# Government Should Teach Traditional Values



## PoliticalChic

If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
as a shock!

This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...

In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!

C'mon....guess!


"In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."* 
As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values


Meaning???
The end is near for the Left!


Hallelujah!!


----------



## SmarterThanHick

False.  

But please keep pacifying yourself with that type of reasoning if it helps.


----------



## PoliticalChic

SmarterThanHick said:


> False.
> 
> But please keep pacifying yourself with that type of reasoning if it helps.



False???

Gallup poll is false?

Younger folks catching on to the Left-wing drivel that government schools teach, is that false?

Nah, what is false is the rumor that you scored higher on the SAT's than Horshak.

It's impossible to believe the sperm that created you, beat out 1,000,000 others.


----------



## Mad Scientist

The gov't shouldn't be in the business of teaching *any* kind of values, that's for the parents to do. The gov't should be in the business of protecting our nation and our rights and civil liberties as individuals, nothing more.


----------



## del

the govt should stfu


----------



## RadiomanATL

The right is no longer conservative.

shocker.


----------



## Foxfyre

PoliticalChic said:


> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> "In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!



Throughout human history are accounts of those who were able to reason over and above the conventional wisdom of their peers and promote a more accurate truth.

While I want government out of all forms of social engineering, it is encouraging that maybe humankind is still able to reason over and above the conventional wisdom of their peers.  If we have Americans returning to their Classical Liberal roots, again appreciating our unique and exceptional American history, roots, culture, borders, and values that have withstood the test of time, that is a breath of fresh air and very encouraging to me.

Maybe even the deplorable and unconscionable public education system has not been able to brainwash all the young and there are some still able to think and do critical reasoning in spite of all that.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Mad Scientist said:


> The gov't shouldn't be in the business of teaching *any* kind of values, that's for the parents to do. The gov't should be in the business of protecting our nationaand our rights and civil liberties as individuals, nothing more.



But they do.


1. Here, from the NYTimes: 
Which is one reason *The Story of Stuff, *a 20-minute video about the effects of human consumption, has become* a sleeper hit in classrooms across the nation*. 
Video Warning of Pitfalls of Consumption Is a Hit in Schools - NYTimes.com

2. You should take a look at what is being shown in classrooms: 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM]The Story of Stuff - YouTube[/ame]


Anti-capitalism, anti-growth, anti-prosperity.....
"some people in this system matter a little more than others"
....sure isn't traditional values being taught...


...which brings me to #3:

Proof that they've won over some 'kids'? 
Occupy Wall Street.


And that's why the Gallup poll in the OP is such amazing good news.


----------



## Jackson

The problem is you may have to define "traditional values" to some.  I doubt if we all come up with the same answers.


----------



## Disenchanted61

Government is not responsible for teaching whatever you believe " traditional values " might be,
but they sure and hell should lead by example and I have yet to see this principle being practiced,
by anybody in public imagery, or by those of previous generations.


----------



## Jackson

Schools have to go back 60 years to become successful as they once were.  Teach the basics.  Reading, Writing, 'Rithmetic, Geography, History of the US, History of the World, Civics, Literature.

Stop with the calculators.  Do not introduce computers until the 3rd grade when foundations of the basics have been mastered. Homework each night. No open book tests.

Expect parent involvement.  Expect the children to meet grade level requirements and let parents know there will be NO SOCIAL PROMOTIONS.  Parents have no say in the advancement of their child to the next grade.  A child can fail a grade twice in the primary and twice in the intermediate/high school.  Psychological testing is required if the student cannot meet the requirements after that time.

Students cannot quit school until their 18th birthday.

If a student is suspended, they receive failing marks for that day's work without an opportunity to make up the work.

Students with truancy problems or not turning in homework will have parents show up with the their child at a hearing with a school hearing officer to determine what fines, penalties will be earned.

No more foolishess.

Alternative schools will be available for those who conduct is dangerous to others with uniformed guards on site.

Parents will learn to be responsible one way or another. Court help will be available.

Make public schools as good as the private schools.  That's what we want.


----------



## FurthurBB

Jackson said:


> Schools have to go back 60 years to become successful as they once were.  Teach the basics.  Reading, Writing, 'Rithmetic, Geography, History of the US, History of the World, Civics, Literature.
> 
> Stop with the calculators.  Do not introduce computers until the 3rd grade when foundations of the basics have been mastered. Homework each night. No open book tests.
> 
> Expect parent involvement.  Expect the children to meet grade level requirements and let parents know there will be NO SOCIAL PROMOTIONS.  Parents have no say in the advancement of their child to the next grade.  A child can fail a grade twice in the primary and twice in the intermediate/high school.  Psychological testing is required if the student cannot meet the requirements after that time.
> 
> Students cannot quit school until their 18th birthday.
> 
> If a student is suspended, they receive failing marks for that day's work without an opportunity to make up the work.
> 
> Students with truancy problems or not turning in homework will have parents show up with the their child at a hearing with a school hearing officer to determine what fines, penalties will be earned.
> 
> No more foolishess.
> 
> Alternative schools will be available for those who conduct is dangerous to others with uniformed guards on site.
> 
> Parents will learn to be responsible one way or another. Court help will be available.
> 
> Make public schools as good as the private schools.  That's what we want.



Ahhh if it were only that simple.  The problem is 60 years ago we were the only country with good public education.  If we went back to teach what we taught even when I was in school, we would just fall further behind.  My children are taught so much more than I ever learned and sometimes my students teach me things I never learned.  When I got my degree, we knew nothing about innate immunity, my daughter learned more in high school about innate immunity than was known when I was still going to school.  Unfortunately, simplistic ideas are seldom the answer.  Oh, and the public school my daughter goes to is better than 98% of all private schools.


----------



## Foxfyre

Jackson said:


> The problem is you may have to define "traditional values" to some.  I doubt if we all come up with the same answers.



And that is precisely why government/schools should not be teaching or advancing 'values' other than basic integrity.  The values of many, if not most, educators today is alternate lifestyles, condoning teen pregnancy and abortion, discouraging parental rights, denigrating or promoting tradiitonal marriage as no longer important, promoting unisex, devaluing the good of our national history in order to emphasize the negatives, making it clear that God or any form of traditional religion must be kept out of sight and mind unless it is Buddhism or Islam or Paganism which can be expressed and accommodated.

When I was in the public schools long ago, the only traditional values promoted--not taught but promoted--by the schools was ethics (i.e. tell the truth, don't cheat, play fair, afford respect for parents, teachers and other authority, speak civilly, obey the law, and expect to work and honorably earn what you get) and also patriotism--respect and pride in our national exceptionalism, God, family, flag, country, and a Constitution that recognizes individual liberties as no nation has ever done.  I don't see much of that being promoted these days.


----------



## Disir

Jackson said:


> Schools have to go back 60 years to become successful as they once were.  Teach the basics.  Reading, Writing, 'Rithmetic, Geography, History of the US, History of the World, Civics, Literature.
> 
> Stop with the calculators.  Do not introduce computers until the 3rd grade when foundations of the basics have been mastered. Homework each night. No open book tests.
> 
> Expect parent involvement.  Expect the children to meet grade level requirements and let parents know there will be NO SOCIAL PROMOTIONS.  Parents have no say in the advancement of their child to the next grade.  A child can fail a grade twice in the primary and twice in the intermediate/high school.  Psychological testing is required if the student cannot meet the requirements after that time.
> 
> Students cannot quit school until their 18th birthday.
> 
> If a student is suspended, they receive failing marks for that day's work without an opportunity to make up the work.
> 
> Students with truancy problems or not turning in homework will have parents show up with the their child at a hearing with a school hearing officer to determine what fines, penalties will be earned.
> 
> No more foolishess.
> 
> Alternative schools will be available for those who conduct is dangerous to others with uniformed guards on site.
> 
> Parents will learn to be responsible one way or another. Court help will be available.
> 
> Make public schools as good as the private schools.  That's what we want.



Are you sure that you want to go back 60 years? 60 years ago there was only a 50% graduation rate.  Many of the students that go to school now, because of disabilities, would never have attended school then. 

Alternative schools are already available and already have guards. In fact, most of mainstream high schools have "school resource officers".  This is why there are so many people that are over the zero tolerance in the education system. 

25 years ago, if you were bullied, then you could confront your bully and walk away. Today, you are both arrested for battery. You may find the report School to Prison Pipeline, which is available on line, useful here. I don't know of any students that allow you to make up for the days that you have been suspended. I'm sure that they exist, but no where around here. 

The courts are already involved in Truancy.  In fact, your child can be taken away from you because it constitutes educational neglect. 

Forcing kids to stay in school until they turn 18..........what happens if they are in a state that considers them an adult at 17. How would that work? Truancy is a status offense. 

If you have a child that is failing and regular tutoring cannot help, it would be wise to have them tested early on. A child with comprehension problems is going to have different needs than a child with one of the 500 types of dyslexia. 

Homework that reinforces what is learned or allows them to go a bit further is fine. As busy work? I think we are all good.

So, since you already have most of what you want, does this alter your stance?


----------



## Wry Catcher

What are the traditional values of our nation?  Bigotry and slavery were two, a manifest destiny to annihilate the indigenous people of North America another.  Child labor, low wages and unsafe working conditions, polluting our air and water and economic panics on a regular basis.  Woman denied the franchise to vote and sectional rivalry; and a civil war and a life of labor ending one day in a poor house.


----------



## Foxfyre

Disir said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Schools have to go back 60 years to become successful as they once were.  Teach the basics.  Reading, Writing, 'Rithmetic, Geography, History of the US, History of the World, Civics, Literature.
> 
> Stop with the calculators.  Do not introduce computers until the 3rd grade when foundations of the basics have been mastered. Homework each night. No open book tests.
> 
> Expect parent involvement.  Expect the children to meet grade level requirements and let parents know there will be NO SOCIAL PROMOTIONS.  Parents have no say in the advancement of their child to the next grade.  A child can fail a grade twice in the primary and twice in the intermediate/high school.  Psychological testing is required if the student cannot meet the requirements after that time.
> 
> Students cannot quit school until their 18th birthday.
> 
> If a student is suspended, they receive failing marks for that day's work without an opportunity to make up the work.
> 
> Students with truancy problems or not turning in homework will have parents show up with the their child at a hearing with a school hearing officer to determine what fines, penalties will be earned.
> 
> No more foolishess.
> 
> Alternative schools will be available for those who conduct is dangerous to others with uniformed guards on site.
> 
> Parents will learn to be responsible one way or another. Court help will be available.
> 
> Make public schools as good as the private schools.  That's what we want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure that you want to go back 60 years? 60 years ago there was only a 50% graduation rate.  Many of the students that go to school now, because of disabilities, would never have attended school then.
> 
> Alternative schools are already available and already have guards. In fact, most of mainstream high schools have "school resource officers".  This is why there are so many people that are over the zero tolerance in the education system.
> 
> 25 years ago, if you were bullied, then you could confront your bully and walk away. Today, you are both arrested for battery. You may find the report School to Prison Pipeline, which is available on line, useful here. I don't know of any students that allow you to make up for the days that you have been suspended. I'm sure that they exist, but no where around here.
> 
> The courts are already involved in Truancy.  In fact, your child can be taken away from you because it constitutes educational neglect.
> 
> Forcing kids to stay in school until they turn 18..........what happens if they are in a state that considers them an adult at 17. How would that work? Truancy is a status offense.
> 
> If you have a child that is failing and regular tutoring cannot help, it would be wise to have them tested early on. A child with comprehension problems is going to have different needs than a child with one of the 500 types of dyslexia.
> 
> Homework that reinforces what is learned or allows them to go a bit further is fine. As busy work? I think we are all good.
> 
> So, since you already have most of what you want, does this alter your stance?
Click to expand...


In 1950, highschool graduates could read, write, do essential math, knew some history, geography, science, and generally had one or more marketable skills.  These days a highschool graduate can be functionally illiterate.  That would never have happened in the 1950's.



> The high school graduation rate is a barometer of the health of American society and the skill level of its future workforce. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, each new cohort of Americans was more likely to graduate from high school than the preceding one. This upward trend in secondary education increased worker productivity and fueled American economic growth .1
> 
> In the past 25 years, growing wage differentials between high school graduates and dropouts increased the economic incentives for high school graduation. The real wages of high school dropouts have declined since the early 1970s while those of more skilled workers have risen sharply.2 Heckman, Lochner, and Todd 3 show that in recent decades, the internal rate of return to graduating from high school versus dropping out has increased dramatically and is now above 50 percent. Therefore, it is surprising and disturbing that, at a time when the premium for skills has increased and the return to high school graduation has risen, the high school dropout rate in America is increasing. America is becoming a polarized society. Proportionately more American youth are going to college and graduating than ever before. At the same time, proportionately more are failing to complete high school.
> 
> http://www.nber.org/reporter/2008number1/heckman.html






> While the National Center for Educational Statistics reports that the rate of US high school graduation has been steadily increasing, according to a new report by James J. Heckman and Paul A. LaFontaine, it has actually declined for the last 40 years. It peaked at 80% for those born in 1950 and the most current data shows a graduation rate of just 75% (click on the graph above for a larger version).
> 
> The report details all the reason for the differences in the numbers, but the key one is that the NCES counts those who get GEDs as graduating while Heckman and LaFontaine don't. They exclude GEDs because:
> 
> Although GED recipients have the same measured academic ability as high school graduates who do not attend college, they have the economic and social outcomes of otherwise similar dropouts without certification.
> Fat Knowledge: US High School Graduation Rate Peaked 40 Years Ago


In the 1950's the HS graduation rate was around 82%
http://ftp.iza.org/dp3216.pdf

I would happily go back to the public school system of the 1940's and 50's.  It was far, far, FAR superior to what kids now get in the public schools now.   And if you add in the modern science labs, computers, and other perks that kids have now, many of those 1950's graduates would have educations equivalent to today's master's degrees.


