posted May 05, 2012 03:06 PM            

Typical leftist bullshiiite.

You're getting no where with your off the wall allegations about Murdock.

At least when I accuse O'Bomber of wrong doing, I've got the proof and back up my claims here. What O'Bomber has done and is doing is a matter of public record and it can't be spun into anything else.

posted May 05, 2012 08:31 PM            

but i at least have learned to spell his name...is it that you really have no respect for him either? sorry to disappoint, but

there is nothing leftist about this story except that the right loves to use murdoch media as a vehicle for distorting the truth...

i don't care a fig if you believe it or not. i am glad to see it hitting the open air and there will be repercussions to come i reckon. and even if they do try and find murdoch guilty, he is an 80 year old billionaire who probably will do no time...though he appears willing to throw his son in the clink if necessary!

posted May 11, 2012 12:04 PM            

who knew that he believes GOOD, FREE education is the most important aspect of a prosperous society?

yet he continues to feed those that rail and spew epithets about government sponsored education and its regulations.

reminds me of granpa koch, who claimed to be a total anti-communist but made his fortune working for stalin.

posted May 11, 2012 07:55 PM            

"who knew that he believes GOOD, FREE education is the most important aspect of a prosperous society?"

The operative word here is GOOD and public education in almost every state and especially in D.C. is anything but GOOD

Based on student academic performance, almost every public school system in America should be shut down and vouchers given to parents to send their children to private schools where they could get a GOOD education. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper for taxpayer too.

posted May 12, 2012 10:08 AM            

Public education is funded by property tax assessments against property owners and also federal taxpayers through the "income tax" which goes into the "General Fund" to fund the worst government in US history.

Private education is less costly across America and provides a "better" education for students than public schools. Vouchers for parents to send their children to private schools would lower education costs, lower property tax rates across America and reduce federal deficits.

posted May 12, 2012 08:27 PM            

The average cost per year to propagandize and indoctrinate students in public schools is more than $10,000 per student and in some districts tops $15,000 per pupil per year.

It's only FREE to the students but their parents are sure paying for it...whether they own property or rent...they're still paying for it.

Private education would be FREE to students but the same parents who own property or rent would still be paying for it. However, they would be paying a hell of a lot less and getting far better educated children in the process.

Where in the world do you get your moonbat ideas?

posted May 12, 2012 08:41 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 12, 2012 09:09 PM            

or do you think i don't understand that FREE education is not free to the taxpayer? as i said, you don't get the irony of rupert freemarket bear being for "free " education. nor apparently does rupert.

i'm not a fan of public schools either, that is not the flippin point but that appears to have gone right by you and stan, there, behind you..hence the word IRONY.

posted May 12, 2012 10:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
The average cost per year to propagandize and indoctrinate students in public schools is more than $10,000 per student and in some districts tops $15,000 per pupil per year.

---

God, I love it when you talk like that.

quote:

---

... but that appears to have gone right by you and stan, there, behind you

---

That's pretty funny too.

posted May 15, 2012 12:58 PM            

in fact in different states the indoctrination is different...texas, for instance removed jefferson from their social studies/history curriculum in favor of someone with a more "correct" religious stance.

posted May 15, 2012 03:16 PM            

Not only are they paying...through their property taxes and federal income taxes for public education but with their decision to give their children a quality education, they're paying for private schooling as well.

posted May 15, 2012 03:29 PM            

1) i was not belabouring the difficulty of paying for private schools, but pointing out that the COST IS ABOUT THE SAME PER PUPIL.

2) i am not a fan of public schools. i was removed from that system aged 9 and spent the rest of my school days in private schools. the first was created by my and a few others' parents who clubbed together to buy premises, hire principal and teachers, and get some educating on. it was a great school.

however john holt pointed out that ALL schooling is indoctrination, interferes with kids' learning processes and generally dumbs them down. IF you consider THINKING and individuality important.

so i am not so convinced that private school is the answer either. they have their agenda, believe me.

