"Charter captains - ok "

In your mind, guys who fish on boats for a living, aren't capable of accurately judging others, after spending 8 hours with them and their kids in very close proximity, many times? But you can do so from a keyboard, and with an obvious political agenda? Whatever you say, Paul, whatever you say...

"You're right I did use the word retard 2x over 2 years ago i"

We've been over this many times. It's not how often or when, its your refusal to concede that it was ugly. Because as with everything else, it's OK when you do it.

If "imbecile" triggers you, I will try to stop saying it. Ive never heard anyone claim it was inherently offensive, not once, other than you.

"And I like the air on my side of the isle when I see "your" side's policies re. poor people"

Fine. Walk into downtown Hartford and downtown Bridgeport and tell all the residents that you're proud of what the policies you advocate for, have done for them. What you are proud of, is the CNN version of what conservatives want to do with the poor, not the accurate version. Again, that pesky study which shows that conservatives are actually a little more charitable than liberals...since you like to dismiss that because you don't think donating to churches qualifies as charity, explain this little fact...

"if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes."

Even if you exclude all church giving, conservatives donate a higher % of their income to charity, than liberals do.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/o...21kristof.html

Big deal. The difference is minimal but if that makes you feel better about yourself - good for you. More conserv. send their kids to private schools and donate there.

Conserv. always look down at the poor and have the attitude that if they have made it, then the poor could also. Private charity is no substitute for gov. policies

When I saw the following, I thought of you as you have said pretty much the same exact same thing (in yellow but copied the whole article to show who the Rs have running in NY for congress) w/o using the word black and instead say "inner cities"

New York Republican congressional candidate Carl Paladino told a radio host in late 2016 that Black Americans were kept “dumb and hungry” so they could be conditioned to only vote for the Democratic Party, saying, “You can’t teach them differently.”

Paladino, then a Buffalo school board member, was defending himself against allegations that previous comments he made were racist and said he cared about Black people, but they had been conditioned to be a base for the Democrats.

“I don’t think of myself in any way as a racist,” Paldino said on local Buffalo radio station WBEN, saying he fought for policies to help Black children while on the Buffalo School Board.

Paladino is running for the seat being vacated by Republican Rep. Chris Jacobs, who said he would no longer seek reelection after saying he supported a federal ban on so-called assault weapons. He faces New York State Republican Chairman Nick Langworthy in the primary.
“Someday, somebody like a Donald Trump is gonna come in and force that stuff on them – OK. And maybe then, OK, we’ll get some change because the Black people deserve better,” he said discussing Buffalo schools. “They shouldn’t be held captive in our inner cities. They shouldn’t be held hungry and dumb so as to provide a base for the Democratic Party, that’s what’s been going on. You can’t teach them differently because they’ve been so conditioned to think that way. And that is so, so wrong. And I’ll fight for that stuff until the day I die.”


In a statement to CNN, Paladino said CNN had taken his words out of context.
“It is not surprising that CNN is once again taking my comments out of context from years ago. Democrats policies have failed black voters and taken them for granted which is why Republicans have a historic opportunity to win huge this November,” Paladino said. “I am proud of the work I did for Buffalo Schools, turning around an underperforming district, and investing resources in predominately African American areas.”
Paladino made the comments on a radio show in which he was defending himself over racist comments he had previously made, and had been roundly criticized for, about then-President Barack Obama and then-first lady Michelle Obama. Paladino had said he would like to see Michelle Obama “return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla,” and that he hoped Barack Obama would die of Mad Cow Disease after having sex with a cow.
He had made the comments about the Obamas to ArtVoice.com, but later said he meant to send it to friends. He originally defended the comment, on the radio show, before apologizing.
A since-deleted Twitter account, which Paladino used until January 2021, also reveals a host of sexist and explicit comments.
On May 16, 2020, Paladino disparaged a woman who accused former President Donald Trump of sexual assault tweeting, “get a life. You probably enjoyed the slap at the time.” Another tweet that day called the Buffalo News “a #^&#^&#^&#^&bag newspaper.”
Paladino, a Buffalo-based real estate developer who previously ran for New York governor in 2010, entered the congressional race in early June, shortly after Republican Rep. Chris Jacobs announced he would not run for reelection in the newly redrawn district in lieu of intense political backlash for supporting a federal assault weapons ban following the Buffalo mass shooting.
Shortly after Paladino entered the race, the left-leaning Media Matters reported Paladino shared posts on Facebook calling the mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas, “false flag” attacks orchestrated to revoke the Second Amendment and take away guns to help Democrats. Paladino initially claimed he didn’t know how the posts got there, but later said he “carelessly” shared the post and later deleted his Facebook account.
Last week, Media Matters also reported that Paladino praised the leadership of Adolf Hitler for “how he aroused the crowds,” calling Hitler “the kind of leader we need today. We need somebody inspirational.” Paladino tried to clarify his comments, insisting that he was speaking about Hitler’s popularity. Paladino told the Buffalo News that he understood “invoking Hitler in any context is a serious mistake and rightfully upsets people. I strongly condemn the murderous atrocities committed against the Jewish people by Hitler and the Nazis.
Paladino quickly earned the endorsement of upstate New York Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik, who is the third-ranked Republican in the House and has kept her endorsement despite his recent