----------



## Disir

And so much for the God factor. 
Rising atheism in America puts 'religious right on the defensive' | World news | The Observer

And so much for teaching the Christian God is wrong: 
Teaching religion and the Bible in U.S. public schools


----------



## Foxfyre

Disir said:


> And so much for the God factor.
> Rising atheism in America puts 'religious right on the defensive' | World news | The Observer
> 
> And so much for teaching the Christian God is wrong:
> Teaching religion and the Bible in U.S. public schools



The fact is over the decades, school children have been increasingly indoctrinated with the concept that their God and their religion is not welcome in the public schools. A teacher is discouraged from including ANY religious music in a school concert which means the children will not be exposed to many works of great masters such as Bach, Handel, Mendelsshohn.  Even if one or two traditional Christmas carols is included, a teacher can be fire for including one too many.  In fact Christmas is no longer tolerated in most places.  The traditional student led generic prayers at school assemblies, football games, and other events have disappeared from most of the American scene.  Schools no longer have a Baccalaureate service which was a highlight of graduation for most of us in my day--the first chance we had to wear our cap and gown.

This is one of various ways that government is imposing its own form of social engineering on the school kids.  The Founders are no doubt rolling in their graves and crying out that this is happening.


----------



## Disir

Foxfyre said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so much for the God factor.
> Rising atheism in America puts 'religious right on the defensive' | World news | The Observer
> 
> And so much for teaching the Christian God is wrong:
> Teaching religion and the Bible in U.S. public schools
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is over the decades, school children have been increasingly indoctrinated with the concept that their God and their religion is not welcome in the public schools. A teacher is discouraged from including ANY religious music in a school concert which means the children will not be exposed to many works of great masters such as Bach, Handel, Mendelsshohn.  Even if one or two traditional Christmas carols is included, a teacher can be fire for including one too many.  In fact Christmas is no longer tolerated in most places.  The traditional student led generic prayers at school assemblies, football games, and other events have disappeared from most of the American scene.  Schools no longer have a Baccalaureate service which was a highlight of graduation for most of us in my day--the first chance we had to wear our cap and gown.
> 
> This is one of various ways that government is imposing its own form of social engineering on the school kids.  The Founders are no doubt rolling in their graves and crying out that this is happening.
Click to expand...




I'm reading through the stuff on your last post-she says jokingly. 

I'm sorry that the first amendment is bothersome. We have Christmas carols at my sons school, in fact, no one is left out. Bach, Handel, Mendelsshohnn have a greater chance of being known if the parent knows them. We grew up with that and, therefore, my son grows up with it.  However, if the parent does not care for it or does not like this music then you actually have to wait for the kids to be old enough to be in a school with band. If you have a school that removes music then I guess they are doomed. Doomed, I say.  Music is usually the first thing on the chopping block. 

The Founders most definitely would not be rolling over in their graves. Their history, or their most recent history compared to those of us today, was the religious bloodshed in Europe. Elizabeth, Mary, William and Mary--the whole nine yards.  Proselytizing is not allowed. Pray in the hallway and by the flag pole but not in the classroom. No, we aren't going to promote any one Christian sect over all others nor over students that do not believe in Christianity.  If you want something more than you can always teach kids at home or take them into a private religious institution. You can teach about religion but you cannot teach religion. No, creationism is not a valid theory. 
Christians are NOT persecuted in this country.


----------



## Annie

PoliticalChic said:


> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> "In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!



I'm running off to work in a few minutes, don't have time to read through the thread, just the OP. Few times I disagree with your POV. This is one though, government's purpose should be to protect our rights and the homeland, not be 'model' in anything else. Most politicians are the most amoral folks around, which is their right in the private lives, but playing role model is not in the best interests of any of us. Nor should they pontificate how others should live their lives.

Keep government to its purpose, not in the bedrooms of the US.


----------



## Foxfyre

Disir said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so much for the God factor.
> Rising atheism in America puts 'religious right on the defensive' | World news | The Observer
> 
> And so much for teaching the Christian God is wrong:
> Teaching religion and the Bible in U.S. public schools
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is over the decades, school children have been increasingly indoctrinated with the concept that their God and their religion is not welcome in the public schools. A teacher is discouraged from including ANY religious music in a school concert which means the children will not be exposed to many works of great masters such as Bach, Handel, Mendelsshohn.  Even if one or two traditional Christmas carols is included, a teacher can be fire for including one too many.  In fact Christmas is no longer tolerated in most places.  The traditional student led generic prayers at school assemblies, football games, and other events have disappeared from most of the American scene.  Schools no longer have a Baccalaureate service which was a highlight of graduation for most of us in my day--the first chance we had to wear our cap and gown.
> 
> This is one of various ways that government is imposing its own form of social engineering on the school kids.  The Founders are no doubt rolling in their graves and crying out that this is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm reading through the stuff on your last post-she says jokingly.
> 
> I'm sorry that the first amendment is bothersome. We have Christmas carols at my sons school, in fact, no one is left out. Bach, Handel, Mendelsshohnn have a greater chance of being known if the parent knows them. We grew up with that and, therefore, my son grows up with it.  However, if the parent does not care for it or does not like this music then you actually have to wait for the kids to be old enough to be in a school with band. If you have a school that removes music then I guess they are doomed. Doomed, I say.  Music is usually the first thing on the chopping block.
> 
> The Founders most definitely would not be rolling over in their graves. Their history, or their most recent history compared to those of us today, was the religious bloodshed in Europe. Elizabeth, Mary, William and Mary--the whole nine yards.  Proselytizing is not allowed. Pray in the hallway and by the flag pole but not in the classroom. No, we aren't going to promote any one Christian sect over all others nor over students that do not believe in Christianity.  If you want something more than you can always teach kids at home or take them into a private religious institution. You can teach about religion but you cannot teach religion. No, creationism is not a valid theory.
> Christians are NOT persecuted in this country.
Click to expand...


Sorry but your education re the Founders' beliefs seem to be woefully inadequate or misguided.

Not a single person who signed the original Constitution would have agreed that the Constitution was intended to give the federal government power to order municipal schools to remove The Ten Commandments and the Bible.  Or would have suggested that traditional Christmas carols, including the religious ones, would be inappropriate during a federally recognized national holiday.

The Founders' opinion of the Bible, and of its use in schools, was clear among the documents and writings that we still have at our disposal.  Not only did they approve but promoted Bible reading and/or prayer in the classroom.  What they would not have approved was the requirement that any child (or adult for that matter) be required to pay attention to the reading or the prayer or to agree with it or comment on it in any way nor should any child be disallowed from appropriately doing so.


----------



## Jackson

I never expected to get the interesting answers that I did.  Thank you!  By traditional values, I certainly meant integrity, honesty and hard work. just as Foxfyre mentioned.  Certainly not ever changing PC or social engineering.

If we could come to the society where families worked together with the nearly same set of values of hard work and wanting our children to excel instead of making excuses for them....that would be an enormous achievement.  Somewhere along the line, we gave too much or took too much without the the sacrifice and hard work until it finally became the game plan and people lost their sense of responsibility.

That's what I was trying to force us back to.  And at that point the learning would be unlimited.  Foreign languages would be taught in middle school and subjects once regarded as college level would be common place in high school.  Trades could be taught in high school and kids could be on their way to skilled tradesmen with the amount of money we throw at education these days.

Instead, remedial reading classes are offered in college. We dropped the ball somewhere.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Jackson said:


> The problem is you may have to define "traditional values" to some.  I doubt if we all come up with the same answers.




Astute observation.


>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SmarterThanHick said:


> False.
> 
> But please keep pacifying yourself with that type of reasoning if it helps.



A perfect example of being close minded. Just because you disagree with what the poll indicated you reject the fact that many young people think differently.


----------



## Disir

Foxfyre said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is over the decades, school children have been increasingly indoctrinated with the concept that their God and their religion is not welcome in the public schools. A teacher is discouraged from including ANY religious music in a school concert which means the children will not be exposed to many works of great masters such as Bach, Handel, Mendelsshohn.  Even if one or two traditional Christmas carols is included, a teacher can be fire for including one too many.  In fact Christmas is no longer tolerated in most places.  The traditional student led generic prayers at school assemblies, football games, and other events have disappeared from most of the American scene.  Schools no longer have a Baccalaureate service which was a highlight of graduation for most of us in my day--the first chance we had to wear our cap and gown.
> 
> This is one of various ways that government is imposing its own form of social engineering on the school kids.  The Founders are no doubt rolling in their graves and crying out that this is happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm reading through the stuff on your last post-she says jokingly.
> 
> I'm sorry that the first amendment is bothersome. We have Christmas carols at my sons school, in fact, no one is left out. Bach, Handel, Mendelsshohnn have a greater chance of being known if the parent knows them. We grew up with that and, therefore, my son grows up with it.  However, if the parent does not care for it or does not like this music then you actually have to wait for the kids to be old enough to be in a school with band. If you have a school that removes music then I guess they are doomed. Doomed, I say.  Music is usually the first thing on the chopping block.
> 
> The Founders most definitely would not be rolling over in their graves. Their history, or their most recent history compared to those of us today, was the religious bloodshed in Europe. Elizabeth, Mary, William and Mary--the whole nine yards.  Proselytizing is not allowed. Pray in the hallway and by the flag pole but not in the classroom. No, we aren't going to promote any one Christian sect over all others nor over students that do not believe in Christianity.  If you want something more than you can always teach kids at home or take them into a private religious institution. You can teach about religion but you cannot teach religion. No, creationism is not a valid theory.
> Christians are NOT persecuted in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but your education re the Founders' beliefs seem to be woefully inadequate or misguided.
> 
> Not a single person who signed the original Constitution would have agreed that the Constitution was intended to give the federal government power to order municipal schools to remove The Ten Commandments and the Bible.  Or would have suggested that traditional Christmas carols, including the religious ones, would be inappropriate during a federally recognized national holiday.
> 
> The Founders' opinion of the Bible, and of its use in schools, was clear among the documents and writings that we still have at our disposal.  Not only did they approve but promoted Bible reading and/or prayer in the classroom.  What they would not have approved was the requirement that any child (or adult for that matter) be required to pay attention to the reading or the prayer or to agree with it or comment on it in any way nor should any child be disallowed from appropriately doing so.
Click to expand...


Which documents would those be?


----------



## Disir

@ Foxfyre, 

I am going to hold off on responding to Hackland's findings. There are several points that I agree with in that study.  That said, I want to read through it a couple more times. But, bring on the other documents.


----------



## WorldWatcher

PoliticalChic said:


> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> "In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!




An another poster said, "traditional values" is a nebulous term that means different things to different people.  To some it means absolutley no sex before marriage, marriage between a man and a woman only, and homosexuals are barred from military service (all traditional), and there are probably some that want to return to making sodomy type sex between consenting adults criminal.

So when you look at the Gallup results on the traditional values question, remember that Gallup also shows that the trend has been to be MORE accepting in some areas that may conflict with an individuals definition of "traditional values".

For example, since there has been a trend to being more accepting of homosexual relationships.  In 1996 68% opposed Same-sex Civil Marriage and 27% approved, today the numbers are 45% opposed and 53% approve.  You can also look at homosexuals being able to serve under the same conditions in the military.  In 2004 support for the repeal of DADT was at 63% and by 2009/2010 had risen to between 67%-70% (with increases in all demographics measured: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals, Republican, Independent, Democrats, Weekly Religious Attendance, Monthly Religious Attendance, Seldom Religious Attendance. 



Do I think traditional values should be taught in school?  Sure do, things like acceptance of diversity, citizens have the right of equal treatment by the government, things like honesty, respect for others, hard word leads to success, etc.



