Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Clinton on Vouchers: You just can’t be trusted
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, February 23, 2006

Talk about jumping the shark. Ms. Clinton on why you should never be trusted with school vouchers:
"First family that comes and says 'I want to send my daughter to St. Peter's Roman Catholic School' and you say 'Great, wonderful school, here's your voucher,'" Clinton said. "Next parent that comes and says, 'I want to send my child to the school of the Church of the White Supremacist ...' The parent says, 'The way that I read Genesis, Cain was marked, therefore I believe in white supremacy. ... You gave it to a Catholic parent, you gave it to a Jewish parent, under the Constitution, you can't discriminate against me.'"

As an adoring, if somewhat puzzled, audience of Bronx activists looked on, Clinton added, "So what if the next parent comes and says, 'I want to send my child to the School of the Jihad? ... I won't stand for it."
"I won't stand for it?"

Someone should tell her it really isn't her decision ... or shouldn't be.

Ms. Clintion feels you should pay your taxes and send your children to failing public schools with the curriculum she and the elite select for you.

After all she knows what's best for you. Echoing her husband who didn't think you'd use a tax cut wisely, she doesn't think you can be trusted to pick the best school for you child. You're just not smart enough or wise enough, you see. Only the village know what's best for your child.

"School of the Jihad" indeed.

Is it any wonder home schooling gains in popularity evey day?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Well, public school was good enough for her kid, so it’s good enough for yours.

Oh... wait.

Never mind.
 
Written By: W
URL: http://
maybe if we just throw some more money at the schools. or magically get scientists and engineers to teach.
 
Written By: Chris
URL: http://
Unfortunately this is a naked distillation of one of liberalism’s (and increasingly, conservatism’s) major flaws - that elites, the state, or some authority figure knows better than you(which of course may be true in some cases) and what is best for you and therefore they should be able to force their vision for your own good. Some might actually acknowledge that their vision really isn’t best for everyone, but serves the so-called greater good, and thus trumps the individual. I understand how people, in their heartfelt zeal to make the world a better place, arrive at this line of thinking, but it is flawed, disrespectful, and destructive as history clearly demonstrates. But some people cannot accept that the world is not perfectable.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
Right wing echo machine strikes again.

I was listening to Rush about 2 hours ago. He was going off about this same subject. And, coincidentally, he made the very same points about Ms. Clinton’s speech. Even played a recording of the very same language quoted here. I believe he too referred to Ms. Clinton’s book.

Now, let’s assume it takes an hour or two to track down the quote, and write a little post about it. Throw in time for a snack, McQ is still very prompt in carrying out his duties.
Echoing her husband who didn’t think you’d use a tax cut wisely ....


Echoing Rush, who thinks running up $400 billion deficits is a smart thing ....

Oh, and nice to know that McQ is now on the record for funding Jihad with public tax dollars. Nice to know that Rush is too.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Imagine that, Rush Limbaugh and McQ both comment on a recent news item. Yet more evidence of a sinister conspiracy.

Of course Mr. Non Sequitur (mkultra), you gamely shied away from commenting on the actual issue raised, except for the ridiculous straw man hacked out at the end.



 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
Now, let’s assume it takes an hour or two to track down the quote, and write a little post about it. Throw in time for a snack, McQ is still very prompt in carrying out his duties.
Interesting, I haven’t listened to Rush Limbaugh in perhaps 6 months. I have satellite radio now (you might have read about it right here on QandO had you been paying attention) and he’s not on there, MK. And, I usually listen to music anyway, like I am at this very instant, because, well, it’s relaxing and it’s commercial free.

Kind of reminds me of the time you assumed I voted for Bush.

You know what they say about people who ’assume’, don’t you MK?

And, bless you’re tiny little brain, you prove it, right here, for everyone to see on a daily basis.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
From the same Newsday article.
Andrew Coulson, who works on education issues for the conservative Cato Institute, differed on the voucher issue, saying, "It’s misleading because under federal law no one would be permitted to open a school that advocates violence against the country."
Now wait - if I want to use my voucher to send my kid to a school that advocates violence against the United States, McQ says I should have that right. But Clinton says I shouldn’t have that right. And guess what? There is a law against that very thing. Even the Cato guy says as much. So, as it turns out, McQ is criticizing Clinton for simply suggesting that if it were up to her, she would enforce the law.