Big deal. The difference is minimal but if that makes you feel better about yourself - good for you. More conserv. send their kids to private schools and donate there.

Conserv. always look down at the poor and have the attitude that if they have made it, then the poor could also. Private charity is no substitute for gov. policies

When I saw the following, I thought of you as you have said pretty much the same exact same thing (in yellow but copied the whole article to show who the Rs have running in NY for congress) w/o using the word black and instead say "inner cities"

New York Republican congressional candidate Carl Paladino told a radio host in late 2016 that Black Americans were kept “dumb and hungry” so they could be conditioned to only vote for the Democratic Party, saying, “You can’t teach them differently.”

Paladino, then a Buffalo school board member, was defending himself against allegations that previous comments he made were racist and said he cared about Black people, but they had been conditioned to be a base for the Democrats.

“I don’t think of myself in any way as a racist,” Paldino said on local Buffalo radio station WBEN, saying he fought for policies to help Black children while on the Buffalo School Board.

Paladino is running for the seat being vacated by Republican Rep. Chris Jacobs, who said he would no longer seek reelection after saying he supported a federal ban on so-called assault weapons. He faces New York State Republican Chairman Nick Langworthy in the primary.
“Someday, somebody like a Donald Trump is gonna come in and force that stuff on them – OK. And maybe then, OK, we’ll get some change because the Black people deserve better,” he said discussing Buffalo schools. “They shouldn’t be held captive in our inner cities. They shouldn’t be held hungry and dumb so as to provide a base for the Democratic Party, that’s what’s been going on. You can’t teach them differently because they’ve been so conditioned to think that way. And that is so, so wrong. And I’ll fight for that stuff until the day I die.”


In a statement to CNN, Paladino said CNN had taken his words out of context.
“It is not surprising that CNN is once again taking my comments out of context from years ago. Democrats policies have failed black voters and taken them for granted which is why Republicans have a historic opportunity to win huge this November,” Paladino said. “I am proud of the work I did for Buffalo Schools, turning around an underperforming district, and investing resources in predominately African American areas.”
Paladino made the comments on a radio show in which he was defending himself over racist comments he had previously made, and had been roundly criticized for, about then-President Barack Obama and then-first lady Michelle Obama. Paladino had said he would like to see Michelle Obama “return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla,” and that he hoped Barack Obama would die of Mad Cow Disease after having sex with a cow.
He had made the comments about the Obamas to ArtVoice.com, but later said he meant to send it to friends. He originally defended the comment, on the radio show, before apologizing.
A since-deleted Twitter account, which Paladino used until January 2021, also reveals a host of sexist and explicit comments.
On May 16, 2020, Paladino disparaged a woman who accused former President Donald Trump of sexual assault tweeting, “get a life. You probably enjoyed the slap at the time.” Another tweet that day called the Buffalo News “a #^&#^&#^&#^&bag newspaper.”
Paladino, a Buffalo-based real estate developer who previously ran for New York governor in 2010, entered the congressional race in early June, shortly after Republican Rep. Chris Jacobs announced he would not run for reelection in the newly redrawn district in lieu of intense political backlash for supporting a federal assault weapons ban following the Buffalo mass shooting.
Shortly after Paladino entered the race, the left-leaning Media Matters reported Paladino shared posts on Facebook calling the mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas, “false flag” attacks orchestrated to revoke the Second Amendment and take away guns to help Democrats. Paladino initially claimed he didn’t know how the posts got there, but later said he “carelessly” shared the post and later deleted his Facebook account.
Last week, Media Matters also reported that Paladino praised the leadership of Adolf Hitler for “how he aroused the crowds,” calling Hitler “the kind of leader we need today. We need somebody inspirational.” Paladino tried to clarify his comments, insisting that he was speaking about Hitler’s popularity. Paladino told the Buffalo News that he understood “invoking Hitler in any context is a serious mistake and rightfully upsets people. I strongly condemn the murderous atrocities committed against the Jewish people by Hitler and the Nazis.
Paladino quickly earned the endorsement of upstate New York Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik, who is the third-ranked Republican in the House and has kept her endorsement despite his recent