>>>>


----------



## Foxfyre

Disir said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm reading through the stuff on your last post-she says jokingly.
> 
> I'm sorry that the first amendment is bothersome. We have Christmas carols at my sons school, in fact, no one is left out. Bach, Handel, Mendelsshohnn have a greater chance of being known if the parent knows them. We grew up with that and, therefore, my son grows up with it.  However, if the parent does not care for it or does not like this music then you actually have to wait for the kids to be old enough to be in a school with band. If you have a school that removes music then I guess they are doomed. Doomed, I say.  Music is usually the first thing on the chopping block.
> 
> The Founders most definitely would not be rolling over in their graves. Their history, or their most recent history compared to those of us today, was the religious bloodshed in Europe. Elizabeth, Mary, William and Mary--the whole nine yards.  Proselytizing is not allowed. Pray in the hallway and by the flag pole but not in the classroom. No, we aren't going to promote any one Christian sect over all others nor over students that do not believe in Christianity.  If you want something more than you can always teach kids at home or take them into a private religious institution. You can teach about religion but you cannot teach religion. No, creationism is not a valid theory.
> Christians are NOT persecuted in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but your education re the Founders' beliefs seem to be woefully inadequate or misguided.
> 
> Not a single person who signed the original Constitution would have agreed that the Constitution was intended to give the federal government power to order municipal schools to remove The Ten Commandments and the Bible.  Or would have suggested that traditional Christmas carols, including the religious ones, would be inappropriate during a federally recognized national holiday.
> 
> The Founders' opinion of the Bible, and of its use in schools, was clear among the documents and writings that we still have at our disposal.  Not only did they approve but promoted Bible reading and/or prayer in the classroom.  What they would not have approved was the requirement that any child (or adult for that matter) be required to pay attention to the reading or the prayer or to agree with it or comment on it in any way nor should any child be disallowed from appropriately doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which documents would those be?
Click to expand...


Here you go:
Founding and Founders

If not included here, you also have to go over the notes, letters, speeches, and similar items that we have retained of the Founders.  Most are on display at the Smithsonian and Library of Congress but most are available on line if you hunt for them.


----------



## Disir

I'm familiar with those documents are there any of them that you would like to pull out or would you like me to pull them out?


----------



## Foxfyre

Disir said:


> I'm familiar with those documents are there any of them that you would like to pull out or would you like me to pull them out?



No need on my part.  I've read and been 'cross examined' on most.  But you'll be hard put to pull out anything in context written by any of those who signed the Constitution that would not support God being welcome in any public school.  The first Congress, following ratification of the Constitution, was still holding church services in the House and Senate chambers.  Their intent was separation of Church and State--neither would have any power over the other--but it was never to separate religion and government.


----------



## hortysir

PoliticalChic said:


> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> &quot;In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today.&quot;*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!



  I wasn't aware that it was my government's place to teach me anything  :shrug:


----------



## PoliticalChic

Annie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> "In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm running off to work in a few minutes, don't have time to read through the thread, just the OP. Few times I disagree with your POV. This is one though, government's purpose should be to protect our rights and the homeland, not be 'model' in anything else. Most politicians are the most amoral folks around, which is their right in the private lives, but playing role model is not in the best interests of any of us. Nor should they pontificate how others should live their lives.
> 
> Keep government to its purpose, not in the bedrooms of the US.
Click to expand...


I don't mind disagreement.

Sometimes, as in this case, I think the difficulty is in defining the problem.

First, education is part of the job of government...just not the federal government. Every state contains an education provision.

Someof the values which I do not want in public schools include the Left-wing view of business, especially free market. Did you see "The Story of Stuff"?

I want children to be encouraged to be on time, to honor and respect their elders....the exact opposite of the Woodrow Wilson- Progressive view of education.

No global warming 'theory,' no Earth Day.

No deprecating references to religion.

I want to see excellence rewarded, competition encouraged and poor efforts and lack of attendance be treated correctly, not ignored. I want children to learn to stand up for their views, and for themselves.

I want calculators and educrats out and content-rich subject matter restored.

And the motto taught in every classroom should be the words of Calvin Coolidge: 
"Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."

That, for a start.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Jackson said:


> Schools have to go back 60 years to become successful as they once were.  Teach the basics.  Reading, Writing, 'Rithmetic, Geography, History of the US, History of the World, Civics, Literature.
> 
> Stop with the calculators.  Do not introduce computers until the 3rd grade when foundations of the basics have been mastered. Homework each night. No open book tests.
> 
> Expect parent involvement.  Expect the children to meet grade level requirements and let parents know there will be NO SOCIAL PROMOTIONS.  Parents have no say in the advancement of their child to the next grade.  A child can fail a grade twice in the primary and twice in the intermediate/high school.  Psychological testing is required if the student cannot meet the requirements after that time.
> 
> Students cannot quit school until their 18th birthday.
> 
> If a student is suspended, they receive failing marks for that day's work without an opportunity to make up the work.
> 
> Students with truancy problems or not turning in homework will have parents show up with the their child at a hearing with a school hearing officer to determine what fines, penalties will be earned.
> 
> No more foolishess.
> 
> Alternative schools will be available for those who conduct is dangerous to others with uniformed guards on site.
> 
> Parents will learn to be responsible one way or another. Court help will be available.
> 
> Make public schools as good as the private schools.  That's what we want.



All I am reading here is a bunch of authoritarian fluff with no practical application.


----------



## Jackson

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Schools have to go back 60 years to become successful as they once were.  Teach the basics.  Reading, Writing, 'Rithmetic, Geography, History of the US, History of the World, Civics, Literature.
> 
> Stop with the calculators.  Do not introduce computers until the 3rd grade when foundations of the basics have been mastered. Homework each night. No open book tests.
> 
> 2.)Expect parent involvement.  Expect the children to meet grade level requirements and let parents know there will be NO SOCIAL PROMOTIONS.  Parents have no say in the advancement of their child to the next grade.  A child can fail a grade twice in the primary and twice in the intermediate/high school.  Psychological testing is required if the student cannot meet the requirements after that time.
> 
> Students cannot quit school until their 18th birthday.
> 
> If a student is suspended, they receive failing marks for that day's work without an opportunity to make up the work.
> 
> Students with truancy problems or not turning in homework will have parents show up with the their child at a hearing with a school hearing officer to determine what fines, penalties will be earned.
> 
> No more foolishess.
> 
> Alternative schools will be available for those who conduct is dangerous to others with uniformed guards on site.
> 
> Parents will learn to be responsible one way or another. Court help will be available.
> 
> Make public schools as good as the private schools.  That's what we want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I am reading here is a bunch of authoritarian fluff with no practical application.
Click to expand...


I disagree.  The problem we have now is 1)  *not allowing the children to master the foundational subjects in elementary school. * Parents don't want their children held back.  Teachers don't want to damage the child's self concept (except they let them go on to be the stand out failure in  the following grade).  Principals often want to get the "problem students" out of the building as soon as they can.

Let them have another turn in their present grade and give them a chance to excel and master the reading and math skills to be a success in the next grade.  They won't have another chance anywhere else.

*2.)Expect the parents to be part of the child's education*.  Parent conferences must be kept and if the student is not performing to what the teacher feels is the best to their ability, she must meet with the [parent to discuss what they can do together to motivate the child.  

*3)The principal shouild be meeting with every teacher every quarter and talk about "at risk" students*.  The teacher should be documenting all communications she has had with ther parents and what accommodations they have created to ensure the students success.

This isn't fluff, nor is teaching just a job.  This is a concerted effort on the part of the parent , the teacher and the administration to mold this youngster into an educated successful student.

Everyone should be held accountable as briefed in my earlier post.


----------



## WorldWatcher

PoliticalChic said:


> And the motto taught in every classroom should be the words of Calvin Coolidge:
> "Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."
> 
> That, for a start.




I would making sure that each and every child in this country understand what TANSTAAFL means.





>>>>


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Survey question: 



> Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view?



How can one respond without defining what constitutes traditional values? 



> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!



What an idiotic extrapolation given theres no criteria as to what traditional values are. 



> Younger folks catching on to the Left-wing drivel that government schools teach, is that false?



The survey question above says nothing about schools, much less left or right teaching, whatever thats supposed to be. 

In your blind lust to make the left look bad, you only succeed in looking ignorant and foolish.


----------



## Disir

Actually, I'm going to use all of the documents that were used for the founding of this country. These documents I obtained from your own link. 

This country was founded on the social contract theory. John Locke's Second Treatise of Government provided the basis  of the DOl.  The social contract theory says we have consented to a government for the betterment of society. This means that you decide not to be your own vigilante and appeal to a higher authority to have your case heard. 
Look here: 


> Sec. 13. To this strange doctrine, viz. That in the state of nature
> every one has the executive power of the law of nature, I doubt not but
> it will be objected, that it is unreasonable for men to be judges in
> their own cases, that selflove will make men partial to themselves and
> their friends: and on the other side, that ill nature, passion and
> revenge will carry them too far in punishing others; and hence nothing
> but confusion and disorder will follow, and that therefore God hath
> certainly appointed government to restrain the partiality and violence
> of men. I easily grant, that civil government is the proper remedy for
> the inconveniencies of the state of nature, which must certainly be
> great, where men may be judges in their own case, since it is easy to be
> imagined, that he who was so unjust as to do his brother an injury, will
> scarce be so just as to condemn himself for it: but I shall desire those
> who make this objection, to remember, that absolute monarchs are but
> men; and if government is to be the remedy of those evils, which
> necessarily follow from men's being judges in their own cases, and the
> state of nature is therefore not to be endured, I desire to know what
> kind of government that is, and how much better it is than the state of
> nature, where one man, commanding a multitude, has the liberty to be
> judge in his own case, and may do to all his subjects whatever he
> pleases, without the least liberty to any one to question or controul
> those who execute his pleasure and in whatsoever he doth, whether led by
> reason, mistake or passion, must be submitted to. Much better it is in
> the state of nature, wherein men are not bound to submit to the unjust
> will of another. And if he that judges, judges amiss in his own, or any
> other case, he is answerable for it to the rest of mankind.
> 
> Sec. 14. It is often asked as a mighty objection, where are, or ever were
> there any men in such a state of nature? To which it may suffice as an
> answer at present, that since all princes and rulers of independent
> governments all through the world, are in a state of nature, it is plain the
> world never was, nor ever will be, without numbers of men in that state. I
> have named all governors of independent communities, whether they are, or
> are not, in league with others: for it is not every compact that puts an end
> to the state of nature between men, but only this one of agreeing together
> mutually to enter into one community, and make one body politic; other
> promises, and compacts, men may make one with another, and yet still be in
> the state of nature. The promises and bargains for truck, &c. between the
> two men in the desert island, mentioned by Garcilasso de la Vega, in his
> history of Peru; or between a Swiss and an Indian, in the woods of America,
> are binding to them, though they are perfectly in a state of nature, in
> reference to one another: for truth and keeping of faith belongs to men, as
> men, and not as members of society.
> 
> Sec. 15. To those that say, there were never any men in the state of nature,
> I will not only oppose the authority of the judicious Hooker, Eccl. Pol.
> lib. i. sect. 10, where he says, The laws which have been hitherto
> mentioned, i.e. the laws of nature, do bind men absolutely, even as they are
> men, although they have never any settled fellowship, never any solemn
> agreement amongst themselves what to do, or not to do: but forasmuch as we
> are not by ourselves sufficient to furnish ourselves with competent store of
> things, needful for such a life as our nature doth desire, a life fit for
> the dignity of man; therefore to supply those defects and imperfections
> which are in us, as living single and solely by ourselves, we are naturally
> induced to seek communion and fellowship with others: this was the cause of
> men's uniting themselves at first in politic societies. But I moreover
> affirm, that all men are naturally in that state, and remain so, till by
> their own consents they make themselves members of some politic society; and
> I doubt not in the sequel of this discourse, to make it very clear.


http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.txt

This was actually a response to Thomas Hobbes Leviathan and his state of nature and views that the state of war was constant. Hobbes says people are born evil. 
The Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes


What does Locke say? Locke says, you may dissolve the government when the legislative is altered. Chapter XIX: 


> Sec. 214. First, That when such a single person, or prince, sets up his own arbitrary will in place of the laws, which are the will of the society, declared by the legislative, then the legislative is changed: for that being in effect the legislative, whose rules and laws are put in execution, and required to be obeyed; when other laws are set up, and other rules pretended, and inforced, than what the legislative, constituted by the society, have enacted, it is plain that the legislative is changed. Whoever introduces new laws, not being thereunto authorized by the fundamental appointment of the society, or subverts the old, disowns and overturns the power by which they were made, and so sets up a new legislative.
> 
> Sec. 215. Secondly, When the prince hinders the legislative from assembling in its due time, or from acting freely, pursuant to those ends for which it was constituted, the legislative is altered: for it is not a certain number of men, no, nor their meeting, unless they have also freedom of debating, and leisure of perfecting, what is for the good of the society, wherein the legislative consists: when these are taken away or altered, so as to deprive the society of the due exercise of their power, the legislative is truly altered; for it is not names that constitute governments, but the use and exercise of those powers that were intended to accompany them; so that he, who takes away the freedom, or hinders the acting of the legislative in its due seasons, in effect takes away the legislative, and puts an end to the government.
> 
> Sec. 216. Thirdly, When, by the arbitrary power of the prince, the electors, or ways of election, are altered, without the consent, and contrary to the common interest of the people, there also the legislative is altered: for, if others than those whom the society hath authorized thereunto, do chuse, or in another way than what the society hath prescribed, those chosen are not the legislative appointed by the people.
> 
> Sec. 217. Fourthly, The delivery also of the people into the subjection of a foreign power, either by the prince, or by the legislative, is certainly a change of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the government: for the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one intire, free, independent society, to be governed by its own laws; this is lost, whenever they are given up into the power of another.


