? If you don't want yer kids going to crummy public schools, get off your ass, get a better job, and earn enough money to send your kids to Exeter. Quit bitching to the government for handouts and assistance with private school tuition. You guys are worse than welfare queens spending their food stamps on sweet, sweet rock.

Both of [Kerry's] kids went to private schools, yet he was against making private schooling more available to other less wealthy people's children.

Well, if you are discussing his stand against the voucher system than I will have to inform you that he is correct. The only thing the voucher system could hope to do is cause students to leave the public school system (taking their money with them) and causing that system to completely breakdown. After the students take their money to the private schools the public schools will no longer have the money that it needs in order to even be able to compete with the private schools.

P.S. - I went to public school, and I would never have changed that.

haha, yeah he might eventually get there, but the president, his cabinet, the vice president and enough of the republicans to give the democrats a majority would have to die, and then the democrats would have to elect kerry as president pro temp of the senate and then everyone who filled in the positions above him in the line of succession would have to die again
:mp5: :gundge: :sniper:


Who else thinks that is a wonderful idea? Just assemble 50 or so snipers to start picking off Republican Senators!!! Joy!!! :D
And then someone can blow up Bush and Cheney!!! More joy!!! :D
And then there'll be a war between Conservatives and Liberals, and because liberals hold the ports and shipping channels, the conservatives will start starving to death!!! :D

There is actually no point to this, I think it all would be pretty nice though. Sorry conservatives, no hard feelings, I just don't want you to bother me with your lives anymore.

Thank you, NOTBAD. The reason that this is not hypocritical is that both actions (Kerry sending his kids to private school and working to protect public schools from privatization) serve to provide the best education possible with the resources available. Kerry had the money to send his girls to private schools, so he did so--without taking money out of the public system. The federal and state governments, however, do not have the money on hand to pay for or subsidize private tuitions and maintain public schools at their current level. So resisting vouchers or other governmental transfers maintains public schools of higher quality than supporting vouchers would.

What Lac is saying, basically, is that if rich guys can afford to send their kids to private schools, the government should spend tax dollars to send my kids to private schools. I'm not going to say that's hypocritical, but I will say it doesn't make much sense.

I say do it. I feel free to attack all of the whiny Democrats and uber-square dipshit Republicans. They both suck.

That's right!! I'm talkin' about you!! Yeah, you, with you're stupid blue or red states!! Your policies and candidates SUCK!! Bite me Jackasses!! :gundge:

I'm a Libertarian!!


Time to pull a fast one, Booyah!
I can complain about all of those, AND I can complain about the libertarians! I'm a Communist and libertarians have ruined my state!!! And also New Hampshire!!!

(To keep people from wandering to the "kill many republicans to make Kerry President" thing again)

Presidential line of succession:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_succ.html

Speaker of the House of Representatives
President Pro Tempore of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security (not yet set by law)



Sorry guys, but Kerry isn't in line. The only chance Democrats have at the presidency (before 2006 (or 7, not sure), in which you could conceivably take control of either the house or senate) is by killing everyone in the list who is above the Secretary of Transportaion. Then, we would end up with an Asian Democrat, Norman Mineta, as President.

Realisticly though, if you want a Democrat as president, wait until 2009.

Where I'm from (Wisconsin) it's pretty much a punishment to go to a private school. First off, the obvious, being beaten by sadistic nuns with pent up sexual frustration, and secondly the private schools aren't all that well funded (but apparentley our public schools are awesome, going by WKCE testing or whatever). The only upside is you get slutty girls in catholic schoolgirl uniforms.

Private schools are pretty lame, and by my understanding are private so the owners can pick and choose their students, so, wouldn't they themselves be against this voucher system, which would essentially let any Joe Shmoe in off the street? You wouldn't want a poor kid going to school with your kids, or (gasp) even worse a minority!

But yeah, that is not an example of hypocrisy, it's already been proven like five times in this thread, so I don't feel I need to say anything else.

Hey Lac, way to "stay on message." What the hell are you talking about? What do the Hamptons have to do with my question to you? If you aren't talking about vouchers or tax breaks, what are you talking about with "increasing access to private schools"?

If you had been there you would know what I am talking about. As you clearly haven't I can't explain it.

In any event. your argument is flawed. There is clear reasons why a tax trnasfer is not the same as vouchers. Though I do not advocate either. My main point is, given the "egalitarian" approach of a**munches like kerry: How comes he didn't send his kids to public school and why does he think that the barriers to entry should stay where they are for private school.

If you had been there you would know what I am talking about. As you clearly haven't I can't explain it.