Now, I know that with the advent of the Bush administration, a politican following the law is kind of a weird thing. But when the right starts criticizing Clinton for telling people that if it were up to her, she would follow the law, well, my friends, we are thru the looking glass.



 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Strawman alert! Strawman alert!
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
Man, I’d hate to have you as my defense attorney.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
So, as it turns out, McQ is criticizing Clinton for simply suggesting that if it were up to her, she would enforce the law.
What she’s doing is scaremongering. She’s presenting as possible something which isn’t possible.

There’s no reason to bring up the point at all, so what she’s doing is exactly what Coulson is saying, she’s misleading the audience into thinking that what she’s warning them about is a distinct possiblity and why she’s against vouchers.

Now for someone who erects a strawman a day and festoons them with tin foil hats, you’d think you’d at least be sharp enough to spot one when you see it.

But, as usual, whoosh ... right over your head.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Clinton says she - i.e., the government - won’t stand for sending kids to Jihad school. McQ disagrees - it shouldn’t be the government’s choice.
Someone should tell her it really isn’t her decision ... or shouldn’t be.
Because, as McQ explains it, that’s akin to treating you as a child.
You’re just not smart enough or wise enough, you see. Only the village know what’s best for your child.
So the parent should have the right to send the kid to Jihad school. After all, not letting the parent do so is akin to treating the parent as a child.

But wait - turns out McQ agrees with Hillary. You shouldn’t have the right. It’s not possible to send your kid to Jihad school.
She’s presenting as possible something which isn’t possible
So on the one hand, what school you should send your kid to should be your choice and the village shouldn’t tell you what to do. But on the other, it’s really not possible if that choice turns out to be the Jihad school, so Clinton is lying when she said parents would have that choice, because they wouldn’t, but they should, but they wouldn’t.

So McQ is for Jihad schools. Or he is against them. Or he thinks that parents should have that choice. Or that’s impossible.

Or something.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
But wait - turns out McQ agrees with Hillary. You shouldn’t have the right. It’s not possible to send your kid to Jihad school.
Good grief ... you’ve got to be kidding?

I never even intimated that I agreed. What I pointed out is, under the law, that’s not possible.

That doesn’t mean I agree with the law. What it does mean is that she’s SCAREMONGERING by claiming something which isn’t true.

Some people even call that lying. Go figure.

But, as usual, you avoided the subject to erect yet another strawman.
So McQ is for Jihad schools. Or he is against them. Or he thinks that parents should have that choice. Or that’s impossible.
I’m for people having a choice to send their kids to any school they decide it is in their best interest to sent them.

What I have no control over is what the law says, do I? Two separate issues even for those with IQs slightly higher than butter ... which obviously leaves you out.

You better go get a few more bales of hay. With as many strawmen as you’ve been putting up in this thread you have to be running low.

Oh, and don’t forget your tinfoil hat.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I never even intimated that I agreed. What I pointed out is, under the law, that’s not possible.
I read your original post. I didn’t see any mention of the word scaremongering. Nor did I see any mention of what the law says. Not a word.

What I did see is that when Hillary said she wouldn’t stand for Jihad schools, you said that isn’t her choice - or shouldn’t be.

Here is what you said:
Ms. Clintion feels you should pay your taxes and send your children to failing public schools with the curriculum she and the elite select for you.

After all she knows what’s best for you. Echoing her husband who didn’t think you’d use a tax cut wisely, she doesn’t think you can be trusted to pick the best school for you child. You’re just not smart enough or wise enough, you see. Only the village know what’s best for your child.

"School of the Jihad" indeed.

Is it any wonder home schooling gains in popularity evey day?
Now, if you meant to say that was because it was against the law, it would have been simple to do so. If you had meant to say she was scaremongering, it would have been simple to do so. But your point was that if a parent wants to send their kid to a school, that should be their choice, Jihad or otherwise.
I’m for people having a choice to send their kids to any school they decide it is in their best interest to sent them.

What I have no control over is what the law says, do I? Two separate issues even for those with IQs slightly higher than butter ... which obviously leaves you out.
But when the law (can’t send your kid ot jihad school) contradicts your princple (parents should be able to choose), you would go with your principle, I assume. After all, what is a person if he does not go with his principles?