John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 19


The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed,  That whenever any Form
of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath
shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,
and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the
patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which
constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of
the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and
usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a
candid world.

     He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and
     necessary for the public good.
     He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate
     and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation
     till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he
     has utterly neglected to attend to them.
     He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of
     large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish
     the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right
     inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. 
     He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
     uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public
     Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into
     compliance with his measures. 
     He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for
     opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the
     people.
     He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to
     cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers,
     incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large
     for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time
     exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and
     convulsions within.
     He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these
     States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for
     Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to
     encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of
     new Appropriations of Lands.
     He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing
     his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
     He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the
     tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their
     salaries.
     He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither
     swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their
     substance.
     He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies
     without the Consent of our legislatures.
     He has affected to render the Military independent of and
     superior to the Civil power.
     He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction
     foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws;
     giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
     For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
     For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for
     any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of
     these States:
     For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
     For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: 
     For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by
     Jury:
     For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended
     offences
     For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a
     neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary
     government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at
     once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same
     absolute rule into these Colonies:
     For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable
     Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our
     Governments:
     For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring
     themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases
     whatsoever.
     He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his
     Protection and waging War against us.
     He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our
     towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. 
     He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign
     Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and
     tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty &
     perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and
     totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized nation.
     He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the
     high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the
     executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall
     themselves by their Hands. 
     He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has
     endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the
     merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an
     undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the
most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by
repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act
which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have
warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an
unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the
circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to
their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties
of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would
inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have
been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore,
acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold
them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in
General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the
world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority
of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That
these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent
States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and
that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is
and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States,
they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances,
establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which
Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this
Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we
mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred
Honor.


They are dissolving themselves from a monarchy with state religion. Are they not? They are utilizing the contract theory to create a new government. They have listed usurpations and abuses that are found in the Second Treatise, you will find them if you read it. And in this we have the basis of the what we desire in society. God is great for men but not in the public sphere. 

I'm not done. But, I am hungry. So, I am going to take a break and be back in a bit.


----------



## Disir

One last thing before I stop for a second: 
John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration

Thomas Jefferson did not sign the constitution but I am going to use him anyway. 


Thomas Jefferson


> Draft For A Bill For Establishing Religious Freedom, 1779
> *** Quote ***
> 
> SECTION I.
> Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
> SECT. II.
> WE the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
> SECT. III.
> AND though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.


From Revolution to Reconstruction: Presidents: Thomas Jefferson: Draft For A Bill 1779


----------



## Foxfyre

Disir, you're going to really annoy people or kill the thread if you continue along those lines as what you are posting has zero to do with either traditional values or religious activity of any sort in the schools.  All you are doing is cluttering up the thread with a lot of irrelevent material however relevant it might be to other issues.

I think we are all in agreement that the Founders had no intention of allowing the Church or any religious entity to be the government or any component of government.  Why?  Because they saw a person's religious beliefs and convictions as an unalienable right not to be touched, influenced, or regulated by any government entity.

But there is a profound difference between the Church being the state or a ruling authority within the State and allowing religion to be a part of government, education, or any other aspect of society.  Absolutely the government should not be promoting or favoring any religious belief or doctrine of any kind.  But in my opinion, the Founders were of one accord that neither should the government prohibit the free exercise of religion wherever it is exercised unless it is infringing on somebody else's unalienable rights.

You can post every syllable designated as a founding document and it won't change that fact on whit.


----------



## Cuyo

PoliticalChic said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gov't shouldn't be in the business of teaching *any* kind of values, that's for the parents to do. The gov't should be in the business of protecting our nationaand our rights and civil liberties as individuals, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they do.
> 
> 
> 1. Here, from the NYTimes:
> Which is one reason *The Story of Stuff, *a 20-minute video about the effects of human consumption, has become* a sleeper hit in classrooms across the nation*.
> Video Warning of Pitfalls of Consumption Is a Hit in Schools - NYTimes.com
> 
> 2. You should take a look at what is being shown in classrooms:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM]The Story of Stuff - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> Anti-capitalism, anti-growth, anti-prosperity.....
> "some people in this system matter a little more than others"
> ....sure isn't traditional values being taught...
> 
> 
> ...which brings me to #3:
> 
> Proof that they've won over some 'kids'?
> Occupy Wall Street.
> 
> 
> And that's why the Gallup poll in the OP is such amazing good news.
Click to expand...


Question.  Have you been keeping track of how many times you've posted that video?

Do you think it's more profound this time around?


----------



## Wry Catcher

*What are the traditional values of our nation?* 

Bigotry and slavery were two, a manifest destiny to annihilate the indigenous people of North America another. Child labor, low wages and unsafe working conditions, polluting our air and water and economic panics on a regular basis. Women denied the franchise to vote, sectional rivalry; a civil war and a life of labor ending one day in a poor house.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Foxfyre said:


> Absolutely the government should not be promoting or favoring any religious belief or doctrine of any kind.  But in my opinion, the Founders were of one accord that neither should the government prohibit the free exercise of religion wherever it is exercised unless it is infringing on somebody else's unalienable rights




Just a clarification, when you say "the government [should not] prohibit the free exercise of religion wherever it is exercised unless it is infringing on somebody else's unalienable rights" what qualifies as "Free Exercise".  Are you referring to private citizens exercising the religion, or do you mean government resources, taxes, and capital being used as a part of exercising religion?



>>>>


----------



## Poli_Sigh

Now if there is one thing I do not want from the Federal Government it would have to be a lesson in values since they don't have any.

Perhaps a better idea would be to require everyone in Government to take that lesson, because quite frankly I'm positive they don't know what they are. They could also use several lessons covering such subjects as principles, morals and honesty.


----------



## Foxfyre

WorldWatcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely the government should not be promoting or favoring any religious belief or doctrine of any kind.  But in my opinion, the Founders were of one accord that neither should the government prohibit the free exercise of religion wherever it is exercised unless it is infringing on somebody else's unalienable rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a clarification, when you say "the government [should not] prohibit the free exercise of religion wherever it is exercised unless it is infringing on somebody else's unalienable rights" what qualifies as "Free Exercise".  Are you referring to private citizens exercising the religion, or do you mean government resources, taxes, and capital being used as a part of exercising religion?
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


I'm saying that the Founders never intended that the Federal government would have any power to dictate what religious activities the local community would have in the schools or not have in the schools.  If the local school enjoys the highschool choir performing Handel's Messiah every Christmas--that was a huge tradition when I was growing up and people came from miles around to hear us--then the local school should be able to perform Handel's Messiah along with any other Christmas music, religious or not.  The schools should be able to have a Christmas tree instead of a holiday tree if they want it and to have Christmas parties if they want them and start the day with voluntary prayer if they want to.

What the local school  should not do is require the students to participate nor can they prefer one religion over another. 

I grew up in schools where Christmas carols and prayers were common and ordinary and though we had quite a few Jewish kids, Native American kids, and non church-going kids and lots of Protestants and Roman Catholics, it was simply never a problem for anybody.  We recognized Hannukah too and some of the Indian high holy days and everybody enjoyed sharing cultures.  And in twelve years and all through college, I can tell you the religious affiliation of only two of all my teachers--and the political affiliation of none.

It was good.


----------



## Disir

Foxfyre said:


> Disir, you're going to really annoy people or kill the thread if you continue along those lines as what you are posting has zero to do with either traditional values or religious activity of any sort in the schools.  All you are doing is cluttering up the thread with a lot of irrelevent material however relevant it might be to other issues.
> 
> I think we are all in agreement that the Founders had no intention of allowing the Church or any religious entity to be the government or any component of government.  Why?  Because they saw a person's religious beliefs and convictions as an unalienable right not to be touched, influenced, or regulated by any government entity.
> 
> But there is a profound difference between the Church being the state or a ruling authority within the State and allowing religion to be a part of government, education, or any other aspect of society.  Absolutely the government should not be promoting or favoring any religious belief or doctrine of any kind.  But in my opinion, the Founders were of one accord that neither should the government prohibit the free exercise of religion wherever it is exercised unless it is infringing on somebody else's unalienable rights.
> 
> You can post every syllable designated as a founding document and it won't change that fact on whit.





> The fact is over the decades, school children have been increasingly indoctrinated with the concept that their God and their religion is not welcome in the public schools. A teacher is discouraged from including ANY religious music in a school concert which means the children will not be exposed to many works of great masters such as Bach, Handel, Mendelsshohn. Even if one or two traditional Christmas carols is included, a teacher can be fire for including one too many. In fact Christmas is no longer tolerated in most places. The traditional student led generic prayers at school assemblies, football games, and other events have disappeared from most of the American scene. Schools no longer have a Baccalaureate service which was a highlight of graduation for most of us in my day--the first chance we had to wear our cap and gown.
> 
> This is one of various ways that government is imposing its own form of social engineering on the school kids. The Founders are no doubt rolling in their graves and crying out that this is happening.






Infringing.  

You learn about fairy tales in elementary school and then you move on. You can pray in the hallways, next to the flagpole and silently in class. You can carry a bible with you on any public school grounds. You may not have class led prayer and you may not teach Christianity. You may teach about it. You can sing Christmas carols and you may present some Christmas stuff providing that there are other symbols around it.

Establishing where those rights came from is fundamental. I find it unfortunate that you are unwilling to engage in that. 

The Constitution did not set up a "Christian Country".


----------



## Wry Catcher

So, what are traditional American values?  List them or, STFU.  Using terms which one cannot define is foolish (that means it makes the author appear to be a fool).


----------



## Wry Catcher

I'm waiting.


----------



## Jackson

Cuyo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gov't shouldn't be in the business of teaching *any* kind of values, that's for the parents to do. The gov't should be in the business of protecting our nationaand our rights and civil liberties as individuals, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they do.
> 
> 
> 1. Here, from the NYTimes:
> Which is one reason *The Story of Stuff, *a 20-minute video about the effects of human consumption, has become* a sleeper hit in classrooms across the nation*.
> Video Warning of Pitfalls of Consumption Is a Hit in Schools - NYTimes.com
> 
> 2. You should take a look at what is being shown in classrooms:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM]The Story of Stuff - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> Anti-capitalism, anti-growth, anti-prosperity.....
> "some people in this system matter a little more than others"
> ....sure isn't traditional values being taught...
> 
> 
> ...which brings me to #3:
> 
> Proof that they've won over some 'kids'?
> Occupy Wall Street.
> 
> 
> And that's why the Gallup poll in the OP is such amazing good news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Question.  Have you been keeping track of how many times you've posted that video?
> 
> Do you think it's more profound this time around?
Click to expand...


I didn't watch your video, forgive me, time is short.  But I do want to address what is called the "hidden agenda", or "hidden curriculum" which is what you might be talking about.  

That is just a matter of the teacher teaching in a manner of respect to the children and expecting the same in return.  It also involves honesty, trust and optimism throughout the day.  We have to remember the teacher is generally the second authority figure the child will interact with beyond the family.  It is important that they respect and honor rules of a classroom and above all, the rights and privileges of one another.

These are the basic and traditional values that I am talking about.


----------



## Poli_Sigh

> The Constitution did not set up a "Christian Country".



Most Christians are confused about that.  Anytime the word God is mentioned in the Constitution they've been programmed to think Jesus Christ.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Still waiting.  Please define and list traditional American values:

1.  Slavery
2.  Bigotry
3.  Extermination of indigenous people
4.  ?


----------



## Disir

Poli_Sigh said:


> The Constitution did not set up a "Christian Country".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Christians are confused about that.  Anytime the word God is mentioned in the Constitution they've been programmed to think Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...


Yes, and I have to wonder if it will take a theocracy to remember what all of this was for.


----------



## Jackson

Wry Catcher said:


> Still waiting.  Please define and list traditional American values:
> 
> 1.  Slavery
> 2.  Bigotry
> 3.  Extermination of indigenous people
> 4.  ?



Those are not traditional values.


----------



## Disir

Wry Catcher said:


> Still waiting.  Please define and list traditional American values:
> 
> 1.  Slavery
> 2.  Bigotry
> 3.  Extermination of indigenous people
> 4.


4.  Forced sterilization


----------



## Samson

Mad Scientist said:


> The gov't shouldn't be in the business of teaching *any* kind of values, that's for the parents to do. The gov't should be in the business of protecting our nation and our rights and civil liberties as individuals, nothing more.



You mean....the same parents who cannot manage to do something as naturally simple as feeding their kids at home are suppose to teach anything as abstract as "values?"



Good Luck with that.


----------



## Samson

Jackson said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting.  Please define and list traditional American values:
> 
> 1.  Slavery
> 2.  Bigotry
> 3.  Extermination of indigenous people
> 4.  ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not traditional values.
Click to expand...


Not unless you're wrytarded.


----------



## Disir

Jackson said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting.  Please define and list traditional American values:
> 
> 1.  Slavery
> 2.  Bigotry
> 3.  Extermination of indigenous people
> 4.  ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not traditional values.
Click to expand...


No but it does keep us honest.


----------



## eots

PoliticalChic said:


> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> "In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!



REALLY ! WELL  THAT SOUNDS JUST...SWELL !!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOxGRuKFwJg&feature=fvwrel]The Trouble With Women (1959) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Sky Dancer

You want a theocracy?  It's coming.  Vote for Rick Perry.


----------



## Foxfyre

Jackson said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting.  Please define and list traditional American values:
> 
> 1.  Slavery
> 2.  Bigotry
> 3.  Extermination of indigenous people
> 4.  ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not traditional values.
Click to expand...


But so many educated in the government schools in the last several decades have been brainwashed into believing those are/were traditional values.  They have been conditioned to think of negatives first and wipe any positives off the screen.  They are really pathetic actually, but if the OP is right, the pendulum is beginning to swing in the other direction and some are beginning to see, read, and think for themselves again.  That would be a very very good thing.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Traditional values=racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, slavery, women and children as property, lynch mobs, capital punishment.

Outlawing abortion
Abstinence only education
Outlawing homosexuality
Creationism taught in science class
Forced prayer in schools


----------



## jillian

del said:


> the govt should stfu



well, unlike what the misleading prevaricating o/p would have you believe ... most of the country seems to agree...

what was ACTUALLY said in the link:



> PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' once-prevailing view that government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society has weakened in the past decade. Today 48% hold that view, while nearly as many, 46%, say government should not favor any particular set of values.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Take a look at which posters favor this.  Big surprise.


----------



## Wiseacre

I don't want the gov't teaching or promoting any values, that is the job of the parents and family and nobody else.    Some might include the church they belong to, but not the gov't under any circumstances.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Wiseacre said:


> I don't want the gov't teaching or promoting any values, that is the job of the parents and family and nobody else.    Some might include the church they belong to, but not the gov't under any circumstances.



I agree.  USMB posters don't.


----------



## Foxfyre

jillian said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> the govt should stfu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, unlike what the misleading prevaricating o/p would have you believe ... most of the country seems to agree...
> 
> what was ACTUALLY said in the link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' once-prevailing view that government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society has weakened in the past decade. Today 48% hold that view, while nearly as many, 46%, say government should not favor any particular set of values.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


But are YOU being dishonest Jillian?  The OP focused on the young, not the whole.  In the same link:



> In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today.



So my theory is that as the older 'more traditional values' generation dies off, you have that large group that tuned out, zoned out, dropped out of the conventional wisdom and scorned the traditional American institutions and values and that middle aged 'baby boomer' group are no doubt changing the demographics.

But hopefully the younger generation coming up haven't bought into the anti-establishment mindset and are beginning to think critically for themselves.  And that could get us back into a much better place than we have been.


----------



## jillian

Foxfyre said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> the govt should stfu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, unlike what the misleading prevaricating o/p would have you believe ... most of the country seems to agree...
> 
> what was ACTUALLY said in the link:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But are YOU being dishonest Jillian?  The OP focused on the young, not the whole.  In the same link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So my theory is that as the older 'more traditional values' generation dies off, you have that large group that tuned out, zoned out, dropped out of the conventional wisdom and scorned the traditional American institutions and values and that middle aged 'baby boomer' group are no doubt changing the demographics.
> 
> But hopefully the younger generation coming up haven't bought into the anti-establishment mindset and are beginning to think critically for themselves.  And that could get us back into a much better place than we have been.
Click to expand...


i don't care what your "theory" is... that isn't what the link said.

the link implies that old BS about government somehow being responsible for our morality is dying out.

and good riddance to it...


----------



## alan1

Wry Catcher said:


> Still waiting.  Please define and list traditional American values:
> 
> 1.  Slavery
> 2.  Bigotry
> 3.  Extermination of indigenous people
> 4.  ?






Sky Dancer said:


> Traditional values=racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, slavery, women and children as property, lynch mobs, capital punishment.
> 
> Outlawing abortion
> Abstinence only education
> Outlawing homosexuality
> Creationism taught in science class
> Forced prayer in schools



Ya'll seem to have a warped perception about the values of others,  Does it make you feel better to define it that way, then assign it to those that you disagree with?


----------



## Foxfyre

jillian said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, unlike what the misleading prevaricating o/p would have you believe ... most of the country seems to agree...
> 
> what was ACTUALLY said in the link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But are YOU being dishonest Jillian?  The OP focused on the young, not the whole.  In the same link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So my theory is that as the older 'more traditional values' generation dies off, you have that large group that tuned out, zoned out, dropped out of the conventional wisdom and scorned the traditional American institutions and values and that middle aged 'baby boomer' group are no doubt changing the demographics.
> 
> But hopefully the younger generation coming up haven't bought into the anti-establishment mindset and are beginning to think critically for themselves.  And that could get us back into a much better place than we have been.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't care what your "theory" is... that isn't what the link said.
> 
> the link implies that old BS about government somehow being responsible for our morality is dying out.
> 
> and good riddance to it...
Click to expand...


Well I've read and re-read the OP and I sure didn't see that in it.  I didn't find any reference to morality at all.  I did find the reference, as I quoted here, that the younger generation is WANTING the government to promote traditional values.  It remains to be seen if that younger generation sees traditional values as the same thing I call traditional values, but I'm guessing we are pretty close.

You seem to be seeing something very different from that.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

PoliticalChic said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> But please keep pacifying yourself with that type of reasoning if it helps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False???
> 
> Gallup poll is false?
> 
> Younger folks catching on to the Left-wing drivel that government schools teach, is that false?
> 
> Nah, what is false is the rumor that you scored higher on the SAT's than Horshak.
> 
> It's impossible to believe the sperm that created you, beat out 1,000,000 others.
Click to expand...

The fact that a poll was administered and had results is not the part that's false.  Your ridiculous conclusion from it is.

Has anyone defined "traditional values" yet?  Better yet: what is the point of school?  I thought it was for education, not "values."


----------



## Photonic

Yes. The government should teach a regression of human social values and advancement.


Good fucking job.


----------



## hortysir

Wry Catcher said:


> *What are the traditional values of our nation?*
> 
> Bigotry and slavery were two, a manifest destiny to annihilate the indigenous people of North America another. Child labor, low wages and unsafe working conditions, polluting our air and water and economic panics on a regular basis. Women denied the franchise to vote, sectional rivalry; a civil war and a life of labor ending one day in a poor house.



And we learned and grew from these things and rose to be the greatest nation on earth in spite of those things.

Are you Barack's opening act for his World Apology Tour II??


----------



## Disir

What is pathetic is that people have no supporting documents indicating that teaching the bible in a public classroom would be acceptable, walk around with a persecution complex and attempt to exploit a one question poll as if that is proof. 

That is utter nonsense.


----------



## Bfgrn

PoliticalChic said:


> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> "In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!



Yes, complete conformity and assimilation is on the horizon...Hallelujah!!






Hallelujah!! Hallelujah!! Hallelujah!!


----------



## Disir

Whose up for a round of Duck and Cover? 

Ah, nostalgia.


----------



## editec

_WHOSE_ traditional values?

It isn't like this nation doesn't have and hasn't always had, widely different traditional values.

One example of traditional American values in collision?

*The CIVIL WAR pitted one cherished traditional value against another.*

In that case the tradition of the South's "_particular instituion"_ was weighed on the balance of a bloody civil war, and was found wanting.


----------



## daveman

Wry Catcher said:


> What are the traditional values of our nation?  Bigotry and slavery were two, a manifest destiny to annihilate the indigenous people of North America another.  Child labor, low wages and unsafe working conditions, polluting our air and water and economic panics on a regular basis.  Woman denied the franchise to vote and sectional rivalry; and a civil war and a life of labor ending one day in a poor house.


Yeah, yeah, America sucks.  We get it.  

But I can't help but notice that you're still here.


----------



## Dot Com

Dr. Paul et al are correct in their, and my, view that you can't legislate morality. Thats the family's job.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Jackson said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting.  Please define and list traditional American values:
> 
> 1.  Slavery
> 2.  Bigotry
> 3.  Extermination of indigenous people
> 4.  ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not traditional values.
Click to expand...


So you say.  What evidence do you have to support such a claim?

The South was built by the hands of slaves.  Slaying suspected witches had its day in New England and religious intolerance continues today (Islam, Wicca, Mormons are current examples); the entire Manifest Destiny theme became cause and justification to take the land and livelihood of the indigenous people of the lower forty-eight and don't forget the bias and discrimination of the Irish, Italian and German immigrants to our land.

I would love to say that Americans have always treasured the Golden Rule; a simple perusal of the many threads and messages on this forum suggests otherwise.  But no, America doesn't suck as Daveboy wants everyone to believe that's my argument.  I hope others are brighter than he - of course as dim as he is that hope is likely realized.  I'm simply asking a question.  The whole "Moral Majority" movement should have died with Jerry Falwell and the obvious senility of Pat Robertson, for it is neither moral and it does not represent a majority of our citizens.


----------



## rdean

Right Wing "traditional values":

Let him die.

We are going to an execution, so don't forget the picnic basket.

You are on your own.

Only "charity" is good.  

Supporting your fellow American is "socialism".  

I don't want to be forced into helping victims of disasters.

Voter suppression is OK.  They didn't have an ID card.  (86 convictions out of the last 300,000,000 votes could have changed the election.  Considering that the GOP practices voter suppression, want to bet the majority of those 86 were Republican?)

Science is bad.

Education is bad.

Government is bad.

Investing in America is bad.

Rich people are good.

Job Creators are "gods".

If those are "traditional values", keep them.  I like the new ones better.


----------



## PoliticalChic

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Survey question:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can one respond without defining what constitutes traditional values?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What an idiotic extrapolation given theres no criteria as to what traditional values are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Younger folks catching on to the Left-wing drivel that government schools teach, is that false?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The survey question above says nothing about schools, much less left or right teaching, whatever thats supposed to be.
> 
> In your blind lust to make the left look bad, you only succeed in looking ignorant and foolish.
Click to expand...


"In your blind lust to make the left look bad, you only succeed in looking ignorant and foolish."

Jonesy...I just love the frequency with which *your posts misfire*!
(Sure hope that's not the case in your private life!!!)


"...blind lust to make the left look bad,..."
Now, we can discuss 'blind lust' another time...

...but once again *you fail *at being able to see the real pic....
...the Left needs no help in looking bad!
And the current view of the left, which we will see memorialized by the national spanking about to occur in 2012...we owe largely to Barack Hussein Obama (peace be on him).

Did you see this in the OP: "the percentage of young adults -- aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values *has been steadily increasing in recent years*, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today." 
*Especially during the Obama administraton*!!!
Coincidence, eh????

Not hardly. Americans may want the handouts that the Left promises...but they, especially the young...are catching on to the lack of substance in the promises.

So, Jonesy, join me now: one-two-three:
HALLELUJAH!

And...best of luck with that little problem.....


----------



## Samson

Wiseacre said:


> I don't want the gov't teaching or promoting any values, that is the job of the parents and family and nobody else.    Some might include the church they belong to, but not the gov't under any circumstances.



So, a school should not promote "respect?"


----------



## jillian

Samson said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want the gov't teaching or promoting any values, that is the job of the parents and family and nobody else.    Some might include the church they belong to, but not the gov't under any circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, a school should not promote "respect?"
Click to expand...


that isn't what anyone is talking about.

you know what they're referring to.

but nice snide answer.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wry Catcher said:


> Still waiting.  Please define and list traditional American values:
> 
> 1.  Slavery
> 2.  Bigotry
> 3.  Extermination of indigenous people
> 4.  ?



I couldn't have paid a shill to do a better job of illustrtrating *why the real American values *should be taught.

There is actually a certain weak-minded, bitter group of failures, a minority of the population,  who come away from what is called education believing as Wry-boy does.

Wry...you and I should take this show on the road!

How about we call it *Dolt and Deb*! (See...I gave you top billing!)


----------



## Moonglow

schools do teach respect


----------



## Samson

jillian said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want the gov't teaching or promoting any values, that is the job of the parents and family and nobody else.    Some might include the church they belong to, but not the gov't under any circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, a school should not promote "respect?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that isn't what anyone is talking about.
> 
> you know what they're referring to.
> 
> but nice snide answer.
Click to expand...


Respect is a value?

Wiseacre said he doesn't want gov't teaching *ANY* values.

I simply asked if he meant that respect was NOT a value........


----------



## rdean

Moonglow said:


> schools do teach respect



Many right wingers never went to school long enough to know what it is exactly they teach.


----------



## Moonglow

schools teach honor


----------



## Samson

Moonglow said:


> schools do teach respect



Yes, I know.

They also teach what "Empathy" means.

They also teach "Anti bullying," a class Jillian may need to review......