In any event. your argument is flawed. There is clear reasons why a tax trnasfer is not the same as vouchers. Though I do not advocate either. My main point is, given the "egalitarian" approach of a**munches like kerry: How comes he didn't send his kids to public school and why does he think that the barriers to entry should stay where they are for private school.
Because those barriers will never get unpasses by Congress since republicans have majority. They had it before but more so now that it has slim pickings as passing.

what a funny notion
so you think that a voucher system would put you on a par with the children of john FORBES kerry?

welll i dont know what private school kerry sent his kids to and im not going to bother trying to find out

so lets use the school that the kennedys like best as an example

the tuition at choate is around $30,000 per year. they take the children of the rich and privileged.

so how many middle class or poor kids could go to choate if only they had that $2000 voucher from the state for private school tuition? the answer is obviously NONE

or are you thinking that the state should hand out checks for $30k to kids so they can go there. that aint happenin'.

the tiny bit of money that the state would hand out as an educational voucher will get almost NO extra kids into any sort of private school, and the GOOD private schools will still be out of reach

i wonder why kerry isnt all for the voucher system


besides, our wonderful president is having it all fixed. the no child left behind will make our public schools just as good as private schools. dont worry, be happy.

Lac, nice try on the "haven't been there, I can't explain" it card, but I have been there and you still don't make sense. True, I don't own a summer house in the Hamptons, but what exactly are you trying to say beyond the fact that it is a wealthy area and that wealthy people can afford private tuitions?

In any event, how is my argument flawed? It clearly is, but you clearly aren't able to articulate how. First off, how are vouchers different from tax breaks? Both constitute transfer payments. With the vouchers, federal money is returned to the tax payer in the form of a certificate redeemable with the private school. With tax breaks, the same money is returned either through a larger refund check or through a lower amount owed, depending on withholding. I'm not arguing that the precise mechanism of the transfer is the same, just that they're both transfer payments that move money out of public schools and into private schools. Meanwhile, you have not even answered my question: When you talk about access to private schools, what are you talking about? Are you talking about tax incentives and/or vouchers, because if so, you should do some reading before you open your mouth. Kind of like how it's a good idea to read a little poetry before taking a stab at it.

Second, you're implying that Kerry is somehow preventing people from attending private schools by not breaking down barriers. I call bs. These barriers are put in place by the private institutions, not by government. The duty of the Department of Education is to provide free public education to American students, not to underwrite private schools or provide discounts on an educational bill in which the individual must cover the difference. If you claim that it is the government's duty to break down these arbitrary, market-determined "barriers" you ultimately have to support full tuition coverage to any school the student can get into, which effectively turns private schools into a public institution. Ignoring the unrealistic cost of this for a moment, if you stop short of this with limited tax incentives or vouchers valued at the per-student education sums, then there will still be enormous segments of the population that cannot afford these schools because the tuitions are still too high. Instead of you bellyaching about how it's unfair that Kerry has money, you'll have the bottom 40% of the country bellyaching how it's unfair that the diversion of funds from the public schools have favored the fat cats.

Oh, yeah. Grammar. Get some. Not only is it good for not looking retarded in threads, it also helps with poetry. And if you want to take shots at Kerry, which is sort of pointless now, at least make an effort at understanding the issue.

And thanks, Ashmoria.

Lac, nice try on the "haven't been there, I can't explain" it card, but I have been there and you still don't make sense. True, I don't own a summer house in the Hamptons, but what exactly are you trying to say beyond the fact that it is a wealthy area and that wealthy people can afford private tuitions?

In any event, how is my argument flawed? It clearly is, but you clearly aren't able to articulate how. First off, how are vouchers different from tax breaks? Both constitute transfer payments. With the vouchers, federal money is returned to the tax payer in the form of a certificate redeemable with the private school. With tax breaks, the same money is returned either through a larger refund check or through a lower amount owed, depending on withholding. I'm not arguing that the precise mechanism of the transfer is the same, just that they're both transfer payments that move money out of public schools and into private schools. Meanwhile, you have not even answered my question: When you talk about access to private schools, what are you talking about? Are you talking about tax incentives and/or vouchers, because if so, you should do some reading before you open your mouth. Kind of like how it's a good idea to read a little poetry before taking a stab at it.

Second, you're implying that Kerry is somehow preventing people from attending private schools by not breaking down barriers. I call bs. These barriers are put in place by the private institutions, not by government. The duty of the Department of Education is to provide free public education to American students, not to underwrite private schools or provide discounts on an educational bill in which the individual must cover the difference. If you claim that it is the government's duty to break down these arbitrary, market-determined "barriers" you ultimately have to support full tuition coverage to any school the student can get into, which effectively turns private schools into a public institution. Ignoring the unrealistic cost of this for a moment, if you stop short of this with limited tax incentives or vouchers valued at the per-student education sums, then there will still be enormous segments of the population that cannot afford these schools because the tuitions are still too high. Instead of you bellyaching about how it's unfair that Kerry has money, you'll have the bottom 40% of the country bellyaching how it's unfair that the diversion of funds from the public schools have favored the fat cats.