Quick search


Over three-quarters of US charities’ revenues come from donations by individuals, and we used these individual giving decisions to learn about differences in “apolitical” behaviour by partisans. In three surveys, we asked whether Republicans and conservatives give more or less to charity than Democrats and liberals. While political identity and giving are measured slightly differently across the surveys, the results are consistent: Republicans and conservatives report donating between $60 and $160 more per year to charity than Democrats and liberals. This result holds even when we account for socio-economic measures that are correlated both with political identity and charitable giving. The baseline difference in giving behaviour comports with what others have found: partisanship is a dividing line not only in terms of choosing candidates and policies, but also in how partisans spend their disposable income.

Having established the difference, we next wanted to know why a partisan gap in giving appears. We tested three potential explanations – religious identity, political beliefs, and economic status.

We found the strongest support for the religious explanation. Republicans are not only more likely to attend church than Democrats, but church attendance – among Democrats and Republicans alike – is strongly associated with charitable giving. Gaps in giving, therefore, are linked to differences in the social composition of the parties, in which the average Republican is more religious than the average Democrat. Moreover, the overall giving gap emerges because Republicans donate more to their own religious congregations, rather than nationally active religious charities. Republicans and Democrats give roughly equal amounts to religious organisations aside from their own congregations, and we also find some evidence that Democrats donate more to non-religious organisations than Republicans. In other words, the baseline difference in charitable giving emerges because Republicans are more religious than Democrats, and religious people donate generously to their religious congregations.

We find no support for the claim that political beliefs drive differences in giving. It is possible that Republicans donate more to charity due to their ideological beliefs – indeed, conservative politicians in the US often claim that the government should get out of the way and let the charitable sector provide services. Republicans on our surveys might signal their opposition to income redistribution and support for private service provision by donating to charitable causes, substituting donation behaviour for support for government redistribution. Borrowing from Ellis and Stimson’s distinction between symbolic conservatives – those who merely call themselves conservative, but do not oppose government redistribution – and operational conservatives – those who hold conservative beliefs about the role of government – we find no evidence that political beliefs explain why Republicans donate more than Democrats. Republicans who are strong operational conservatives, and therefore oppose government redistribution the most, do not give any more or less to charity than Republicans who support government redistribution. Thus, Republicans do not donate more to express their preference for private service provision over large government social service programmes.

Third, we tested whether Republicans donate more than Democrats due to a differing desire to signal high economic status, which is one of the explanations for the differences in baby names cited above. But we find little evidence that changing economic evaluations cause changes in levels of anticipated giving in the short term. Using the 2012 presidential election as a natural experiment, we show that Republicans’ perceptions of their economic status, as well as their reported spending on vacations, declined following the re-election of Democrat Barack Obama. However, giving behaviour was unaffected by the election, reinforcing our conclusion that differences in giving come from differences in religiosity, not politics or economics.

Our findings have important implications for how we think about politics and charitable giving. It is a fact that there are differences in giving patterns between Democrats and Republicans. However, these differences stem from underlying differences in the social compositions of the parties, rather than from differences in ideological beliefs or a desire to signal status. In particular, the partisan gap appears because of a difference in a very specific type of giving, donating to one’s own congregation or house of worship. We find no conservative advantage when it comes to non-religious charities, or even religious charities beyond one’s own congregation. The large religiosity gap that exists in American politics today, coupled with the tendency of religious Americans to donate to their own churches, helps explain the overall partisan difference in charitable giving. To the extent that Republicans and Democrats are culturally divided, these divisions appear to have little, if anything to do with disagreements about public policy.

Another article

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/repub...er-story-here/

The political differences between Republicans and Democrats don’t play out solely at the ballot box; they also predict how likely people are to donate to charity. This finding from a newly published research project reflects a key difference, one tied to political affiliation, about how our nation should take on critical social issues like homelessness, poverty, and health care. The data also suggest that in times of political strife, both parties’ supporters pull back, making problem-solving harder.