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
I read your original post. I didn’t see any mention of the word scaremongering. Nor did I see any mention of what the law says. Not a word.
See if you can follow this. I wrote a post about what Clinton said and how I disagreed with what she said.

You then commented and defended what she said by including a quote from Coulson that pointed out what she said was misleading.

I then responded by pointing to the fact that since it wasn’t possible under the law what she was doing was SCAREMONGERING.

You then replied, for whatever reason, that I must agree with her concerning not allowing kids to go to "jihad schools."

I then replied that wasn’t the case, and whether or not I did was irrelevant to the fact that she was still SCAREMONGERING.
Now, if you meant to say that was because it was against the law, it would have been simple to do so.
But I didn’t. I never mentioned the law a single time in the post. That wasn’t the point of my post.

You are the one who brought up the law. Not me. And I responded to your point. Get it?

So what you’re doing citing the post is beyond me and probably every other sane reader of this blog.

Seriously, are you really a lawyer? I mean the best I can figure, if you are, is you’re a public defender in some small northern town who’s second job is night janitor at the courthouse. Makes it convenient, no?
After all, what is a person if he does not go with his principles?
You tell me ... from what I’ve read of your comments, you have a lot of experience in that regard.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Is this thread a joke? Church of the White Supremecist? The legality of "School of Jihad"?

MK and Clinton.......America’s clowns
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Man, I’d hate to have you as my defense attorney.
Man, I would love it. (God forbid ever needing a defense attorney)

Now sometimes I agree with mkultra, sometimes I don’t. But the way he gets you guys to start talking about something else,… I mean laugh out loud funny. And that’s exactly what I would look for in a defense attorney. Getting the jury to discuss a wide range of off-topic issues would inevitably lead to reasonable doubt.

By the way,
It’s always fun to read the ping-pong match between McQ and mkultra.

Thanks guys
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Why didn’t she just go for the throat totally and announce she was against vouchers for the "Aztec School of Human Sacrifice and Heart eating", or vouchers for the "School of ritual infant sacrifice"... (oh, yeah I forgot she IS for that school ain’t she...that one’s all about a woman’s ’choice’).

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Hey Pogue, you’re forgetting, the jury doesn’t discuss in the court, and there is an opposition attorney who will in all liklihood say something like "objection your honor, the defense council is babbling about something completely unrelated to the case."

But good luck to you with that. Personally I’d prefer competent defense council with the abilty to read simple text and make reasoned arguments.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
Man, I would love it. (God forbid ever needing a defense attorney)
So would I. It would be a slam-dunk appeal due to incompetent counsel.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
Hey Pogue, you’re forgetting, the jury doesn’t discuss in the court, and there is an opposition attorney who will in all liklihood say something like "objection your honor, the defense council is babbling about something completely unrelated to the case."
Yes, Unknown. But anyone who watches courtroom dramas knows that just because the opposing council objects, or if the judge instructs the jury to disregard… you cannot un-ring a bell.
So would I. It would be a slam-dunk appeal due to incompetent counsel.
Whatever works, eh?
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
MK, I think it’s pretty clear that McQ was objecting to Clinton’s assertion that she (and politicians in general) ought to be in charge of deciding what kind of schools one’s children should go to.

I’m equally sure that McQ would not object to a law prohibiting open incitement to violence against our country. In fact, such laws exist and I’m unaware of any objection McQ has ever made to them. You can google that if you like, but I think my recollection is accurate.

Hillary Clinton knows full well that no "Jihad" school could operate in the US, since open incitement to violence is illegal, so she was clearly using a hyperbolic rhetoric to make an emotionally laden appeal to prejudice, rather than an appeal to reason.

Oh, and...
Right wing echo machine strikes again. [snip something about McQ spreading the message from Rush Limbaugh, etc, etc]
I sometimes use stories I find on Think Progress, Atrios or other left wing sites. Does that make me a part of the Left wing echo machine? Where do I send the bill for "carrying their water"?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Now, let’s assume it takes an hour or two to track down the quote
You suck at Googling.
 
Written By: SaveFarris
URL: http://
MK, I think it’s pretty clear that McQ was objecting to Clinton’s assertion that she (and politicians in general) ought to be in charge of deciding what kind of schools one’s children should go to.
Well, that would be interesting - if that is what Clinton said. But she did not say that. If you want to send your kids to private school, no one is stopping you, least of all Clinton. Nor would she say you can’t send your kids to private schools.

