nice school

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2008
nice school
218
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 11:33am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Chicago_Laboratory_School


Obama's girls have a nice school to attend; if public education is so great, how come his girl's don't go to public school?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
In reply to: greenie75
Wed, 11-12-2008 - 10:08pm

The only school aged child between Amy Carter and the Obama girls was Chelsea Clinton who attended public school until her parents moved to the White House, where she attended Sidwell Friends School (as did the Nixon girls.)


iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
In reply to: greenie75
Wed, 11-12-2008 - 10:12pm

"If the Obamas decide to send their children to public school, will that change your opinion of the public schools?

Will it change your opinion of Pres-elect Obama?"

His sending his kids to public schools won't effect the quality (or lack there-of) of my local schools.

It would, however, demonstrate the he is making an attempt to actually practice what he preaches with regards to public schooling. This would make him a truly different sort of politician, as many practice the same double standards he does.

Why don't we post some of his proposals and we can discuss them.

mccain image

Obama image
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
In reply to: greenie75
Wed, 11-12-2008 - 10:42pm
You are speaking only of Presidents .... plenty of other politicians hanging around DC practicing this brand of hypocrisy. This includes Mayor Fenty, who sends his own sons to private school while urging the Obamas to do as he says, not as he does.
mccain image

Obama image
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2008
In reply to: greenie75
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 12:14am

>>> This particular reply was to a poster who said Obama was a hypocrit because, even though he has means and opportunity, he should not send his kids to a private school because others 'lack that choice'

I’d have to agree with the other poster. Obama believes that it’s appropriate to take money from the “more affluent” and give it to those who did not earn it. If Obama were not a hypocrite, he would take the money for his kids private education and spread that around to others who didn’t earn it so that they could all send their kids to the same level school.

>>> My response was asking him if he believed that we should all do less and be less because others may 'lack that choice' It has no connection to spreading wealth. It has to do with questioning why someone who has means to do what they want, when and how they want are called hypocritical because not everyone has those same means and opportunity.

It’s hypocritical because Obama decides to be selective about his socialism. It’s all about social parity…so Obama shouldn’t be sending his kids to a school that’s any better than the one Joe the Plumber sends his kids too.

>>> Bill GAtes spends his money exactly how he chooses, so does Oprah, and all the other rich people in the world - and MOST of them GIVE BACK in some way that fits their own personality. Are they too hypocrites - because give how they want, not how others think they should?

No, but they haven’t advocated TAKING money from one person, who earned it, and give it to others who didn’t earn it. They make the choice to give.

>>> In response to your question " isn't this Obama's spread the wealth plan?" no - it isn't. My question/comment that you are asking about is clear "should we only do what the least of us can do?" The least of us DO NOTHING - they want a free ride without responsibility. that is the LEAST of what some Americans do. So if we do the least, which is nothing, how is wealth being shared?

That’s exactly the situation that Obama supports in his “spread the wealth” policy…he takes money from people who earn it (and are already paying most of the taxes) and handing it out to those who did NOTHING for it.

>>> I find it quite humorous that many Republicans (generally speaking) think so literally. 'Wealth' encompasses far more than money - it is something of value. Knowledge is of value. Opportunity is of value. Sharing a meal is of value to someone hungry, sharing a smile, reading to someone - these are all of value to the recipient.

Obama isn’t taking knowledge from smart people and giving it to stupid people. It’s all about monetary “wealth,” which is the point the other poster was making. If Obama is all about equity with “spreading the wealth,” then he should be putting his kids in the same school as every one else.

>>> I also find that the driving MO behind not wanting to 'spread the wealth" to be one of lack and of not having enough. If a person believes they have enough, they do - no matter what the amount - and they will share what they have becauwse their belief is in having enough. It seems that there is a belief from many posters here that if someone gains something, it means they get less. If he wins, I lose...what a lack mentality that is.

That’s Obama’s philosophy…one of fixed wealth…a one size pie, which is why he attacks “the rich.” If “the rich” have a big slice of the pie, then someone else must have a smaller one. It’s the same ridiculous argument he made during the campaign…pointing out that there is a greater divide between the wealthy and everyone else…without the slightest consideration for context. The wealthy didn’t get wealthy by making anyone else poorer.

>>> My question back to you is this: do you donate to your church or a charity?

Yes.

>>> Do you volunteer in anyway - coach, teach, mentor?

I have, but not at the moment.

>>> Do you sometimes buy someone lunch or offer a ride to someone who could use it?

Yes.

>>> If so, you are sharing your wealth. Did doing so cause you to lose anything worthwhile?

No. And I have a question for you…if you were walking down the street and a man stole your purse, that would be spreading your wealth. Why wouldn’t you feel good about it?

>>> I also laugh about how the 'spread the wealth' concept is being bashed by conservatives - this is nothing new - its been trotted out so many times by both parties. Remember Reaganomics and the 'trickle down' theory? Same thing - let the corporatons spend more, then they will hire more and people will spend more, blah, blah, blah. That tanked - the rich and the middle class saw a huge gulf develop, inflation was through the roof and homeless became a national crisis far more than it had ever been before.

You, and so many liberal Obamapologists, have an erroneous concept of what “spread the wealth” is. There is a HUGE difference between people benefiting from the expenditures or enterprise of others (Reaganomics) or benefiting, as a whole, from monies paid into a tax fund…and the government specifically taking money from one group of people who earned it and handing out cash to people who did not earn it.

>>> It really doesn't matter - we all do better as a whole when the economy is doing better - share the work, share the wealth. That's what it says in the Bible.

No it doesn’t.

>>> I also believe the reverse is true - share teh wealth, share the work or is that socialism??

I’m afraid you have a rather naïve, obviously liberal, perception of how the economy works…but I think you, and your fellow Obama supporters, are about to find out.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2008
In reply to: greenie75
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 12:18am
It may very well be. Obviously a number of people found Obama's school-hunting to be relevant to this topic. Your free to ignore them, or perhaps redirect certain conversations to points you feel are relevant, but it's pretty arrogant to dismiss other people's ideas and concerns just because they are not your ideas and concerns.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2008
In reply to: greenie75
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 12:28am

>>> If the Obamas decide to send their children to public school, will that change your opinion of the public schools?

No.

>>> Will it change your opinion of Pres-elect Obama?

It would make him seem a little less hypocritical.

>>> Since he will be our President, there is no longer a need to campaign against him, so in my opinion, where his kids go to school is irrelevant.

That doesn't seem to have been the left's opinion concerning our President over the past 8 years. For those of us who opposed Obama, we feel that it's appropriate to hold him, and those who voted for him, accountable for his actions, both personal and political.

>>> As I said, I'd hoped we could move away from that and talk about the problems and maybe even some solutions. Oh well. I tried.

I think you're overestimating the power of this venue. Still, you can offer up specific points that you'd like to address.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-28-2004
In reply to: greenie75
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 6:28am
But Obama could give some of his money to help other kids go to private school, spread some of his wealth.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
In reply to: greenie75
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 8:38am
I seem to recall that the Clinton's wanted to send Chelsea to a public school but the SS said
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-14-1999
In reply to: greenie75
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 8:56am

<<>>> It really doesn't matter - we all do better as a whole when the economy is doing better - share the work, share the wealth. That's what it says in the Bible.


No it doesn’t.>>


Yes - It DOES...


Ecclesiastes 4: 9 - 12


Toni

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-14-1999
In reply to: greenie75
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 8:59am

<>


Why are you assuming he isn't? It may not be tit for tat as you'd like to see - but don't assume that someone isn't helping others simply because its not obvious and apparent.

Toni

Toni

Pages