Using voting and IRS data for the residents of 3,000 counties across the nation, the four-professor research team found, according to the New York Times, that counties which are “overwhelmingly Republican” report higher charitable contributions than Democratic-dominated counties, although “giving in blue counties is often bolstered by a combination of charitable donations and higher taxes. But as red or blue counties become more politically competitive, charitable giving tends to fall.” The full study was recently published in the Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.

One could conclude this shows the Republican party is, despite the conventional wisdom, the party that cares about those in need and puts its money where its mouth is. But the true picture is more complex, reflecting at best a real difference between the parties in the best way to approach the challenge of human need. Because the range of organizations and activities that are supported by tax deductible giving is very wide, it is not clear how these funds are actually used or what motives they reflect.

Republicans do give more, but where that money ends up is not yet clear. One of the study’s authors, Rebecca Nesbit, associate professor of public administration and policy at the University of Georgia, told the New York Times that Republicans prefer to “provide for the collective good through private institutions. But we don’t know what type of institutions they’re giving to.” It also wasn’t obvious “whether donors were being purely generous or whether they would also benefit from their donation. This relationship is called consumption philanthropy, in which people give to a religious organization or a school from which they will derive a benefit in the form of, say, a better religious education program or a new gymnasium.” Giving to a food bank or a homeless shelter has a very different outcome than does giving to a private school.

While red counties may be more philanthropic, tax rates are higher in blue counties, reflecting stronger support for collective action and for a social safety net of services and organizations. “The county you live in and the political ideology of that county affects the tax burden of the community,” Dr. Nesbit said. “That in turn has an effect on charitable contributions. If you leave tax burden out of the equation, you’re not getting the full story.”

Importantly, the study did not find that in Republican counties, private funds replaced public funds so that social services were equally supported.

Those in favor of lower taxes have argued that individuals are more capable than the government of allocating money to important causes, including people in need of assistance. But the study found that was not true. Donations do not match government assistance, and without tax money, social services are not funded as robustly.

“The evidence shows that private philanthropy can’t compensate for the loss of government provision,” Dr. Nesbit said. “It’s not equal. What government can put into these things is so much more than what we see through private philanthropy.”

Most concerning in this moment of high political strife is the finding that everyone pulls back in areas where political division is high: “When counties are split evenly between the political parties, both donations and the tax burden go down. Or in the study’s terms: Political competition decreases giving.” This does not bode well for organizations whose work is holding up a part of the social safety net, nor for the people they serve.

As we see very graphically on a national level, split electorates and the split governments they elect have difficulty enacting polices and laws to support democratic approaches to collective action. The publicly funded portion of the safety net weakens. If Republicans, who may be more individually ready than their Democratic neighbors, do not make growing charitable donations for these same purposes, philanthropy will not provide the solution, either.—Marty Levine

Paul, YOU are the one saying that republicans care less about the poor. There's no evidence that's true, other than your desperate wish for it to be true. The study I posted shows the 2 sides give about the same, so no big difference.

"Conserv. always look down at the poor"

Then please explain the stance taken by each side, regarding school choice. I'll wait.

"Tell me where I ever said that.
Your (for Scott) a liar."

You're claiming , that you have never dismissed the results of the "Who Really Cares" study, on the basis that the difference is largely due to giving to churches. You've never once said that? Is that what you're saying I made up? Because every single time I bring up that study, you say something like "that's only because republicans give more to their church..."

I can't read that yellow font., sorry...

two as in two guys, I'm worried about you Scott, this obsession with spelling is fogging your brain.

Run your curser over the text. I shouldn't have used yellow

And I think a lot of people lie about how much they give to charity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

do both republicans and democrats lie about it, or just republicans?

I never said Republicans as I don't know. When I see stats on annual giving I just don't believe the average person gives those amounts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post

And you two are the shinning stars of the right, to funny.


so you meant "two funny"...?

OK....you are worried about me :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
When I see stats on annual giving I just don't believe the average person gives those amounts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


you could fit in perfectly with the new Brandon IRS Gestapo

everybody except paul is apparently suspect....

No need to lie as I ran most of it through my companies match. Allowed me to itemize my deductions last year *and this year and lower what I owe.

Damn local animal shelter never responded to my companies multiple requests to get an additional $500 match that was sent in for a cousin's sudden passing.

