Phrases like……”I was taught to do my research,” followed by several posts later, “seriously, find one president whose little children went to a friggin inner-city public school.” Lead to the original retard comment. Has nothing to do with who you are as a person in real life. Other phrases like, “I am assuming you went to public, yes?….getting a better education than you ever did,” amongst others, in other posts, made it look worse. You don’t have to come at me to get a retort, in much the same way censorthis, who is being now being mentioned way too many times now, didn’t come at you specifically. Anyway, it’s censorthis come on. His easy baits are entertaining.

Like I said I don’t think you are a juvenile numb nut. I get the whole “passion” thing, but, like you say, with time hopefully you will be able to make a point, and not at the expense of something unrelated, unless this was how you felt abut public education. I got that, no need to elaborate who you really feel.

I understand what you meant with the public and private, and I’d even go back and correct my last post…but I think we have officially expired this topic unless you want to debate something else concerning his choice? No? I didn’t think so either. I could, but THAT would take us into J+K territory.

Enjoy your week, and turkey if we don’t argue before then.

i responded harshly to censorthis because his comment was rude. I obviously get rude too when I am offended. saying that obama’s kids aren’t used to being around other black children is mean. I took that as, oh only white kids can afford private schools, and a very few privileged black kids. The whole janitor comment pissed me off.

I am not good at separating my emotions from my thoughts when I get upset over something, which usually just hurts my case. That’s something that I have to work on. but yeah, my comment to him was full of bitchy. It didn’t hurt my case in that argument horribly, but it hurt my credibility elsewhere. I understand that.

I don’t care if I am labeled a cheerleader for gay rights (I am assuming that is what you meant?). I think it’s a great cause, and I do what I can to support it. I don’t care about Taylor Swift (but you were probably relating to the tone of the post?), but that’s neither here nor there. I think I tend to go overboard when discussing any of my hot button topics… things that include aspects of racism, gay rights, women rights, etc. Hopefully I will get better at staying calm. But I think I did better than I thought. Although we see things differently, I don’t think I ever referred to you as dumb… or a “retard.” (Oh and actually, you’re right, the previous comments seem so long ago. Now I understand why we started fighting. I didn’t like being called a retard. I got pissed and it all went down hill). Regardless, I don’t care if you think I am stupid or juvenile. All you are seeing is a little part of me, comments on a blog. You don’t know me or my life. All you know is that sometimes I like arguing with strangers on the internet. So I guess we at least have that one thing in common.

Your frantic zest to defend the Obama’s definitely hurt your messages.

I said walk away thinking you’re a juvenile numb nut. That wasn’t a closed invitation. After reading your last post, no I don’t think you are a juvenile numb nut.

(Although, I swear you wrote EB’s latest post on Taylor Swift if you look at you comments to one of EB’s posts on proposition 8. The whole teeny popper cheerleading overkill. Yah. You guys sound like one and the same sometimes.)

BESIDES WE HAVE SUCH A COMPLETELY CRAZY COMMON HISTORY NOW CONSISTING OF FAT PEOPLE AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS. whoo hooo. :) Seriously you, and any of your cohorts totally deserved that retards comment looking back at what you wrote. At the same time…many post into this thing….I was like I don’t hate this girl. I just didn’t see what you were trying to get at public v private. I got it.

I don’t think that if you are rich, you have to send your kids to private schools. Sorry if I was misunderstood. I just think if you have money, and live in an area where the public schools are markedly bad, I would definitely consider private.

I actually began going to private schools when I lived in inner-city Cleveland. The public school that I was supposed to go to was in a dangerous neighborhood, so my parents wanted to send me to private. It wasn’t necessarily about how bad/good the schools were, it was more about safety. Then I moved to the suburbs. I could have easily gone to either; no safety issues were present. I continued at private just because it was an easier transition for me. My sister went into private, but then ended up transferring to public. She was older than me, and didn’t like the private school as much as I did. When I ended up in high school, it was more natural for me to just go to the private high school, as did the vast majority of my fellow classmates.

I don’t necessarily think I received a better education than my sister. We are both currently at good schools, and doing very well. If I was older, and lived in safe area, I would probably consider both private and public schools for my children. If I lived in an area where I considered the public schools to be particularly unsafe, or if they had a reputation of being severely underfunded and poorly run, I would most likely opt to put my children into private schools or just move to an area with better public schools.

I am sorry that I came off so anti-public. That was not my intent, although I can see how it may appear that way. I think my argument just ended up being focused on bouncing off of other arguments, and my original idea was lost. That was my fault.