Oh, yeah. Grammar. Get some. Not only is it good for not looking retarded in threads, it also helps with poetry. And if you want to take shots at Kerry, which is sort of pointless now, at least make an effort at understanding the issue.

If you can't see how a tax credit is different to a voucher then clearly you have no understanding of how government is funded.

Secondly, you clearly have no idea what a barrier to entry is.

Thirdly, don't patronize me about grammar, when you spend your time flabbiling on about "transfer" payments. Whatever the hell they are. Economics. Learn it.

If you can't see how a tax credit is different to a voucher then clearly you have no understanding of how government is funded.

Secondly, you clearly have no idea what a barrier to entry is.

Thirdly, don't patronize me about grammar, when you spend your time flabbiling on about "transfer" payments. Whatever the hell they are. Economics. Learn it.
And yet you havem't tried to explain what you mean.
So do you know what you meant or are you just unable to explain those terms.

Look, this thread is about is awful hypocracy.

He is a foul liar on this subject. Let's stay on topic.

A politician lies? :eek:

Say it isn't so!

-Goes into a fetal position-

From Amosweb, a glossary of economic terminology:

"the term transfer payments generally refers to payments by the government sector to the household sector. The three most important transfer payments in our economy are for Social Security, unemployment compensation, and welfare. The intent of these transfers payments is to redistribute income, and thus the goods and services that can be had with the income." http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/gls.pl?fcd=dsp&key=transfer+payment

While not one of the big three, a voucher or a tax break through which government money is transfered to a family to spend on private school tuition (household sector expense) is in fact a transfer payment.

See above regarding research before yammering.

Your Kung Fu sucks and you're spouting venomous and uninformed drivel about an important issue because somehow you seem to think that working to assassinate the character of a candidate who has *already lost an election* is more important than doing right by public education. Public education is the single greatest factor in promoting social and economic mobility, so regardless of what kind of burr you've got under your saddle about the Senator and his money, his stand is egalitarian. Notice the lack of quotes around the word. I'm done here. You rational posters, don't let the red State-Blue State thing cloud good judgement about schools.

And it is "different from" or "different than," not "different to."

Both of his kids went to private schools, yet he was against making private schooling more available to other less wealthy people's children.
'
I'm glad he didn't get elected, because by his very actions he is a liar. In other words, he believes that what is good for your family is not good for his.
John Kerry is more than just a hypocrite. He is a liar and a scumbag. But hypocrite is a good start.

Both of his kids went to private schools, yet he was against making private schooling more available to other less wealthy people's children.
'
I'm glad he didn't get elected, because by his very actions he is a liar. In other words, he believes that what is good for your family is not good for his.

one word... WEAK!!

John Kerry is more than just a hypocrite. He is a liar and a scumbag. But hypocrite is a good start.
you forgot to mention every other politition out there :P

And no Bush lies, and everyone knows that.
You said that John Kerry was unfit to be president instead of Bush because he was a liar. And yet Bush, who you like, lies constantly. Double standards, anyone?

You said that John Kerry was unfit to be president instead of Bush because he was a liar. And yet Bush, who you like, lies constantly. Double standards, anyone?
Kerry lies about little stuff, but apparently its okay that Bush is President because he only lies about big stuff?

No one gives a damn about John Kerry anymore. Just like no one cares about Gore or Dole.

No one gives a damn about John Kerry anymore. Just like no one cares about Gore or Dole.
Some of us who voted for Kerry and not just against Bush actually do care.

John Kerry is more than just a hypocrite. He is a liar and a scumbag. But hypocrite is a good start.

Yeah, and Bush is a real peach. When are you going to wake up and realize the both of the major parties in this country are lush with soft money and populated by douchebags?

It is because of his adamant stance against school vouchers and tax cresdits for private school tuition. In other words, he wishes to highten the barrier to entry of the private school system, not lower it, all the while giving his children the adavanteges of it.

If it is so undesriable as not to increase access to it, why did his own kids go there. Thus he is a hypocrite.

1) He is opposed to changing the existing system by introducing vouchers. How does that in any way represent a wish highten the barrier to enter private schools?

2) Your crass oversimplification is charming. He does not want taxpayer money to go into the coffers of private schools. School vouchers would take funding from the public schools' coffers, plain and simple. Whatever the solutions to the public school system's problems may be, taking money away from them will not help them. What it will do is further the libertarian agenda of closing all public schools forever.

I have no kids, but I pay taxes (occassionally ;) ). I don't want any of the money I pay going to help somebody afford private school for their kids, when it should be funding public schools for all kids. Lowering the cost for families to put their kids in private schools will not cover all families, and those who are still too poor to afford it will be left with their kids in schools that have been stripped to the walls.

None of this makes Kerry a hypocrites.