Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Teachers' Union "thugs" receive props from Tony Messenger

Tony Messenger, dang what an ideologue! He's at it again at his blog under the title of "Dixon goes after "union thugs." Read Dixon's article here.

Following is my reply to Tony's complete disregard of any of the substance of Dixon's article. Instead, Tony Messenger (he has to be a liberal because he has a typical liberal response), sensationalizes the fact that Dixon suggested union members who hurled obscenities were displaying "thug-" like behavior rather than actually replying to the valid points Dixon made.

One more thing. Tony keeps appealing to Republicans to work with Democrats on issues vital to our children's education, and now to work with Democrats on bills they've introduced which he feels will reduce our prison population. His only criteria seems to be that Republicans should stop name calling and unquestioningly support Democrat proposals. He has refused to intelligently discuss the other side of the issue regarding HB 808, has misinterpreted and misrepresented HB 808 and yet he expects Republicans to give him and his, apparently, Democrat 'cohorts' complete consideration and respect. It isn't a one way street, Tony. The sooner you learn that the better for everyone. When will you stop sensationalizing and consider Republican bills and proposals? How is your refusal to work with Republicans different than Republicans presumed refusal to work with Democrats?

Now, here's my response at his blog:

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:41 pm Post subject: Dixon goes after "union thugs"

Dixon brought out some key points which Tony failed to address. (I quote Dixon straight from his article, except that I numbered the points):

1). HB 808 would have given students hope, improved opportunity, and used no public money.

2). Families who wanted to apply first had to do so at an accredited public school in their area. Only if rejected could they apply to a private school using the scholarship.

3). In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled in Mueller vs. Allen that tax credits are private money, not public.


Apparently, Tony still believes that the 80% of the revenues collected from private taxpayers to give scholarships to poor students in urban areas would go strictly to private schools. That is not what HB 808 specified but thus far, he refuses to acknowledge the fact that the 80% figure was designated to be used in QUALIFIED schools, qualified schools are/were identified as both public and private schools in HB 808, this fact has been called to his attention in a letter to the editor I wrote last week, though thus far, he refuses to correct his column which stated that 80% of the funds were required to go to private schools.

Now he is apparently appalled that someone would suggest that a gathering of teacher's union members yelling obscenities would constitute "thug-"like behavior? Certainly, I can see that someone who would imply that those who claim the bill was not a "voucher" bill were liars would be upset over name calling. ;)

If you can afford to send your children to a private Catholic school like Tony's own family could afford, in the case of his own high school education where he admits he received "a wonderful education," that's very special, just don't ask that those students who aren't as financially blessed to expect that same "wonderful education," why, they'd have to stay in school to receive it.

Let me ask, if these urban students in St. Louis and Kansas City are dropping out of school at percentage rates of 43% and 57% of prison inmates are drop outs, who is reaping the benefit of receipt of public revenue for their education today?

Money received from general tax revenue in Missouri by public schools will only be reduced if their student enrollment is reduced, right? Well, if 43% of students are dropping out, then NO school is receiving revenue on that 43% of students. Wouldn't it be better for SOME educational system to educate them and receive revenues than for NO educational system to educate them or receive revenue?

Are teacher's unions really saying, "If I can't have the money then NOBODY can have it!"

Further, Tony fails to address the loss of $200 million in state revenues due to drop outs in St. Louis and Kansas City, another point Dixon brought out. So, we're losing $200 million annually due to a 43% drop out rate but Tony's worried about poor, urban children's families' choosing private schools, after FIRST seeking an accredited public school in their region unsuccessfully?

Methinks Tony and the teacher's unions are so concerned about losing money that they are willing to sacrifice our state's children in the process.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

When has Tony ever let a fact get in his way. I love what jericho calls him; "No-Facts"!

Jacke M. said...

By the way, in a feeble attempt under the entry "Dear John ;)", John has attempted to suggest that those who supported HB 808 are/were Christians who are/were trying to "shove legislation down his throat."

Momma Twoop had asked:

"What kind of Christian legislation is being shoved down your throat, Mr. Stone?"

John replied:

"The kind you yourself took Tony to task for opposing today ... Gotcha...."

My reply was:

"You are confusing me with "Momma Twoop," John.

I haven't taken Tony to task for opposing HB 808, I have taken him to task for misinterpreting, misrepresenting and failing to consider the other side of the argument. He has every right to oppose it. Where I have a problem with Messenger is his lying in order to do so.

I hope that clears it up for you."

...today I would add:

Isn't it funny that, even though throughout the history of America, American Christians have had as much right to voice their opinions about issues of the day as anyone, that now, in this unique time in our history, Christians are treated by some people as though when airing any opinion on any political subject they are making some sort of effort to "shove GOD down people's throats" through legislation? Never mind that others, in some States, have tried to circumvent due process by going around the voting majority of Americans by judicial fiat, essentially shoving gays' *right* to marry down people's throats, for instance.

Some would have you believe that of all American citizens EVERYONE has a right to free speech and expression, EVERYONE has a right to express their opinion lest they be Christian. If a Christian does so, whereas no one else in the country is trying to "shove legislation down the throats of others" by expressing their political viewpoint, ONLY Christians threaten the *freedom* of other Americans when they voice support or opposition to any legislation under debate.

Will liberal tactics to silence the voices of those with whom they disagree never cease?

How UTTERLY ridiculous.

Another thing. Tony Messenger benefited from the private education his parents were able to afford him at a CATHOLIC school. Does that mean Tony Messenger is a (gasp!) Christian!? And if so, does that mean Messenger is trying to force his opinion down the throats of others when he either supports or opposes different legislation in the Missouri House? Or is that *different* because, as in the case of Katherine Yurica, John, from his lofty perch, high above the rest of us unwashed, happens to AGREE with THAT particular Christian?

Maybe Tony is one of those "Progressive Dominionists" I've written about in the past!? :O Egads!

The fact of the matter is that Tony Messenger has failed to fairly represent and discuss HB 808 in any of HIS editorials or blog entries at the Springfield News-Leader. I don't care if he opposes or opposed it or not, what I care about is his absolute denial to respect anyone's opinion on the matter which has deviated from his own.

John doesn't get it, but then it appears there are a lot of things John just doesn't *get.* Go figger.

The Libertarian Guy (tm) said...

Hey, Jacke... was that you stirrin' the puddin' on KWTO this morning? ;)

BTW! St. Patrick's Parade this Saturday! Be there and see our own Doug Burlison's City Council candidate entry. We worked mighty hard on it. :)

Jacke M. said...

Hey, where ya been, libertarian guy? Busy working on the float, I guess?

Nah, that wasn't me stirrin' puddin' on KWTO. I am embarrassed about my voice. I hate it. I don't do call in shows. I did a lot of my growing up in Bubba Clinton territory and took on thet thar hillbilly tawlk. I fight it but there's little I kin dew. ;)

Anyway, hubby and I will probably be there Saturday. Sporting our nifty Doug Burlison campaign pins. We HAVE been wearing them all over town. I also plan to interview yer/our guy for an article next week. :)

Glad you checked in! Don't stay away so long next time!

The Libertarian Guy (tm) said...

Oh, I been busy... finally updated the blogs, and slogged through some e-mails...

Hey, if you want to be IN the parade, we'd love to have you guys along.

As for the interview... I'll pass it along to Doug. E-mail me.

Agent L :)

Jacke M. said...

HAW HAW @ "Agent L"