What she was saying was that my tax dollars and your tax dollars should not go to schools that teach hateful things. The problem, of course, is that what is hateful is in the eye of the beholder.

McQ, on the other hand, played the role of the faux populist, suggesting, as you do, that Clinton was somehow saying that you don’t have the right to choose which school you want to send your kid to. That only the elites can decide. Which is not what she was saying.

It was a disingenious argument - one that you are echoing. The argument does not deserve respect.

The actual argument is whether a person - one without children, for instance - who does not subsrcribe to the religious ideology of a particular school should neverthess have their tax dollars funnelled to the school through the use of vouchers. That is what Clinton was saying. But McQ doesn’t want to engage in that argument. Instead, he suggests that Clinton is arguing that parents shouldn’t have a choice at all, whether it is with or without tax dollars.

The best analogy is wingers who whine about US government funded family planning programs in foreign countries. They want a ban on any money going to programs that even discuss abortion. The wingers don’t want their tax dollars going to organizations who engage in practices that they do not morally support.

But then these same people turn around and tell me that my tax dollars must go to schools that engage in teachings that I find morally reprehenisble.

This is the debate - not whether Hillary wants to tell you what school to go to - but whether I should have to pay for schools who teach things I find morally wrong.

But McQ doesn’t want that debate. Wonder why.

Oh - and by the way Jon, politicians are in charge of a lot of important things in our lives, like schools. We elect them. It’s called democracy.






 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
But then these same people turn around and tell me that my tax dollars must go to schools that engage in teachings that I find morally reprehenisble.
When did I ever say you had to send you tax dollars in to anyone, MK? I’ve certainly never made that argument.

If you don’t want to fund things through taxes that you find morally objectionable, then by all means, refuse. Don’t pay. Find a way to live without paying those taxes.

Wasn’t it you who were waxing on about principles and the like?

Well slugger, here’s your chance. Stand up by refusing to pay.

There’s a good boy.
But McQ doesn’t want that debate.
Any time you’d like, MK. You see, it’s not up to me as to whether you fund things you find objectionable, is it?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Actually, it would be pretty easy to argue that some of the things being taught in public schools are morally reprehensible.
 
Written By: equitus
URL: http://sdparadigm.blogger.com
I’m not going to waste my time continuing to explain to MK why the whole "payment" thing is integral. But this...
Oh - and by the way Jon, politicians are in charge of a lot of important things in our lives, like schools. We elect them. It’s called democracy.
..is almost funny. Or sad. Imagine if somebody used the same argument: "politicians are in charge of a lot of important things in our lives, like [fetuses/blue laws/speech/media content/campaign financing/sex/etc]. We elect them. It’s called democracy."
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I do have to make an objection with the following comment from Unknown: "Unfortunately this is a naked distillation of one of liberalism’s (and increasingly, conservatism’s) major flaws - that elites, the state, or some authority figure knows better than you(which of course may be true in some cases) and what is best for you and therefore they should be able to force their vision for your own good."

Don’t confuse Republican with conservative. I will grant you that religious conservatives do seem to be tilting towards support for "nanny government". True Constitutional conservatives find the idea appalling.
 
Written By: EdMcGon
URL: http://politicsandpigskins.blogspot.com/
Point well taken Ed and I agree. All the genuine conservatives I know are not nanny staters.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
"but whether I should have to pay for schools who teach things I find morally wrong."

That debate has been settled, and the result is that yes, you do have to pay for schools that teach things you may find morally wrong. Unless, that is, you feel you should be given more consideration than that given to those nasty Christian folks who oppose some of the teachings in public schools.

What of the tax dollars of those who wish to use vouchers? Since their tax money is alledgedly taken to pay for the education of their children, why can’t they use a portion of it do so in a school of their choosing? This would not only make the parents happy, but would also help solve some of the problems the education-government complex claim they care so much about. Teacher-student ratio and smaller class sizes? Done. The need for expensive new school construction? Eliminated-fewer students, less need for schools. Since every voucher program I have heard of provides vouchers worth only part of what is actually provided per pupil by gov’t., every voucher user provides an increase in per-pupil funding for the remaining students. Theoretically, if every student used a voucher there would still be a significant amount of money remaining in the school budget.

It is interesting that although liberals screech about empowering people, when the opportunity arises to do so they oppose it.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider