Mr. Straight to the Point

A premier wouldn't get away with a comment like that in Canada. Good for him.

Love this guy.

Several of my friends are in the same situation...paying for 'public' so called 'education' thru high taxes, but choosing to home school their kids.

BTW...our local school board is loaded....building new schools on a regular basis, as school enrollment drops. Time for another Common Sense Revolution.

You tell her.
My school board (Burnaby) has decided to support gay recruitment so the last thing I want my child doing is to go and get brainwashed by these brain-dead scumbags.
Oh nad what bluetech said, IN SPADES!!

Christie makes an important, though often overlooked, point. While acknowledging the importance of parental choice -- he and his wife feel strongly enough about the value of a religious education that they send their children to parochial schools -- he also acknowledges that every taxpayer and citizen has a legitimate interest in the operation of the public school system. That's why it is important, as long as we have elected school boards, for bluetech and other citizens, whether they have children in school or not, to take an active interest in school board politics.

Gov. Christie's caller, "Gail", sought to advance the bizarre argument that if one does not make use of public schools, one has no right to an opinion about them or perhaps that all public officials (except perhaps President Obama) should be obligated while in office to send their children to public schools.

Yeah Chris Christie!

It’s the mealy-mouthed hypocrites, who say that public education is the bee’s knees and THEN send their kids to private school, that the Gails of this world should be calling out. E.g., Stephen Lewis and his wife, Michelle Landsberg, major socialists, sent their son, Avi—yes, THAT Avi Lewis—to Upper Canada College. I’d LOVE to see any of these three in a debate with Chris Christie: he’d wipe the floor with them.

I went to a Kristian school, and don't recommend any parent punish their child in such a way!!!!

It is not a "Do as I say, not as I do" argument as the left/union types would like to make it. As the big guy said, none of your business and he still pays his fair share to the public system even if he doesn't choose to utilize it.

I think her question was fair and his answer was evasive.

The question was, "You don't send your kids to public schools so why do you think its fair to cut funding to pullic shchools?"
He answered
1. where i send my kids is my business
2. i spend $38K in taxes that support public schools
3. when i believe religious education is important and send my kids to parochial school
4. i am responsible for decisions for education of all kids in the state
so it is none of your business.

She is pointing out what is on the face of it a conflict of interest. He could acknowlege that and then claim his duty and point to whatever policy is behind the decision. I generally like this guy and what he is doing, but if this answer is representative of how he is starting to deal with objectors then he's going to lose his support.

Is there only one politician in the whole damn world that can speak his mind without fear?

"What are they going to say?"

Listened to the interview by Pierce Morgan on CNN. Christie told him exactly the same thing from beginning to end.
When Morgan asked "Why you send your childre to privite school", Christie, without loosing a beat said, "None of your business"

Seems Christie is one of the good guys regardless of political hue.

It is none of her business, he pay's the school tax via civic taxes and pays for his child's education privately unlike those that live in apartments who pay no school tax atall.

Too bad he's just anotheer RINO. He has promise.

Man, I love this guy...who is this leftist, no doubt unionist, socialist, freeloading bitch to question where he sends his kids....forget about other people and take care of your own kids and your own entitlement miserable life.

I have always said we live in a country that is so rich, that we should all be millionaires but no we are not because half of the country is full of freeloaders, unionists, socialists, free loading university students taking their b.s. degrees in the arts, basket weaving courses, brick counting, lesbian studies who do nothing but rip of taxpayers to pay for this b.s...... not to mention the left wing garbabge professors who are teaching this crap to our kids....and we wonder why they ripped apart Vancouver after the hockey game.....you reap what you sow baby....burn baby burn..

He answered her Question. He wanted a religious education for his kids. To liberals that answer is meaingless. Since to them Religious people are all just crazy. No its not any of her buisness. He pays taxes for her brat to go to the bully run public schools. Where sex education out ranks reading.

She could just as easily asked, "you don't have family members on welfare so do you think it's fair to pay taxes for those that are?"

Or "You don't have a defined-benefit pension from govt work so is it fair that your kids will be paying onerous taxes for those that do?"

But you don't hear these types of questions. Saying that, he could have answered a little better by saying the problem with education in NJ isn't money, it's standards. The education system is getting something like three times the funding it used to but scores are flat.

Gail ascertains that Chris Christie has cut funding to public schools.
Chris Christie clearly explained the funding situation last September.

http://tinyurl.com/3lurc8p

There is no good reason why people on the Left in New Jersey continue to push the lie that Chris Christie cut funding to the public schools when I know the truth up here in Alberta Canada and saw this video last September.
The only explanation is that people like Gail want to believe the lie.

"Since to them Religious people are all just crazy."