Of course work won't match my church dues/donations

I am because you seem to be so devoid of quality activities in your life, you live for the one liner and hopefully a shot at correcting someone who frankly couldn’t care less if auto fill on the computer didn’t fill it in as you intended, all on a web site consisting of a dozen guys. Sad really, maybe there are community programs you can get involved in, could help fill those hours you can’t see new posts to jump on.

definitely....:wavey:

Roevember is coming

If you think it won’t happen, look at what happened in Ireland about the abortion issue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok, you say liberals want to deny school choice, and instead make public schools stronger?

the inner city public schools will take a long time to be made stronger, so why not offer choice until those schools are made stronger?

Obvious answer, liberals want to protect their union benefactors, even at the expense of the educational future of those kids. Thats irrefutable.

The poor people in those cities desperately want school choice paul. when school choice is offered, do you think no parents jump at the chance, or do you think demand is high? If you care about poor people, why not let the ones who are currently stuck in crappy schools, choose an alternative that is better for their children? you think it’s better to tell them “don’t worry, some day this school will be better”? That’s better for poor people?

And those schools can’t be made stronger by liberals, because liberals equate “stronger” with more funding. Urban schools
don’t stink because of a lack of spending. We spend a fortune on urban schools in CT. They stink because of the erosion of the family in urban areas, and that’s not a problem that can be fixed by throwing money at it. I wish it were that simple. But it’s not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As soon as you subsidize my ability to join a private country club instead of the local town owned course I might change my mind.

really?

"What is irrefutable is that you want me to help subsidize your kids going to private school."

ONE HUNDRED percent false. That is literally 100% demonstrable bullsh*t. In my case, I'd like to direct some of MY TAX DOLLARS, to the school of my choice. How is that asking you to subsidize me by even one cent?

In the case of poor people stuck in the cities, now the truth comes out, you accidentally said the quiet part out loud. You claim all day long you want to help these people, and they are begging for more school choice, which you'd deny them, because YOU don't like the idea of any of your money going to a private school. You're OK with your tax dollars subsidizing their crappy (and more expensive)public schools. But you're not OK with your tax dollars subsidizing them to attend quality private schools (often cheaper) that actually work. Please, please tell us how that's helping poor people?

Paul, you'd rather subsidize them to attend lousy schools in Hartford which costs $20k per year per kid, than send them to my kids' tiny Catholic school which has less than 10 kids per class, and costs $5500 per kid for middle school grades? That';s just chock full of common sense.

That's liberalism, boy! "I demand to spend $20k per year of public money on a terrible school, rather than $5500 per year on a terrific school!!"

It's stupid, and it does nothing to help poor people. But more money goes to the unions, which means more money goes to helping democrats win elections. And THAT'S what matters.

You want to fix public schools? Offer school choice. Tell public schools that they now have competition. Do that, and those public schools would make some meaningful improvements in the next 5 seconds (they can't fix the effect of broken families, but they can fix some things, like get rid of lousy teachers). There's zero incentive to do a good job, when you have a perfect monopoly.

You say to poor people "keep voting democrat, and hopefully one day before your kids graduate (or drop out), those schools will improve".

You're telling poor people to suck it up. I'd offer them a huge improvement. Yet you're on the side of the angels. Sure Paul, whatever you say. Nothing but hollow, empty, virtue-signaling rhetoric.

Your country club example is way off, because catholic schools are usually cheaper than the public schools in the cities.

So would you turn down the chance to play at a private country club which had a better course and lower greens fees than your public golf course? Because that's what you're advocating for here. You're advocating to spend a fortune more money, for a vastly inferior product. That just makes all kinds of sense.

he compared an underprivileged kid in a failing school getting the opportunity to get a good education that might lift them out of poverty,,,, to him getting a free membership at a private golf course....

good grief....:huh:

Yup. But he's the virtuous one. You cannot make that up.

Every once in awhile Scott, they say the quiet part out loud. They want huge numbers of poor people to stay exactly where they are, because the more of them that are in the cities and addicted to welfare, the larger their reliable voting block is.

Choice a - spend $20k per year per student in Hartford public schools, which are failing sh*tholes.

Choice b - spend less than $6k per year to send them to a catholic K-8 school with less than 10 kids per class, and where kids on average perform a full grade level higher than where they are, on standardized tests.

