Obama: A private school education leads to "an anti-government ideology."

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ColeYounger
I think it's ridiculous how whenever a hero of the liberal progressives says something improper, and then gets called for it, the ones who point out the impropriety are always accused of "taking it out of context".

Well, in this case......it's true. No one watched the entire broadcast. They went on a quote. From a panel of 3 people at 1 hour and 20 minutes in that was really 1/3 of the answer he gave a moderator that gave him 3 questions at one time.

All right, so you are claiming that we are again taking this out of context.

You say you've watched the whole discussion.

You bring out the quotes and put them in context for us. And don't simply tell us to watch the whole thing. That would work as well as me telling you simply listen to Limbaugh when he gets taken out of context. You want us to "see the light" and understand how we are taking this out of context, you are going to have to do the heavy lifting.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ColeYounger
I think it's ridiculous how whenever a hero of the liberal progressives says something improper, and then gets called for it, the ones who point out the impropriety are always accused of "taking it out of context".

Well sometimes it does happen, but I think it's fair to challenge that person to produce the quote in context and explain it.

I've been on this site for over 7 years, and with that experience, it wouldn't make a bit of difference. it'll only make a difference when you, or your own family get screwed over by the wealthy that run this country....by the way, both houses of congress just passed a bill that eliminates the inheritance tax...a 200 billion dollar hit to the budget....who do you think is going to make up for that???....the wealthy?.....get your wallets out, because the middle class and/or poor will pay, one way or another.

You think I haven't been screwed by them?

It's called Obamacare. It's called the tax increase we all got. Those are just the two examples I can think of at present.

my wife and I have private insurance and the premiums also went up 150 dollars a month on that. same as a tax, different nomenclature.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ColeYounger
I think it's ridiculous how whenever a hero of the liberal progressives says something improper, and then gets called for it, the ones who point out the impropriety are always accused of "taking it out of context".

Well, in this case......it's true. No one watched the entire broadcast. They went on a quote. From a panel of 3 people at 1 hour and 20 minutes in that was really 1/3 of the answer he gave a moderator that gave him 3 questions at one time.

All right, so you are claiming that we are again taking this out of context.

You say you've watched the whole discussion.

You bring out the quotes and put them in context for us.

I am speaking to the OP's Quote. Then I went and watched the broadcast and provided a link to the video of the panel discussion AND pointed out the approximate time of the quote in question. That is all I have to do. I am not your personal researcher. I think that was above and beyond. It was the OP's responsibility to make sure her source was correct.

a reply to: jimmyx

We got screwed by both - income tax increase and Obamacare.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ColeYounger
I think it's ridiculous how whenever a hero of the liberal progressives says something improper, and then gets called for it, the ones who point out the impropriety are always accused of "taking it out of context".

Well, in this case......it's true. No one watched the entire broadcast. They went on a quote. From a panel of 3 people at 1 hour and 20 minutes in that was really 1/3 of the answer he gave a moderator that gave him 3 questions at one time.

All right, so you are claiming that we are again taking this out of context.

You say you've watched the whole discussion.

You bring out the quotes and put them in context for us.

I am speaking to the OP's Quote. Then I went and watched the broadcast and provided a link to the video of the panel discussion AND pointed out the approximate time of the quote in question. That is all I have to do. I am not your personal researcher. I think that was above and beyond. It was the OP's responsibility to make sure her source was correct.

In other words, you aren't going to prove your point.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ColeYounger
I think it's ridiculous how whenever a hero of the liberal progressives says something improper, and then gets called for it, the ones who point out the impropriety are always accused of "taking it out of context".

Well, in this case......it's true. No one watched the entire broadcast. They went on a quote. From a panel of 3 people at 1 hour and 20 minutes in that was really 1/3 of the answer he gave a moderator that gave him 3 questions at one time.

All right, so you are claiming that we are again taking this out of context.

You say you've watched the whole discussion.

You bring out the quotes and put them in context for us.

I am speaking to the OP's Quote. Then I went and watched the broadcast and provided a link to the video of the panel discussion AND pointed out the approximate time of the quote in question. That is all I have to do. I am not your personal researcher. I think that was above and beyond. It was the OP's responsibility to make sure her source was correct.