3) the ONLY point i was making about public school is that rupert murdoch, who blows the small government free market horn, obviously DOES BELIEVE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. he just thinks the quality is off.

to me this is a contradiction within his belief system. i found it amusing.

but that is all.

however, if you want to argue that paying 10K out of pocket would be more manageable than paying a good deal less in taxes so schools can spend that much per student, your math seems off to me. yes, taxes cut into everyone's budget, but no, not all taxes are irrelevant.

it is not the cost but the use of the money that makes the qualitative difference. an individual family pays less for public school even if the cost per head is comparable. because it is deemed that having school available to all is in the interest of all, whether they have kids or property or not.

my experience with public schools is they are exactly as good as the parents' involvement with them. which is also true of private schools. my grandson is in a very GOOD one now. his last school was more like a prison camp. same state, same "wealthiest county" in that state, same curriculum, even same number of kids in a class.... different parents, different teachers and methods, different approach to fundraising. same child, completely different school reports AND happiness of child (equally good grades in academic subjects in both schools).

posted May 15, 2012 03:43 PM            

Murdock is not alone in thinking these bastions of propaganda and indoctrination have a major "quality of education" problem.

Yet, you keep harping about Murdock's use of the word "FREE" when you know Murdock no more believes public education is FREE than the man in the moon would believe it.

posted May 15, 2012 03:59 PM            

you are still not getting my point. is that deliberate or is your certainty that i can't think straight warping YOUR comprehension?

what free marketer do you know who plumps for FREE (ie taxpayer funded) education for all? good OR bad?

would you not find it ironic if, say, sarah palin contended that the solution to all our ills was FREE dinners for every citizen? a bit off her agenda?

posted May 15, 2012 04:03 PM            

do you understand yet? i am not harping on it, just trying to explain to your apparently unwilling mind.

posted May 15, 2012 04:45 PM            

a little bird in england has just chirped that, indeed, ms brooks seems ready to throw rupert under the bus. more later i expect.

posted May 15, 2012 06:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
Public education is FREE for the students katatonic. It's everyone else who pays...so Murdock has good instincts.

As for your constant libel of Murdock on these pages, if you're going to say that Murdock has committed a crime personally, because someone working for him did; then I'm going to insist on the feds dragging Eric Holder's ass out of the Attorney Generals office and Barack Hussein O'Bomber's ass out of the White House and line them both up to get their striped prison suits. Because people working for both of them comitted crimes under US and International law with their gun running operation to cartel drug lords in Mexico. Those guns killed hundreds of Mexican citizens and at least two federal agents...one, a Border Patrol Agent. Let's call that conspiracy to commit murder and lock both of their sorry a$ses up.

---

So freaking true.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 16, 2012 01:29 PM            

as for libel, pot kettle black sweetie; you have practically made it your mission in life to libel the elected president of your country which y ou profess to care so much about...never mind the damage done to integrity or truthfulness. you call thirdhand gossip PROOF but sorry, the american thinkers' grandstanding opinion column is not evidence of anything.

for ONE example, your crowing about the "doper, boozer president" when actually the president does NOT indulge in those things, having learned from his mistakes (unlike romney who shrugs his off) - anymore than your hero ronald reagan did in his youth...does RAT PACK mean anything to you?

for the younger members of the forum, reagan belonged to the then "infamous" RAT PACK who radiated around frank sinatra, raised hell in a seriously inebriated state around hollywood and beyond for years, and used their wealth and influence in many not so legitimate ways.

but we don't want to dwell on the past unless it's the past of someone we don't like, do we now?

meanwhile the ONGOING bribery of officials, invasion of people's privacy, interference in the course of justice, and the dumbing down of the news media in favour of the cheap thrill/quick buck substitutes peddled by rupert murdock, is public knowledge. whether murdock ever handed over a dime to a policeman is not the issue. but the widespread practice of such ILLEGAL acts that runs through his empire will bring it down even if he never is charged.