Why is this a difficult choice? Politics. That's it. If you were at all motivated by an actual urge to help these people, that's a ridiculously easy decision.

But unfortunately for those poor people, while school choice will help lift those kids out of poverty, it doesn't help democrats win elections.

The poor people need to form a union. Then the democrats will actually act on their behalf.
The other benefit to this school choice...let's say you pull 10 kids out of Hartford (where you'd spend $20k per kid), and out them in my kids school, which costs $5500 per kid...the public school in Hartford (1) now has fewer kids, thus smaller class sizes, which everyone knows helps kids. And (2) they also have more money, because Hartford schools can keep the $14,500 they were going to spend anyway on each kid who left for private school. If it's 10 kids who leave, thats $145k that Hartford can spend on the remaining kids.

In other words, after those kids leave, the public school can now spend even more money per kid, on the kids who choose to remain there.

Win-win.

subsidized snarky one, not free

Indiana's school voucher program started in 2011

The data doesn’t match you fantasy Jim school choice is a red herring being presented as a benefit for inner city blacks . But is aimed a sending white kids to religious schools and having the government pay most of the bill ..
But keep saying it’s about poor people



Whites increased from 40 to 60% and blacks declined 24 to 12%.





For a full voucher, worth 90 percent of what a state would spend in a public school, a family of four can earn no more than $45,000 annually, but students whose parents earn up to $67,000 can still qualify for a half-voucher. And for children already in the program, their family income can rise to nearly $90,000 annually.

Yep helping those who need it most




“If the idea behind a voucher program is we’re going to have the money follow the student, if the student didn’t start in a public school, the money isn’t following them from a public school, it’s just appearing from another budget,” Stewart said. “And we’re not exactly sure where that’s coming from.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

inner city parents desperately want it. so i guess you’re saying (1) that you know better then they do, what’s best for their kids, and that (2) you aren’t really pro choice.

If you had shown the ability to EVER not tow the union line, you’d have some credibility here. If the unions told you to lay an egg, you’d squat and ask what color.

Oh you don’t like tax breaks for families making as much as $90k?

How about the $7500 tax credit for buying new electric cars? How many poor people are buying new electric cars?

as always, it’s ok when liberals do anything, such as giving. big tax credits to the rich.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
he compared an underprivileged kid in a failing school getting the opportunity to get a good education that might lift them out of poverty,,,, to him getting a subsidized membership at a private golf course....

good grief....



OK...that makes you sound a whole lot better :hs:

correct. that is exactly what it is.

Future "segregation academies"

I'm not thrilled with my town's snow removal. Maybe I can get a subsidy to hire a private contractor to make extra passes on my street when it snows.

you didn't even have to put words in their mouth like they frequently do with you...

we've learned that he doesn't believe other people are nearly as charitable as they claim and that he believes he is even more charitable than he claims....

and...

that some children should not benefit from a better education opportunity unless he get's his private country club membership subsidized....

fabulous....

and Wayne is saving the planet with an electric toaster....


can't make this stuff up....

Yes, let's make the schools better by taking away funding and the most engaged parents by subsidizing private schools. Makes sense.

See you cannot help yourself. No wonder you are an angry person with no friends on this site.

I support school choice with strict income caps. Especially in inner cities where schools are the worst. So please explain how that's aimed at sending white kids to better schools. I'm all ears.

when all else fails :rotf2:

You are incredible Paul. It was you, not me, who said you like your side because you think they have superior views on helping the poor, and that republicans don't like poor people or something. But when I remind you what you said, I'm angry. Make sense.

Paul: My side has better views on helping the poor and Republicans don't care about poor people.

Jim: you claim your side is the virtuous side

Paul: You're angry and scummy.

And try to control your snarkiness Scott, liberals really don't like it when their logic is exposed to the light of day.

Nope. Follow the math, or have a middle schooler explain the math to you. My idea of school choice leaves public schools with more money to spend per kid. "More money per kid", is the exact opposite of what you claim would happen.

So it's better to punish the "most engaged parents" by leaving them in failing sh*thole schools that you'd never, EVER send your kids to?

How does that help those most engaged parents, Paul? Please explain how denying school choice helps those parents? The ones who happen to be poor, but are doing everything the right way? How does denying them school choice help them?

The only ones hurt by school choice are the teachers left behind in the urban schools (as some of the most teachable students would leave) and the union, and therefore democrats who get $$ from the union. That's it.

told you right there.

You don't even recognize when you insult people any more