In other words, you aren't going to prove your point.

That is NOT what I mean. I gave the original source. The OP did not. That is all I have to give. Go and watch it like I did for over an hour and a half. You actually don't have to do that. Starting at about 60 min in and going past the quote, you would understand.
I DID put the quote in context. In the context that it was a small part of a long question and a tiny part of a long discussion and stated mainly what the beginning of his answer was to the question.

You must understand this panel did not focus on the OPs post nor was that quote meant to comment on the present day. It is there for anyone to hear and see.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: reldra

So did the president have to go to private schools? His own school in Hawaii was the most exclusive private school in the state. I don't notice that it made his develop an anti-government mentality.

let me ask you, if the wealthy send their kids to private school, and taxes are cut on public education, who do think will fund the bottom 50% of an adult families children?

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ColeYounger
I think it's ridiculous how whenever a hero of the liberal progressives says something improper, and then gets called for it, the ones who point out the impropriety are always accused of "taking it out of context".

Well, in this case......it's true. No one watched the entire broadcast. They went on a quote. From a panel of 3 people at 1 hour and 20 minutes in that was really 1/3 of the answer he gave a moderator that gave him 3 questions at one time.

reldra, I admire your fortitude on this, but they simply hate Obama, and the republicans have done everything they can to make this president fail, even when it was their own plan, and/or a detriment to this countries middle class or poor. wait till they start going after Hillary, you haven't seen anything yet.

TY It is frustrating that I took the time to watch it and still will get odd answers pushing me to prove what happened in a video of a panel that is publically available?
I did campaign for Obama. I had high hopes. He was just, in my opinion, cut off by the republicans at every turn...and not just that....he was more intellectual than action. At least he got Obamacare done, which has helped many of my friends and family that made too much for medicaid yet could not afford real insurance. I am not real fond of Hillary...but I look at the other side and cower in terror. I think of an independent...we have seen that fail.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ColeYounger
I think it's ridiculous how whenever a hero of the liberal progressives says something improper, and then gets called for it, the ones who point out the impropriety are always accused of "taking it out of context".

Well, in this case......it's true. No one watched the entire broadcast. They went on a quote. From a panel of 3 people at 1 hour and 20 minutes in that was really 1/3 of the answer he gave a moderator that gave him 3 questions at one time.

All right, so you are claiming that we are again taking this out of context.

You say you've watched the whole discussion.

You bring out the quotes and put them in context for us.

I am speaking to the OP's Quote. Then I went and watched the broadcast and provided a link to the video of the panel discussion AND pointed out the approximate time of the quote in question. That is all I have to do. I am not your personal researcher. I think that was above and beyond. It was the OP's responsibility to make sure her source was correct.

In other words, you aren't going to prove your point.

If you scroll up to my first reply, you will see I put it in context. I gave his entire answer, not the last 1/3. He was commeting on the state of smaller towns 30 years ago.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: reldra

So did the president have to go to private schools? His own school in Hawaii was the most exclusive private school in the state. I don't notice that it made his develop an anti-government mentality.

let me ask you, if the wealthy send their kids to private school, and taxes are cut on public education, who do think will fund the bottom 50% of an adult families children?

How much money per year do you think it takes to educate a child?

a reply to: reldra

I am not a Republican by any stretch. But unless they are blocking him from repealing laws....im not sure that its a bad thing.

What he did manage to pass through the bowels of Congress came out smelling pretty bad in the end.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ColeYounger
I think it's ridiculous how whenever a hero of the liberal progressives says something improper, and then gets called for it, the ones who point out the impropriety are always accused of "taking it out of context".

Well, in this case......it's true. No one watched the entire broadcast. They went on a quote. From a panel of 3 people at 1 hour and 20 minutes in that was really 1/3 of the answer he gave a moderator that gave him 3 questions at one time.

All right, so you are claiming that we are again taking this out of context.

You say you've watched the whole discussion.

You bring out the quotes and put them in context for us.