No, no, no! There's a world of difference between 'crazy' and 'delusional'!

"He pays taxes for her brat to go to the bully run public schools. Where sex education out ranks reading."

It's good that you're so passionate about reading skills - I'm sure your 16 year old daughter will be REALLY good at reading bed-time stories to her 2 year old.

If she goes to a religious school we will not have to worry as much that her morals are public school zero.

Two points: 1) the nobles suggest that "Gail's" question pointed up a conflict of interest. This is something of a stretch; one could see the claim if the Governor was bringing in education vouchers. It would still be quite justifiable, but, as his family would thereby receive a benefit, he would have to acknowledge a conflict of interest. In this case, however, neither he nor his children's school stand to benefit by his efforts to ensure that the public schools become more enconomically sustainable. The so-called conflict of interest is no more than that which could be claimed against any public figure who was childless or whose children were beyond school age.

2) Alex seems to believe that what goes by the name of "sex education" in our schools is even remotely educational (didactic, certainly, but hardly educational) and that it actually works. One of the reasons that, for many years, schools steered clear of discussions of sex, religion, and politics is that they understood how ill-prepared they were as a system (and how ill- prepared their teachers were)to treat these questions educationally. In contemporary politically correct classrooms, no teacher would dare, even if he or she were able, to undertake an open and critical approach toward "sex education".

Statistics clearly show that the teen birth rate is highest in abstinence-only states, and lowest in states with comprehensive sex-ed programs. Running around with your fingers in your ears doesn't change the facts.

Sex ed does not prevent pregnancy Alex.

I was part of the enlightened crew that wanted to solve this silly problem of teen pregnancy in the 80's with more sex ed.

Colossal failure. Fortunately I saw the light and left the public health system.
Check out the stats. Teen pregnancy and abortion have increased exponentially, along with absent fathers.
Happy Fathers day BTW.

The nobles...how is it 'conflict of interest'? He does not gain financially by looking out for the taxpayer dollar, and he doesn't gain financially by spending extra money on his kids private education, while still being taxed to the ying yang for schooling he doesn't use.

What if he didn't have kids? Would he have a right to cut the education budget then?

He's doing so for one reason: it's his job. And by his estimation it needs to be cut. That enough reason.

Back in the old days a similar ploy was attempted by the leftist Teacher's union officials in California.
Someone who knew what a real reporter's job consisted of then had the foresight to dig into the story
and discovered the interesting fact that well over half the public school teachers in
the state that had the highest public school teachers wages in the nation and some of the
worst scholastic results, were having their kids educated in non public schools! Needless to say,
once this surfaced, the Reds and their "give us more" campaign sank like a stone.

Back in the old days a similar ploy was attempted by the leftist Teacher's union officials in California.
Someone who knew what a real reporter's job consisted of then had the foresight to dig into the story
and discovered the interesting fact that well over half the public school teachers in the state that had the
highest public school teachers wages in the nation and some of the worst scholastic results, were having
their own kids educated in non public schools! Needless to say, once this surfaced, the Reds and their
"give us more" campaign sank like a stone.
.

Statistics clearly show that the teen birth rate is highest in abstinence-only states, and lowest in states with comprehensive sex-ed programs. Running around with your fingers in your ears doesn't change the facts.
Posted by: Alex at June 19, 2011 1:46 PM

Back it up. Citation please. You may very well be right (I haven't the faintest idea). But, if you're going to make an assertion about "statistics," I expect it to be properly referenced.

She is pointing out what is on the face of it a conflict of interest.
Posted by: the nobles at June 19, 2011 11:26 AM

I think you might be confused as to the nature of a conflict of interest. This certainly isn't one on "the face of it." Further deliberation on the doesn't help.

How is Gov. Christie in a conflict of interest?

christie is a false conservative:

1. pro AGW

2. no opposition to victory mosque at Ground Zero, accused survivors and conservatives of "politicizing" opposition to the mosque

3. has not supported anti-obamacare legislation (NJ actually received obamacare funds, and that's not widely known)

4. pro-islamist appointment to NJ judiciary

5. anti immigration reform

This clown is a 1-trick pony: yeah, beat up a few public school teachers in the media and go for stage bows. Ready for POTUS? Hah.

Shlub.

mhb23re

Colin:
"Back it up. Citation please."

Sure, here ya go:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf

Incidentally, you may also notice that this report clearly shows that HCW is an outright liar, since - contrary to his claim about pregnancy never being higher - "Between 1988 and 2000, teenage pregnancy rates declined in every state, and between 2000 and 2005, they fell in every state except North Dakota". North Dakota, BTW, is an 'abstinence only' state. Granted, it's only 'officially' had that status for less than a year, but their introduction of that bill gives you a feel for the attitude towards sex-ed in that state.