----------



## Wry Catcher

PoliticalChic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting.  Please define and list traditional American values:
> 
> 1.  Slavery
> 2.  Bigotry
> 3.  Extermination of indigenous people
> 4.  ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't have paid a shill to do a better job of illustrtrating *why the real American values *should be taught.
> 
> There is actually a certain weak-minded, bitter group of failures, a minority of the population,  who come away from what is called education believing as Wry-boy does.
> 
> Wry...you and I should take this show on the road!
> 
> How about we call it *Dolt and Deb*! (See...I gave you top billing!)
Click to expand...


How about Lie and Wry, and you may have top billing?  BTW, you lost the debate.  An ad hominem attack = a grade of failure; "F" in common parlance.

You may earn some credit if you will (can) answer the following:

What are Traditional American Values?  (Hint)  One might answer that our nation is the only nation in history to define itself as Judeo Christian.  So, oh wise one, what does that mean in terms of mores/valuews and how does that fit within the historical background of the US?


----------



## daveman

rdean said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> schools do teach respect
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many right wingers never went to school long enough to know what it is exactly they teach.
Click to expand...












Reality called.  It said its leg is getting tired from kicking your ass so often.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Disir said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting.  Please define and list traditional American values:
> 
> 1.  Slavery
> 2.  Bigotry
> 3.  Extermination of indigenous people
> 4.
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Forced sterilization
Click to expand...


Now, you have a point there...but why would you indict what appears to be your side of the aisle???

Doesn't seem that bright....oh, that explains it!


For those unaware, the Progressives, the liberals, were strongly in favor of forced sterilization and euthenasia.

Not the conservatives.

1.	The most whitewashed of *liberal iniquities is eugenics*. The primary blurring is in ignoring the meaning of the term eugenics: the use of state power to improve the racial, genetic, or biological health of the community.

2. *the Progressive Era was also a time of vicious, state-sponsored racism.* In fact, from the standpoint of African-American history, the Progressive Era qualifies as arguably the single worst period since Emancipation. The wholesale disfranchisement of Southern black voters occurred during these years, as did the rise and triumph of Jim Crow. Furthermore, as the Westminster College historian David W. Southern notes in his recent book," *The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 1900-1917*", the very worst of it--disfranchisement, segregation, race baiting, lynching--"went hand-in-hand with the most advanced forms of southern progressivism" *race-based pseudoscience* that dominated educated opinion at the turn of the 20th century. One bestseller, Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race (1916), discussed the concept of "race suicide," the theory that inferior races were out-breeding their betters. President Theodore Roosevelt was one of many Progressives captivated by this notion: He opposed voting rights for African-American men, which were guaranteed by the 15th amendment, on the grounds that the black race was still in its adolescence. Such thinking, which emphasized "expert" opinion and advocated sweeping governmental power, fit perfectly within the Progressive worldview, When bigots become reformers: the Progressive Era's shameful record on race | Reason | Find Articles

3. Madison Grant, eugenicist, was responsible for one of the most famous works of scientific racism, The Passing of the Great Race, sold some million and a half copies, and played an active role in crafting strong immigration restriction and anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. Grant's works of "scientific racism" have been cited to demonstrate that many of the *genocidal and eugenic ideas *associated with the Third Reich did not arise specifically in Germany, and in fact that many of them had origins in other countries including the United States. Edwin Black: War Against the Weak. Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, Four Walls Eight Windows: 2003, pp. 259, 273, 274-275, 296

a.	Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of hisThe Case for Sterilization. (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)

b. The most revered of liberal icons, *Oliver Wendell Holmes, concurred with eugenics, to the extent that he attempted to write it into the Constitution.* . In 1927, a young unwed mother named Carrie Buck was sterilized against her will by order of the Supreme Court, decision (Buck v. Bell) written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said : The principle that sustains *compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. *It turned out that she was not retarded, as the state had contended. Based on the Buck Decision, more than 60 thousand were operated on across the U.S. as late as the 1970s. And the opinion was adopted in Germany, where, within a year, some 56 thousand German patients had been sterilized.

c.	The *only vote against the state, in an 8-1 decision was the archconservative and only Catholic *on the court, Pierce Butler. Butler was a Roman Catholic and a Democrat, but was also, most importantly, *a political conservative. *Pierce Butler

"Ultimately, *60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized * legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America's most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes."
War Against The Weak - Home Page


I could add so much more...but I thank you for giving me the opportunity to demonstrate the depredations of the Left.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting.  Please define and list traditional American values:
> 
> 1.  Slavery
> 2.  Bigotry
> 3.  Extermination of indigenous people
> 4.  ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't have paid a shill to do a better job of illustrtrating *why the real American values *should be taught.
> 
> There is actually a certain weak-minded, bitter group of failures, a minority of the population,  who come away from what is called education believing as Wry-boy does.
> 
> Wry...you and I should take this show on the road!
> 
> How about we call it *Dolt and Deb*! (See...I gave you top billing!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about Lie and Wry, and you may have top billing?  BTW, you lost the debate.  An ad hominem attack = a grade of failure; "F" in common parlance.
> 
> You may earn some credit if you will (can) answer the following:
> 
> What are Traditional American Values?  (Hint)  One might answer that our nation is the only nation in history to define itself as Judeo Christian.  So, oh wise one, what does that mean in terms of mores/valuews and how does that fit within the historical background of the US?
Click to expand...


1. "How about Lie and Wry,..." 
Oh, man...that was funny! Good stuff, Wry!

2. "BTW, you lost the debate.  An ad hominem attack = a grade of failure; "F" ...
Hey...how come you get to do the grading....?

3. ....but if you do, 
"How about Lie and Wry, and you may have top billing..."
I guess you failed, too...huh?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Daveboy, you never get it.  Look at the chart and consider the cost of college and why one might register as a Republican and why one might register as a Democrat. 

The answer of course is those who grow up in a family whose work is in white collar jobs, banking, insurance, brokerage companies, etc. seek degrees in Business, Finance, Marketing, etc.

Those who grow up in families where the bread winner is in the trades or in a union job may apprentice, attend a trade school/community college or join the military.


----------



## Wry Catcher

PoliticalChic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't have paid a shill to do a better job of illustrtrating *why the real American values *should be taught.
> 
> There is actually a certain weak-minded, bitter group of failures, a minority of the population,  who come away from what is called education believing as Wry-boy does.
> 
> Wry...you and I should take this show on the road!
> 
> How about we call it *Dolt and Deb*! (See...I gave you top billing!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about Lie and Wry, and you may have top billing?  BTW, you lost the debate.  An ad hominem attack = a grade of failure; "F" in common parlance.
> 
> You may earn some credit if you will (can) answer the following:
> 
> What are Traditional American Values?  (Hint)  One might answer that our nation is the only nation in history to define itself as Judeo Christian.  So, oh wise one, what does that mean in terms of mores/valuews and how does that fit within the historical background of the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. "How about Lie and Wry,..."
> Oh, man...that was funny! Good stuff, Wry!
> 
> 2. "BTW, you lost the debate.  An ad hominem attack = a grade of failure; "F" ...
> Hey...how come you get to do the grading....?
> 
> 3. ....but if you do,
> "How about Lie and Wry, and you may have top billing..."
> I guess you failed, too...huh?
Click to expand...


You have the right to grade too.  And now, since you could not or would not answer the question I will (with my bleeding heart) give you an incomplete.  As I'm off to the 9er game (v. Tampa, where my sister-in-law and her hubby reside) I must take my leave, allowing you all afternoon to work on you're answer.  Spelling and grammar will not be graded but will be considered in terms of your reasoning.


----------



## Foxfyre

hortysir said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What are the traditional values of our nation?*
> 
> Bigotry and slavery were two, a manifest destiny to annihilate the indigenous people of North America another. Child labor, low wages and unsafe working conditions, polluting our air and water and economic panics on a regular basis. Women denied the franchise to vote, sectional rivalry; a civil war and a life of labor ending one day in a poor house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we learned and grew from these things and rose to be the greatest nation on earth in spite of those things.
> 
> Are you Barack's opening act for his World Apology Tour II??
Click to expand...


That does seem to be the drumbeat of the left, including our Fearless Leader, who hold up the negatives of the past as sins of the present even as they scorn the very values that ended those same negatives.


----------



## Disir

PoliticalChic said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting.  Please define and list traditional American values:
> 
> 1.  Slavery
> 2.  Bigotry
> 3.  Extermination of indigenous people
> 4.
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Forced sterilization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, you have a point there...but why would you indict what appears to be your side of the aisle???
> 
> Doesn't seem that bright....oh, that explains it!
> 
> 
> For those unaware, the Progressives, the liberals, were strongly in favor of forced sterilization and euthenasia.
> 
> Not the conservatives.
> 
> 1.	The most whitewashed of *liberal iniquities is eugenics*. The primary blurring is in ignoring the meaning of the term &#8216;eugenics:&#8217; the use of state power to improve the racial, genetic, or biological health of the community.
Click to expand...


I don't know how to break this to you but the United States was a leader in the Eugenics movement and that includes your little conservative group. 



> 2. *&#8220;&#8230;the Progressive Era was also a time of vicious, state-sponsored racism.* In fact, from the standpoint of African-American history, the Progressive Era qualifies as arguably the single worst period since Emancipation. The wholesale disfranchisement of Southern black voters occurred during these years, as did the rise and triumph of Jim Crow.


Furthermore, as the Westminster College historian David W. Southern notes in his recent book," *The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 1900-1917*", the very worst of it--disfranchisement, segregation, race baiting, lynching--"went hand-in-hand with the most advanced forms of southern progressivism"&#8230; *race-based pseudoscience* that dominated educated opinion at the turn of the 20th century. One bestseller, Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race (1916), discussed the concept of "race suicide," the theory that inferior races were out-breeding their betters. President Theodore Roosevelt was one of many Progressives captivated by this notion: He opposed voting rights for African-American men, which were guaranteed by the 15th amendment, on the grounds that the black race was still in its adolescence. Such thinking, which emphasized "expert" opinion and advocated sweeping governmental power, fit perfectly within the Progressive worldview,&#8221; When bigots become reformers: the Progressive Era's shameful record on race | Reason | Find Articles
[/QUOTE]
The above link is a book review. 





> . Madison Grant, eugenicist, was responsible for one of the most famous works of scientific racism, &#8220;The Passing of the Great Race,&#8221; sold some million and a half copies, and played an active role in crafting strong immigration restriction and anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. Grant's works of "scientific racism" have been cited to demonstrate that many of the *genocidal and eugenic ideas *associated with the Third Reich did not arise specifically in Germany, and in fact that many of them had origins in other countries including the United States. Edwin Black: War Against the Weak. Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, Four Walls Eight Windows: 2003, pp. 259, 273, 274-275, 296



Do you know this group? About Us I bet you do. Do you know what kind of research they fund? I bet you do. 

Do you know who founded it? I bet you haven't a clue. 
The Founders

You will encounter those founders on  pp. 259, 273, 274-275, 296 of Edwin Black: War Against the Weak. Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, Four Walls Eight Windows: 2003. I own this book.  Madison is not a "good guy" but let's not kid ourselves here. 



> a.	Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his&#8220;The Case for Sterilization.&#8221; (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)



And he did too send a letter to the author, a little bit more
The Master Race - Boston Magazine



> b. The most revered of liberal icons, *Oliver Wendell Holmes, concurred with eugenics, to the extent that he attempted to write it into the Constitution.* . In 1927, a young unwed mother named Carrie Buck was sterilized against her will by order of the Supreme Court, decision (Buck v. Bell) written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said : &#8221;The principle that sustains *compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.&#8221; *It turned out that she was not retarded, as the state had contended. Based on the Buck Decision, more than 60 thousand were operated on across the U.S. as late as the 1970&#8217;s. And the opinion was adopted in Germany, where, within a year, some 56 thousand German &#8216;patients&#8217; had been sterilized
> 
> c.	The *only vote against the state, in an 8-1 decision was the archconservative and only Catholic *on the court, Pierce Butler. &#8220;Butler was a Roman Catholic and a Democrat, but was also, most importantly, *a political conservative.&#8221; *Pierce Butler
> 
> "Ultimately, *60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized *&#8212; legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America's most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes."
> War Against The Weak - Home Page
> 
> I could add so much more...but I thank you for giving me the opportunity to demonstrate the depredations of the Left.