How I feel about this actual article, was that, I feel the Obama girls are a unique case of having your children go to school in DC. I do not live in DC and haven’t attended schools there, but it is different for those two specific girls to attend public school than it would be for girls whose father wasn’t the leader of the country. Furthermore, I see Obama as a unique safety issue; such as, I have never personally overhead people saying how they want to kill a president, and I am worried at any sort of white power or racist backlash. I hope to God nothing happens to their family. If they feel their children are safer at a private school, so be it. I think a family’s decision on where to send their children should be their own. The children were already in pricey private schools; I don’t see why anyone would think they would change this at this point. I know I would never spend $30,000 on my 7 year-olds education, but I am not going to judge others that do. But I am sorry if I came off sounding like I would judge people who use public schools. I don’t. My parents used both for their children. I just, from my own experience, prefer private.

I was using welfare in the sense as money for both programs comes from the government. I can see how this sounds bad. Welfare is a very loaded term. I apologize for making it sound like people who attend public schools are ripping off our country, or whatever any other poor connotations of welfare are. I should have been less obtuse with my example.

For one, daring other people to name one president who sent their kids to public school, and then claiming some cockamamie story about how were you, of all people, supposed to know. (Makes me trust you on the direct and indirect so much more….) Anyway, if you didn’t know, don’t expect others to know.

Two, for coming oh so close to the STUPID gumption that public schools are sort of kind or like welfare, and implying if you are wealthy enough you shouldn’t really take part in it. I know what a welfare state is, but I would never actually call public education welfare if I know rich people can use it too, and they should if they like. Public schools unlike real welfare are not NEED BASED. I think ever state has baisc public education in their constitution. Besides, there’s enough of things they tax us for, and we should be able to use the services our money directly funds.

Then, you are trying to somehow make a distinction between directly paying for public school and directly paying for private school. You pay directly in each case to the institution that provides the service. That is why you can’t come up with a direct form of tuition for public schools. Taxes are the only and main direct way for paying public tuition. If you cut a check directly to a public institution it would no longer be a public institution. It would private.

Gov is considered a middle man when people refer to the actual bureaucracy. Somehow the fact they represent not only you but every one who pays in may frustrate people. The gov has more leeway with their redistribution, but they redistribute just like private schools, only on a large scale. That doesn’t, in the large scheme of things, make gov a middleman, or somehow direct charge and direct payment of services (named taxes) indirect charge and indirect payment for services the GOV provides. That just defines them as public v private, not indirect v direct. I guess in short form public doesn’t always equal indirect, and private doesn’t necessarily always mean direct.

So you have an open floor, or did. I read your last response. No need. I got it. Up to this point. I got it now.

Last but not least. For my own understanding, to add to what you already wrote.

Do you have some bias against public schools? The way they are funded? If someone came up to you and said I payed for my kids public schooling. You’d say they didn’t pay “directly” and that’s somehow different. Different because other people pay in too. (Even if the system has others pay in to have a big amount short, but over time you pay for your cost of services.)

Is that what you are saying.

I don’t think people should have to pay out of pocket for public grade/high schools. I don’t have an example of direct form of tuition for a public education. If I had an example, we wouldn’t be having this ridiculous argument. And I don’t see the taxes as directly paying for one’s education, because a lot of people are paying those taxes that are not using the schools.

I already explained where I thought the middle man would be.
your money in taxes–> government–> allocates money out (including to schools).

You explained that you didn’t see that middle man AS a middle man. I get it. Seriously. Neither one of us is going to win this argument against the other person, because we clearly just see things differently. I don’t even know why we started this. Oh, I think it’s because I said public schools are in the same vein as welfare. Fine. I wasn’t trying to make a huge point with that. I obviously do not think they are the same as welfare. I just saw them both as form of government assistance.

Who is the middle man when the gov is providing the service?

No middle man. Not “indirect.”

It is direct tuition collected in increments by a public mandate based on the total cost of what it will take to educate divided cost per person. You can look us what it cost you by contacting your governments. They can break it down.

PUBLIC SCHOOL: LOOKS like YOU pay GOV, GOV pay SCHOOL However, a simple ability to describe how money changes hands is not enough to conclude if it is direct or indirect v. private schools as you guide.

YOU pay GOV (represents YOU), GOV (represents YOU) pays SCHOOL ( represents GOV). Public schools are under the umbrella of gov. It is long form for you pay the school.

You are directly paying the gov for the schooling they provide.
The same way you directly pay the private institution for the schooling they provide.