I am speaking to the OP's Quote. Then I went and watched the broadcast and provided a link to the video of the panel discussion AND pointed out the approximate time of the quote in question. That is all I have to do. I am not your personal researcher. I think that was above and beyond. It was the OP's responsibility to make sure her source was correct.

In other words, you aren't going to prove your point.

If you scroll up to my first reply, you will see I put it in context. I gave his entire answer, not the last 1/3. He was commeting on the state of smaller towns 30 years ago.

He is talking about how if someone gets enough money to afford the chance to give their children private schooling and so forth, that it disadvantages the rest because the advantaged don't want to re-invest. In order for that to be true, he has to show that it is a big enough trend ... i.e. enough people manage this kind of advantage ... to seriously disadvantage to rest, and if so many people are managing to afford something better for themselves than base public schooling ... is that really a bad thing?

Also, in small town, there is one school district generally funded by property taxes from the town. It won't matter how "removed" from the "commons" someone is, their property taxes are still going into the till to fund the public schools. So your argument about small towns doesn't really hold weight there.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ColeYounger
I think it's ridiculous how whenever a hero of the liberal progressives says something improper, and then gets called for it, the ones who point out the impropriety are always accused of "taking it out of context".

Well, in this case......it's true. No one watched the entire broadcast. They went on a quote. From a panel of 3 people at 1 hour and 20 minutes in that was really 1/3 of the answer he gave a moderator that gave him 3 questions at one time.

All right, so you are claiming that we are again taking this out of context.

You say you've watched the whole discussion.

You bring out the quotes and put them in context for us.

I am speaking to the OP's Quote. Then I went and watched the broadcast and provided a link to the video of the panel discussion AND pointed out the approximate time of the quote in question. That is all I have to do. I am not your personal researcher. I think that was above and beyond. It was the OP's responsibility to make sure her source was correct.

In other words, you aren't going to prove your point.

If you scroll up to my first reply, you will see I put it in context. I gave his entire answer, not the last 1/3. He was commeting on the state of smaller towns 30 years ago.

He is talking about how if someone gets enough money to afford the chance to give their children private schooling and so forth, that it disadvantages the rest because the advantaged don't want to re-invest. In order for that to be true, he has to show that it is a big enough trend ... i.e. enough people manage this kind of advantage ... to seriously disadvantage to rest, and if so many people are managing to afford something better for themselves than base public schooling ... is that really a bad thing?

Also, in small town, there is one school district generally funded by property taxes from the town. It won't matter how "removed" from the "commons" someone is, their property taxes are still going into the till to fund the public schools. So your argument about small towns doesn't really hold weight there.

The whole discussion was more complicated, but that is closer to what he was saying. It was more in the context of a small town in the 70s for a private school/club example. The panel was focused on closer communities focusing on opportunities, like 'my brother's keeper', church groups, etc., as being a big part of fighting poverty. He wasn't saying don't send your child to private school now or to not join a private club.

a reply to: reldra

The problem with his reasoning is that he assumes everyone should be held back instead of looking for ways to allow people to move themselves forward. This is also the problem with Common Core - it enforces complete equality at the expense of those at the top and bottom who are left behind for different reasons.

What people who want complete equal outcomes miss is that everyone is an individual and no matter how hard you try to force everyone to have everything the same, there will always be those who will squander what you try to give for various reasons.

Not only that, at what point do we decide that our children are the government's to raise for us and decide what is best for them? The school district in our area is not much good, so we choose of our own will to invest above and beyond our property taxes (which still go to the public schools) to pay for a private school. What business is it of the state's to decide that is or is not an appropriate investment for my husband and I to make in our own child?

a reply to: ketsuko
I have found over the short time you more often than not post correct information . All state run public schools are funded by either city or county taxes depending on which one it is located. I assist my grandchildren's parents in funding their private education , with private schooling .Ans I am still stuck with a massive school property tax . Once upon a time there were no private schools , but the schools were excellent. They hired the best of teachers and staff. The federal government basically stayed completely out of running public schools. Nowadays not so much. They seem to want to provide the schools with THEIR education standards.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: reldra

The problem with his reasoning is that he assumes everyone should be held back instead of looking for ways to allow people to move themselves forward. This is also the problem with Common Core - it enforces complete equality at the expense of those at the top and bottom who are left behind for different reasons.

What people who want complete equal outcomes miss is that everyone is an individual and no matter how hard you try to force everyone to have everything the same, there will always be those who will squander what you try to give for various reasons.

Not only that, at what point do we decide that our children are the government's to raise for us and decide what is best for them? The school district in our area is not much good, so we choose of our own will to invest above and beyond our property taxes (which still go to the public schools) to pay for a private school. What business is it of the state's to decide that is or is not an appropriate investment for my husband and I to make in our own child?

He was not reasoning that. In that answer he stated that at one point that made upward mobility was easier, as the entire community was more involved together. Another panelist pointed out that maybe around 1920 upward mobility was easier. He said the local businessman would decide, years ago, that it was better for his own children if he invested in the community. Now, large corporations no longer feel the need and ask for more tax breaks instead. Tax money that could go to all these things we all need.
He didn't assume people should be the same at all. He and other panelists noted all different ways that the community could be invested in- including teachers, education and infrastructure. He never said, that at present, children should not go to private school.

a reply to: infolurker

I am Private school educated

I am an Anti-(big-interfering) government advocate because they have over-stepped the fundamental requirement to promote Ethics, personal growth, tolerance, education, diversity, philanthropy, family, community and have also failed to guarantee equal protections for the individual and the collective so that no-one is ever negatively impacted by the decisions or actions of an individual or the collective..

Instead........
50% off sale at the mall, Samsungs latest galaxy tab, hollywood stars on the red carpet going commando, Fey gets her gear off on Letterman, Singing idols, magazines promoting how you should look -

Government or private educated, how you prioritize LIFE and what is important starts with your own ego and goes from there.

And most of my life philosophy is based upon knowledge I have gained (and am still gaining) since leaving the private education system.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Yeah, I COULD see that.

Unfortunately, I don't.

He said exactly what he meant to say, at least that's the way I see it. NthOther said it about the way I see it and better than I could have.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: infolurker

I am Private school educated

I am an Anti-(big-interfering) government advocate because they have over-stepped the fundamental requirement to promote Ethics, personal growth, tolerance, education, diversity, philanthropy, family, community and to guarantee equal protections for the individual and the collective so that no-one is ever be negatively impacted by the decisions or actions of an individual or the collective..

Instead........
50% off sale at the mall, Samsungs latest galaxy tab, hollywood stars on the red carpet going commando, Fey gets her gear off on Letterman, Singing idols, magazines promoting how you should look -

Government or private educated, how you prioritize LIFE and what is important and starts with your own ego and goes from there.

And most of my life philosophy is based upon knowledge I have gained (and am still gaining) since leaving the private education system.

You are correct. I have been mainly private school educated, except for 2 years of high school. However, the quote the OP posted is out of context to both the entire answer Obama gave to the moderator and the discussion at Georgetown as a whole. It is an interesting panel discussion to watch, if one actually watches it.

a reply to: infolurker This wording 'An anti-government ideology then disinvests from those common goods ...'.One has to watch the panel discussion to know what it meant. It did not say that going to private school is anti-government. I cannot believe how thick people can be. He meant , that when the small town businessman stopped or was unable to invest/reinvest in his/her community and big corporations just don't care to...it led to a breakdown of the common good in the close community. Many weren't able to compete in school sports or take violin. Things that local businessmen often contributed toward in schools as well as the government. He and other panelists blamed a 'focus on hard skills' and calling a 'well rounded' education to not be a right as PART of the loss of opportunity for the poor. Companies got bigger and invested less and less in the community. The discussion eludes so many here I am surprised. I am looking at 'deny inorance' at the right and so many are too lazy to look up and watch a panel discussion that includes a democrat, a rebublican and a progressive in a panel about overcoming poverty, much of which focused on how faith based groups could help. The panelists mainly agreed with eachother.

It turns into an ATS thread about private schools and vouchers....per the OP...that it just never was. It's so academically sad I don't know what to say.