"You may very well be right (I haven't the faintest idea). But, if you're going to make an assertion about 'statistics,' I expect it to be properly referenced."

My apologies; I took that statement to be self evident. I've simply forgotten that a lot of people at SDA tend to wear ideological blinders, and don't get any real exposure to information which doesn't further a far-right "christian conservative" agenda. I'm always happy to provide supporting material, though, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to do so.

Here is a link to a grade eight final exam from Kansas, 1895: http://www.barefootsworld.net/1895finalexam.html. If a person takes time to look at the exam and attempt some of the questions; I daresay that most, as myself, will be humbled. Personally, I do not believe that people have lower IQs; consequently I maintain that schools are stealing time from students. Any student who graduated from Grade 8 in 1895 already had covered all the basics required to become a proper citizen. Most university graduates do not know the same basics after 17 to 20 years in the education system! The university graduate is past twenty, the grade 8 graduate in 1895 was 12 or 13 years of age. A ten year debt in education is a lot of time and money off the productive end of a person's life.

Canada's and America's education systems rob the taxpayers and the students - teachers should be required to have a proper education and the curriculum should maintain much higher expectations reflecting cost and expected return on the cost.

In the past everyone wanted to go to school because people were curious and eager to better their own lot in life through knowledge. A lot of information was crammed into school years in the 'old' days - school was a challenge and graduating was a major achievement. Today, not so much...grad is about the dress and the tux.

Gov. Christie is correct on all counts, IMO.

"outright liar"...lol...
Eat it Bub.

I was talking about Canadian schools, you know, where we are aborting about 100,000 babies a year.

I'm a she.

"I was talking about Canadian schools, you know, where we are aborting about 100,000 babies a year."

As I said, an outright liar.

Jema, while the exam you link to is interesting for the historical perspective it provides, it doesn't show what you think it shows.

Well of course alex your rigth teen age pregancies are fewer as a preganancy is considered to be a birth and instead of having a pro life and a moral consiquential perspective to sexual activity , they just say s@ck and f@ck who you like and this is how to do it and oh yeah use a condom ,birthcontrol and if you getp regnant here are the locations of all of the abortion clinic's in your local area!! real nice sex ed .

Why not teach that there are consiquences to acting on your hormones's and emotions and those can be life altering , why not teach them about the hormones and the effect's they have on a young tenn aged body both in boy's and girl and show examples of the consequences , let them know that the birth rates in all western nations have dropped dramatically since the late seventies becasue people are not being responsible or holding themselkves responsible for there actions and use abortion as an easy way out when in fact it in most cases result's in severe scaring and damage and can ruin the possibility of future healthy birth's and i will say it is more often than is reported but say maybe not more than forty percent i herd this on a radio show last year somewhere in idaho there was a lady on there explaining how it works and all of the different way's doctors abort babies and at different terms of the pregancy and the risk involved sorry i cannot rememebr who or when she was a pro life advocate and gave her website at the end of the show i do not recall it sorry for that.

Alex you are one of the reasons society is the way it is now you do not see the damage done to a society you view it a progressive step toward some eutopian dream but it is not people on the left are alway's striving to make more outo f life than we as individual humans can expierience life is simple here but you guy's are alway's tring to complicate it .

the cbc is hardly an expert on anything so i do not beleive totally there argument .

But even aside from that alex i think the parent's should decide when and how to teach there children about sex . but you would ratherh ave big govornment do your teaching as they are your god next to your self of course.

From snopes? PLEASE.....

"Well of course alex your rigth teen age pregancies are fewer as a preganancy is considered to be a birth ..."

Let me just stop you right there, before you finish your first sentence. Teen pregnancies count both live births and abortions. The pregnancy rate amongst teens has decreased, regardless of the eventual outcome of those pregnancies. Please go look at the stats, then come back and apologize for saying something which is directly contradicted by the information which I've already posted. Thanks.

I don't concur.
The citizen has a good point and is entirely her business.

From snopes? PLEASE.....
Posted by: FREE at June 19, 2011 7:17 PM Thank-you FREE - Alex's lack of concern for a dumbed down education system is aptly explained by the link.

Yes, it's true, a lot of people who believe stupid things tend to be critical of snopes. That is, of course, completely irrelevant as far as the truth of a given claim is concerned.

As far as I can make out (from lefty sites, so good going right-wing internet! [not]) Christie is pro-school vouchers. I can do without the "nonayabizznez!" Joisey schtick, because it is his constituants' buisiness, but since he's no socialist, and has in fact been fighting like hell against the evil teachers' unions, I can only applaud the man.

I've simply forgotten that a lot of people at SDA tend to wear ideological blinders, and don't get any real exposure to information which doesn't further a far-right "christian conservative" agenda.

It's none of your business if folks choose to follow SDA rather than CBC (which they help fund).

The 'far-right' tag you bestow on others is a direct reflection of your extreme-left mindset, as are your manners...

It may be true that there is a statistical correlation between lower teen pregnancy rates and "sex education" programs in schools in various states; this doesn't prove a causal connection.

Moreover, what passes for "sex education" in public schools bears no resemblance to real education. At best it is training; at worst it is indoctrination. Schools may challenge students on their technical knowledge of the proper use of butt plugs and dental dams, but I have seen no program that challenges the facile assumptions about sex and sexuality that students bring with them to school.

I love that answer. So perfect. Obviously he sends his kids to private because the public schools SUCK, more money will only make them suck more. Logically, less money will alleviate at least some of the suckage, or at least make it cheaper if still sucky.

And by the way for all above who made this point, in a free society, how the hell is it anyone's business but his where he sends his kids to school? I'm sorry, but constituents are not entitled to know stuff like that. Should they know what he's got in his sock drawer too?

By the way friends, stop feeding the f-ing troll would you? He's a waste of electrons.

Phantom - of course, whasserface's implication was that more money to the unions - er, schools - would = better education. Heh. But in Britain, for example, aggressive lefties who oppose expanding the accessibility of private schools are notorious for sending their own chidren to them. Some of these lovely, sincere people are in politics. So I can't help but think that a politician's choices for his own kids' schooling are legitimately a matter of public concern.

"It's none of your business if folks choose to follow SDA rather than CBC (which they help fund)."

I don't care what sources they follow; I do care whether they have a broad understanding of the topic being discussed, or a sophomoric familiarity based on one-sided polemics. This blinkered approach to information applies just as much to the far-left as it does the far-right.

"The 'far-right' tag you bestow on others is a direct reflection of your extreme-left mindset, as are your manners..."

Yep, the guy who repeatedly voted for Harper has an "extreme-left" mindset. How well you know me! I'm amazed that you're able to come to such accurate conclusions based on so little data.

"able to come to such accurate conclusions based on so little data."

just like the CBC?

I like Christie a great deal, but I think his answer shows why he will not be president.

He sends his kids to private school because the public school system is terrible. That should have been his answer if he was being honest.

Once a politician, always a politician. They all seem to be cut from the same cloth.

"Sure, here ya go:"
Posted by: Alex at June 19, 2011 4:36 PM

Oh, boy. The Guttmacher Institute: research arm for Planned Parenthood, the #1 supporter of abortion in the US. Aren't they the ones accused of jigging figures on global contraception and abortion to make their case for easier global abortion access?

That Guttmacher Institute?

Whatsamatter, alex? Did henry morgantaler not return your call for a quote? Why not just cite wikipedia as your "source".

As long as you're hip to sources and stats, why not cite the January/11 issue of the journal Contraception, who published results of a 10-yr study that showed, while contraceptive methods increased from 49% to 80%, the elective abortion rate doubled during that time.

How about those stats, alex?

Because we all know how effective at reducing risk of pregnancy and STD transmission condoms are, right? Oops: even Guttmacher note that condom failure rate is an eye-popping 17.4%. Whereas the success rate for abstention is 100% every time it's used. And - bonus - no blood clotting or other anticipated health issues to young girls or women who practice abstention vs the pill.

Alex is a typical lib, laying prostrate at the altar of contraception/abortion. It's curious why they are so pro-sex for young teens/kids; considering the unwanted pregnancies and disease transmission with increased teen sex, to say nothing of the negative psychological impact experienced by many young girls, you'd think they'd advocate a little bit of restraint. But abstinence-based programs are being defunded at US colleges in favor of contraception-based programs, despite the success of abstinence. Even Uganda has thrown their weight behind abstinence over contraception to fight unwanted pregnancies or disease transmission. They get it.

Perhaps that a pro-teen sex agenda is just another way to erode family values and social fabric, and we know how liberals value doing that.

mhb23re

"Whereas the success rate for abstention is 100% every time it's used"

That is just AWESOME :D No insult I could throw at you could be better than what you've just done to yourself.

Oh, and BTW, insulting the statistics isn't the same as showing that they're wrong. Just FYI. Cheers!

It IS the public's business when their leaders who run the 'public' school system, send their kids to private school.

It was the public's business to know that Teddy Kennedy who supported forced busing, sent his kids to private school.

It is the Canadian public's business to know that Stephen Lewis sent his kid to Upper Canada College, while destroying the public school system.

And Christie is grossly fat: someone who cannot control his own recklessness should not lecture others who can't.