You lack critically thinking skills and are short on historical knowledge. Now go back and read the information that is on the War Against the Weak. I think you tossed your cookies the first time that you read it. It might actually be better for you if you bought the book. Or at this point, any book located in the non-fiction section of your local library. You will find your conservatives. It will keep you honest.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Disir said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Forced sterilization
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, you have a point there...but why would you indict what appears to be your side of the aisle???
> 
> Doesn't seem that bright....oh, that explains it!
> 
> 
> For those unaware, the Progressives, the liberals, were strongly in favor of forced sterilization and euthenasia.
> 
> Not the conservatives.
> 
> 1.	The most whitewashed of *liberal iniquities is eugenics*. The primary blurring is in ignoring the meaning of the term eugenics: the use of state power to improve the racial, genetic, or biological health of the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how to break this to you but the United States was a leader in the Eugenics movement and that includes your little conservative group.
> 
> Furthermore, as the Westminster College historian David W. Southern notes in his recent book," *The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 1900-1917*", the very worst of it--disfranchisement, segregation, race baiting, lynching--"went hand-in-hand with the most advanced forms of southern progressivism" *race-based pseudoscience* that dominated educated opinion at the turn of the 20th century. One bestseller, Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race (1916), discussed the concept of "race suicide," the theory that inferior races were out-breeding their betters. President Theodore Roosevelt was one of many Progressives captivated by this notion: He opposed voting rights for African-American men, which were guaranteed by the 15th amendment, on the grounds that the black race was still in its adolescence. Such thinking, which emphasized "expert" opinion and advocated sweeping governmental power, fit perfectly within the Progressive worldview, When bigots become reformers: the Progressive Era's shameful record on race | Reason | Find Articles
Click to expand...

The above link is a book review. 





> . Madison Grant, eugenicist, was responsible for one of the most famous works of scientific racism, The Passing of the Great Race, sold some million and a half copies, and played an active role in crafting strong immigration restriction and anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. Grant's works of "scientific racism" have been cited to demonstrate that many of the *genocidal and eugenic ideas *associated with the Third Reich did not arise specifically in Germany, and in fact that many of them had origins in other countries including the United States. Edwin Black: War Against the Weak. Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, Four Walls Eight Windows: 2003, pp. 259, 273, 274-275, 296



Do you know this group? About Us I bet you do. Do you know what kind of research they fund? I bet you do. 

Do you know who founded it? I bet you haven't a clue. 
The Founders

You will encounter those founders on  pp. 259, 273, 274-275, 296 of Edwin Black: War Against the Weak. Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, Four Walls Eight Windows: 2003. I own this book.  Madison is not a "good guy" but let's not kid ourselves here. 



> a.	Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of hisThe Case for Sterilization. (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)



And he did too send a letter to the author, a little bit more
The Master Race - Boston Magazine



> b. The most revered of liberal icons, *Oliver Wendell Holmes, concurred with eugenics, to the extent that he attempted to write it into the Constitution.* . In 1927, a young unwed mother named Carrie Buck was sterilized against her will by order of the Supreme Court, decision (Buck v. Bell) written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said : The principle that sustains *compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. *It turned out that she was not retarded, as the state had contended. Based on the Buck Decision, more than 60 thousand were operated on across the U.S. as late as the 1970s. And the opinion was adopted in Germany, where, within a year, some 56 thousand German patients had been sterilized
> 
> c.	The *only vote against the state, in an 8-1 decision was the archconservative and only Catholic *on the court, Pierce Butler. Butler was a Roman Catholic and a Democrat, but was also, most importantly, *a political conservative. *Pierce Butler
> 
> "Ultimately, *60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized * legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America's most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes."
> War Against The Weak - Home Page
> 
> I could add so much more...but I thank you for giving me the opportunity to demonstrate the depredations of the Left.



You lack critically thinking skills and are short on historical knowledge. Now go back and read the information that is on the War Against the Weak. I think you tossed your cookies the first time that you read it. It might actually be better for you if you bought the book. Or at this point, any book located in the non-fiction section of your local library. You will find your conservatives. It will keep you honest.[/QUOTE]

1. So, we agree....the Progressives, and the Progressive Era....represent the very worst aspects of America and American history.
Very good.

2. The modern progressives? Clinton and Obama....

3. Now, your homework: learn how to use the quotes in your posts..


----------



## Disir

You are ignorant and lack the capacity to critically think. That is your problem. Not mine. 
See if your nearest library is still open. Hurry.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Disir said:


> You are ignorant and lack the capacity to critically think. That is your problem. Not mine.
> See if your nearest library is still open. Hurry.



1. So, we agree....the Progressives, and the Progressive Era....represent the very worst aspects of America and American history.
Very good.

2. The modern progressives? Clinton and Obama....

3. Now, your homework: learn how to use the quotes in your posts..

Did you want to say 'sorry'?


----------



## Disir

PoliticalChic said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignorant and lack the capacity to critically think. That is your problem. Not mine.
> See if your nearest library is still open. Hurry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So, we agree....the Progressives, and the Progressive Era....represent the very worst aspects of America and American history.
> Very good.
> 
> 2. The modern progressives? Clinton and Obama....
> 
> 3. Now, your homework: learn how to use the quotes in your posts..
> 
> Did you want to say 'sorry'?
Click to expand...


I'm not sorry about anything. You pulled from an obvious right wing site. You utilized book reviews rather than having read the material. Now, go fuck yourself.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Disir said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignorant and lack the capacity to critically think. That is your problem. Not mine.
> See if your nearest library is still open. Hurry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So, we agree....the Progressives, and the Progressive Era....represent the very worst aspects of America and American history.
> Very good.
> 
> 2. The modern progressives? Clinton and Obama....
> 
> 3. Now, your homework: learn how to use the quotes in your posts..
> 
> Did you want to say 'sorry'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sorry about anything. You pulled from an obvious right wing site. You utilized book reviews rather than having read the material. Now, go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...


OOOOOhhhh....naughty language....usually means you've lost the arguement.
And you have.

You provided naught to refute the facts that I provided...that Progressives have regularly felt the need to kill those they find less than up to their standards.

And, you actually agreed that force sterilization was exactly what I said it was, it's provenance and its results.
Progressives.
And let's not forget abortion...right, Progressives.
Disgusting examples of humanity, eh?

Now it's time for you to go home and set up the Slip and Slide so it ends in the knife drawer.
Is that too 'progressive'?


----------



## Lisa4Catholics

The government should stay out of education period, it has gone down hill since they got involved, like everything else they touch.


----------



## uscitizen

Umm just which traditional values should the government teach?


----------



## Disir

PoliticalChic said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So, we agree....the Progressives, and the Progressive Era....represent the very worst aspects of America and American history.
> Very good.
> 
> 2. The modern progressives? Clinton and Obama....
> 
> 3. Now, your homework: learn how to use the quotes in your posts..
> 
> Did you want to say 'sorry'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sorry about anything. You pulled from an obvious right wing site. You utilized book reviews rather than having read the material. Now, go fuck yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OOOOOhhhh....naughty language....usually means you've lost the arguement.
> And you have.
> 
> You provided naught to refute the facts that I provided...that Progressives have regularly felt the need to kill those they find less than up to their standards.
> 
> And, you actually agreed that force sterilization was exactly what I said it was, it's provenance and its results.
> Progressives.
> And let's not forget abortion...right, Progressives.
> Disgusting examples of humanity, eh?
> 
> Now it's time for you to go home and set up the Slip and Slide so it ends in the knife drawer.
> Is that too 'progressive'?
Click to expand...


Abortion is a choice. Don't want one? Don't have one. Sanger's writings are on line. You should be aware that your information is lacking specifically the "quoted text" of Sanger. She has work on line. She advocated birth control. At least make an attempt to know who you are referring to. 
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/abortion_eugenics/sanger/sanger_05.html

Black uses to reference her affiliation with Nazi information that is provided by two authors that knew that she was not involved but were advocates against abortion. One is George Grant and the other is written by Drogin.Secondly, she does not have any material in the Birth Control mag after 1929 because she quit. Holmes has never been touted in any law course that I have had as a liberal. Ever. 

The reason that you look stupid is that you haven't read ANY of this material at all. 
So, you would like a rebuttal to that which I have read and you have not. 
City Pulse - December 10, 2003

And the reason that you want to play this game is because you are not the least bit interested in this time period. You don't give a damn. You want me to say............ZOMG "Progressive ERA"=Liberal her derr and you want me to say........that is more hideous than slavery and butchering Native Americans. Not because you truly give a fuck. And you know what? You don't win that. You get, this is an amazingly hideous time period AND that you might want to read up a bit more so that it does not happen again. That means checking who is funding what studies and scientists. 

You are ignorant. You really are. Now, go fuck yourself.


----------



## Disir

What you really need is a copy of this
IBM and the Holocaust articles


----------



## daveman

Wry Catcher said:


> Daveboy, you never get it.


Your problem is I get it all too well.  


Wry Catcher said:


> Look at the chart and consider the cost of college and why one might register as a Republican and why one might register as a Democrat.


The chart doesn't track motives.  Your wishful thinking is not evidence.  Fail.  


Wry Catcher said:


> The answer of course is those who grow up in a family whose work is in white collar jobs, banking, insurance, brokerage companies, etc. seek degrees in Business, Finance, Marketing, etc.
> 
> Those who grow up in families where the bread winner is in the trades or in a union job may apprentice, attend a trade school/community college or join the military.


No matter how desperately leftists try to insist America operates under a caste system, we don't.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Disir said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sorry about anything. You pulled from an obvious right wing site. You utilized book reviews rather than having read the material. Now, go fuck yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OOOOOhhhh....naughty language....usually means you've lost the arguement.
> And you have.
> 
> You provided naught to refute the facts that I provided...that Progressives have regularly felt the need to kill those they find less than up to their standards.
> 
> And, you actually agreed that force sterilization was exactly what I said it was, it's provenance and its results.
> Progressives.
> And let's not forget abortion...right, Progressives.
> Disgusting examples of humanity, eh?
> 
> Now it's time for you to go home and set up the Slip and Slide so it ends in the knife drawer.
> Is that too 'progressive'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion is a choice. Don't want one? Don't have one. Sanger's writings are on line. You should be aware that your information is lacking specifically the "quoted text" of Sanger. She has work on line. She advocated birth control. At least make an attempt to know who you are referring to.
> The Pivot of Civilization
> 
> Black uses to reference her affiliation with Nazi information that is provided by two authors that knew that she was not involved but were advocates against abortion. One is George Grant and the other is written by Drogin.Secondly, she does not have any material in the Birth Control mag after 1929 because she quit. Holmes has never been touted in any law course that I have had as a liberal. Ever.
> 
> The reason that you look stupid is that you haven't read ANY of this material at all.
> So, you would like a rebuttal to that which I have read and you have not.
> City Pulse - December 10, 2003
> 
> And the reason that you want to play this game is because you are not the least bit interested in this time period. You don't give a damn. You want me to say............ZOMG "Progressive ERA"=Liberal her derr and you want me to say........that is more hideous than slavery and butchering Native Americans. Not because you truly give a fuck. And you know what? You don't win that. You get, this is an amazingly hideous time period AND that you might want to read up a bit more so that it does not happen again. That means checking who is funding what studies and scientists.
> 
> You are ignorant. You really are. Now, go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...


Wow....look at that language!

I'm really getting under your skin, huh? 
Could be because *you slipped up *in mentioning the forced sterilization that the Left 
champioined.....
...now you're stuck with it!
Great!

So, let's *review*...

1. Early 20th century...the *heyday of the Progressives*! An ideology based on bringing paradise, utopia right here on earth!  Of course, it would require both changing human nature, and *'removing' those who failed to meet Progressives' standards!*  Thus, *forced sterilization, eugenics, and deathcamps*.

Pretty good so far? Pretty Progressive? Or do you like 'Liberal' better?

2. Woodrow Wilson, first Progressive President...brought Jim Crow to Washington! Wilson believed that *giving blacks the right to vote *was the foundation of every evil in this country. 

a.  In the 800-page tome, The State, he wrote more popular commentary. One of his regular themes was the *advocacy of progressive imperialism in order to subjugate, and thereby elevate, lesser races.* As to the annexation of Puerto Rico and the Philippines, they are children and we are men in these deep matters of government and justice

3. The -isms of the* early twentieth century *were trans-Atlantic, yet, ironically, emphasized nationalism, and war, as well as the idea that nations were organic entities that benefitted from avant-garde *scientific experts and social planners,* exaltation of the public but derogation of the private. Eugenics was an integral part of this thinking. The views of Hegel and Darwin allowed these *elites to treat the nation as a living thing, and thus deal with ills such as urban crowding, a rising population of the lower classes, poor public hygiene, and the advantages of dumbing down bourgeois culture, as one would treat the diseases one might suffer:* biological extirpation, and *eradication.*

4. Madison Grant's works of *"scientific racism" have been cited to demonstrate that many of the genocidal and eugenic ideas *associated with the Third Reich did not arise specifically in Germany, and in fact that many of them had origins in other countries including the United States. Edwin Black: War Against the Weak. Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, Four Walls Eight Windows: 2003, pp. 259, 273, 274-275, 296

Love those Progressives, don't you, *you little Nazi worm*?


5.Of course, H.G. Wells was an excellent spokeperson for *your homicidal view*: 
"Wells, famous for his calls for liberal fascism, and an enlightened Nazism, supported the *extermination of the unfit and announced that in his New Republic, swarms of black and brown, and dirty-white and yellow people would have to go. "*The Forgotten H.G. Wells  waka waka waka

a. Le't not forget Oliver Wendell Holme's *sterilization of Carrie Buck*. 
Love it??

6. After eugenics was discredited by Nazi use, leading American eugenicists turned to *contraception and abortion for population control.* In 1953 they issued a document entitled "Freedom of Choice for Parenthood: A Program of Positive Eugenics," in which they linked so-called "voluntary parenthood" to natural selection. CSC - The Darwinian Basis for Eugenics

a. *Obama's 'science czar' John Holdren *went further...he wanted poison in the water supply!

7. With the suppression of the *radical left after World War I, Margaret Sanger *decided to expand support for birth control by promoting it on the basis of medical and public health needs. In 1917 she established a new monthly, the Birth Control Review, and in 1921 she embarked on a campaign of education and publicity designed to win mainstream support for birth control by opening the American Birth Control League. MSPP > About Margaret Sanger > Biographical Sketch

a. At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by *the "black" and "yellow" peril. *The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as *Planned Parenthood*....*Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," *...And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " *whose religious scruples *prevent their exercising control over their numbers."...It was in 1939 that Sanger's larger vision for *dealing with the reproductive practices of black Americans emerged* BlackGenocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger - Page Two

b. Sanger and Dr. Clarence Gamble agreed on *'The Negro Project,' *but they would hide their intent by putting a Negro minister at the head...
"...*We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population*, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members [emphasis added]." 
The Negro Project and Margaret Sanger


There you have an outline, you hideous little toad....Progressives aligned with human extermination as a policy...a la the Nazis.

Well, my *little brown-shirted *friend, how do you like them apples?

Ah-ah-ah...watch the language....

and...which of us should hurry off to a library???

You can run, but you can't hide.


----------



## Wry Catcher

daveman said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daveboy, you never get it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is I get it all too well.
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the chart and consider the cost of college and why one might register as a Republican and why one might register as a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The chart doesn't track motives.  Your wishful thinking is not evidence.  Fail.
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer of course is those who grow up in a family whose work is in white collar jobs, banking, insurance, brokerage companies, etc. seek degrees in Business, Finance, Marketing, etc.
> 
> Those who grow up in families where the bread winner is in the trades or in a union job may apprentice, attend a trade school/community college or join the military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how desperately leftists try to insist America operates under a caste system, we don't.
Click to expand...


Funny.  Your use of "caste" system suggests government policy is to keep the hoi polloi in 'their place' yet you seem to support callous conservativism, an ideology based on keeping others - the poor, women, minorities, immigrants, the aged, infirm and children - in their place.

The callous conservative cause is quite obvious, from making sure the ERA (equal rights amendment) did not become the law of the land to restricting a women right to choose and cutting funds for health care and the education of children; from moving high paying jobs overseas to fighting the working man's right to organize.  Every goal of the New Right is an effort to create a caste system and make America into a Plutocracy.


----------



## Samson

daveman said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daveboy, you never get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how desperately leftists try to insist America operates under a caste system, we don't.
Click to expand...


While 90% of wry baby's comments are the sad result of his being dropped on his head, you must be living on another planet to believe America has no Caste System.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Samson said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daveboy, you never get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how desperately leftists try to insist America operates under a caste system, we don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While 90% of wry baby's comments are the sad result of his being dropped on his head, you must be living on another planet to believe America has no Caste System.
Click to expand...


Certainly not an economic caste system....


The greatness of America: no permanent unerclasss.

More than three-quarters of those working Americans whose incomes were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 were also in the top 40 percent of income earners at some point by 1991, says Sowell.
Source: Thomas Sowell, "How Media Misuse Income Data To Match Their Preconceptions," Investor's Business Daily, January 12, 2010.
For text:
How Media Misuse Income Data To Match Their Preconceptions - Investors.com


----------



## peach174

Theodore Roosevelt was the very first progressive President,Political Chic
Woodrow Wilson was the most heavy handed progressive.


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daveboy, you never get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how desperately leftists try to insist America operates under a caste system, we don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While 90% of wry baby's comments are the sad result of his being dropped on his head, you must be living on another planet to believe America has no Caste System.
Click to expand...


I have to agree with Dave on that one.  Herman Cain's dad, for instance, was a chauffeur and his mom was a maid.  And look at what he has accomplished and now he is running for POTUS.  I can point to my own family and my own life to demonstrate that nobody is confined by the circumstances of his/her birth in this country.  Disadvantaged?  Yes.  In a situation where you have to work harder than the other guy?  Yes.  That happens and is sometimes the luck of the draw.  But that is very different from a caste system.

That is one of the traditional values that I think should be emphasized in the schools and by everybody.  If you are born poor, you don't have to stay poor.  If you are ignorant there are limitless opportunities to educate yourself.  Some of our most distinguished citizens would have been called 'disadvantaged' in their childhood and youth, and yet rose above their circumstances to achieve great things.  Nobody should accept being a victim in this country but instead take advantages of the limitless opportunities that our Constitution affords us.  Stop blaming and resenting the other guy and get busy.


----------



## PoliticalChic

peach174 said:


> Theodore Roosevelt was the very first progressive President,Political Chic
> Woodrow Wilson was the most heavy handed progressive.



Actually, Roosevelt lost the election when he ran as a Progressive....so he was the first Progressive candidate.

In splitting the vote with Taft, he gave the election to the first President to run on progressive policies...

BTW, Wilson was the first President to have studied socialism.....he claimed it was the same as democracy.

And excellent book on the period, and the election: "1912," by James Chace.


----------



## Disir

PoliticalChic said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> OOOOOhhhh....naughty language....usually means you've lost the arguement.
> And you have.
> 
> You provided naught to refute the facts that I provided...that Progressives have regularly felt the need to kill those they find less than up to their standards.
> 
> And, you actually agreed that force sterilization was exactly what I said it was, it's provenance and its results.
> Progressives.
> And let's not forget abortion...right, Progressives.
> Disgusting examples of humanity, eh?
> 
> Now it's time for you to go home and set up the Slip and Slide so it ends in the knife drawer.
> Is that too 'progressive'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is a choice. Don't want one? Don't have one. Sanger's writings are on line. You should be aware that your information is lacking specifically the "quoted text" of Sanger. She has work on line. She advocated birth control. At least make an attempt to know who you are referring to.
> The Pivot of Civilization
> 
> Black uses to reference her affiliation with Nazi information that is provided by two authors that knew that she was not involved but were advocates against abortion. One is George Grant and the other is written by Drogin.Secondly, she does not have any material in the Birth Control mag after 1929 because she quit. Holmes has never been touted in any law course that I have had as a liberal. Ever.
> 
> The reason that you look stupid is that you haven't read ANY of this material at all.
> So, you would like a rebuttal to that which I have read and you have not.
> City Pulse - December 10, 2003
> 
> And the reason that you want to play this game is because you are not the least bit interested in this time period. You don't give a damn. You want me to say............ZOMG "Progressive ERA"=Liberal her derr and you want me to say........that is more hideous than slavery and butchering Native Americans. Not because you truly give a fuck. And you know what? You don't win that. You get, this is an amazingly hideous time period AND that you might want to read up a bit more so that it does not happen again. That means checking who is funding what studies and scientists.
> 
> You are ignorant. You really are. Now, go fuck yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow....look at that language!
> 
> I'm really getting under your skin, huh?
> Could be because *you slipped up *in mentioning the forced sterilization that the Left
> champioined.....
> ...now you're stuck with it!
> Great!
> 
> So, let's *review*...
> 
> 1. Early 20th century...the *heyday of the Progressives*! An ideology based on bringing paradise, utopia right here on earth!  Of course, it would require both changing human nature, and *'removing' those who failed to meet Progressives' standards!*  Thus, *forced sterilization, eugenics, and deathcamps*.
> 
> Pretty good so far? Pretty Progressive? Or do you like 'Liberal' better?
> 
> 2. Woodrow Wilson, first Progressive President...brought Jim Crow to Washington! Wilson believed that *giving blacks the right to vote *was the foundation of every evil in this country.
> 
> a.  In the 800-page tome, The State, he wrote more popular commentary. One of his regular themes was the *advocacy of progressive imperialism in order to subjugate, and thereby elevate, lesser races.* As to the annexation of Puerto Rico and the Philippines, they are children and we are men in these deep matters of government and justice
> 
> 3. The -isms of the* early twentieth century *were trans-Atlantic, yet, ironically, emphasized nationalism, and war, as well as the idea that nations were organic entities that benefitted from avant-garde *scientific experts and social planners,* exaltation of the public but derogation of the private. Eugenics was an integral part of this thinking. The views of Hegel and Darwin allowed these *elites to treat the nation as a living thing, and thus deal with ills such as urban crowding, a rising population of the lower classes, poor public hygiene, and the advantages of dumbing down bourgeois culture, as one would treat the diseases one might suffer:* biological extirpation, and *eradication.*
> 
> 4. Madison Grant's works of *"scientific racism" have been cited to demonstrate that many of the genocidal and eugenic ideas *associated with the Third Reich did not arise specifically in Germany, and in fact that many of them had origins in other countries including the United States. Edwin Black: War Against the Weak. Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, Four Walls Eight Windows: 2003, pp. 259, 273, 274-275, 296
> 
> Love those Progressives, don't you, *you little Nazi worm*?
> 
> 
> 5.Of course, H.G. Wells was an excellent spokeperson for *your homicidal view*:
> "Wells, famous for his calls for liberal fascism, and an enlightened Nazism, supported the *extermination of the unfit and announced that in his New Republic, swarms of black and brown, and dirty-white and yellow people would have to go. "*The Forgotten H.G. Wells  waka waka waka
> 
> a. Le't not forget Oliver Wendell Holme's *sterilization of Carrie Buck*.
> Love it??
> 
> 6. After eugenics was discredited by Nazi use, leading American eugenicists turned to *contraception and abortion for population control.* In 1953 they issued a document entitled "Freedom of Choice for Parenthood: A Program of Positive Eugenics," in which they linked so-called "voluntary parenthood" to natural selection. CSC - The Darwinian Basis for Eugenics
> 
> a. *Obama's 'science czar' John Holdren *went further...he wanted poison in the water supply!
> 
> 7. With the suppression of the *radical left after World War I, Margaret Sanger *decided to expand support for birth control by promoting it on the basis of medical and public health needs. In 1917 she established a new monthly, the Birth Control Review, and in 1921 she embarked on a campaign of education and publicity designed to win mainstream support for birth control by opening the American Birth Control League. MSPP > About Margaret Sanger > Biographical Sketch
> 
> a. At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by *the "black" and "yellow" peril. *The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as *Planned Parenthood*....*Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," *...And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " *whose religious scruples *prevent their exercising control over their numbers."...It was in 1939 that Sanger's larger vision for *dealing with the reproductive practices of black Americans emerged* BlackGenocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger - Page Two
> 
> b. Sanger and Dr. Clarence Gamble agreed on *'The Negro Project,' *but they would hide their intent by putting a Negro minister at the head...
> "...*We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population*, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members [emphasis added]."
> The Negro Project and Margaret Sanger
> 
> 
> There you have an outline, you hideous little toad....Progressives aligned with human extermination as a policy...a la the Nazis.
> 
> Well, my *little brown-shirted *friend, how do you like them apples?
> 
> Ah-ah-ah...watch the language....
> 
> and...which of us should hurry off to a library???
> 
> You can run, but you can't hide.
Click to expand...




This is great!!! Please, do it again! Do it again!  
The longer that you keep at it, the more it shows that you don't know how to do your own research. 

  Let's review. 
Political Chic did not know how to read and interpret a bill. 
Political Chic does not know how to read original material. It is vital that she relies on known right wing hack groups that distort information like the CWA. 

Keep up the good work there, shill.


----------



## daveman

Wry Catcher said:


> Funny.  Your use of "caste" system suggests government policy is to keep the hoi polloi in 'their place' yet you seem to support callous conservativism, an ideology based on keeping others - the poor, women, minorities, immigrants, the aged, infirm and children - in their place.
> 
> The callous conservative cause is quite obvious, from making sure the ERA (equal rights amendment) did not become the law of the land to restricting a women right to choose and cutting funds for health care and the education of children; from moving high paying jobs overseas to fighting the working man's right to organize.  Every goal of the New Right is an effort to create a caste system and make America into a Plutocracy.


Repeating moronic leftist talking points does not make you look intelligent.  It makes you look like a moron.

Shall we discuss Democrat programs designed to keep people poor and dependent on the government?  Now that's reality.  Why do you support that?

Oh, yeah -- it's because you care more about political power than about people.


----------



## daveman

Samson said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daveboy, you never get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how desperately leftists try to insist America operates under a caste system, we don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While 90% of wry baby's comments are the sad result of his being dropped on his head, you must be living on another planet to believe America has no Caste System.
Click to expand...

There are no restrictions on societal mobility.  Poor people can...and do...become middle class and even wealthy.  The reverse is also true.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Disir said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is a choice. Don't want one? Don't have one. Sanger's writings are on line. You should be aware that your information is lacking specifically the "quoted text" of Sanger. She has work on line. She advocated birth control. At least make an attempt to know who you are referring to.
> The Pivot of Civilization
> 
> Black uses to reference her affiliation with Nazi information that is provided by two authors that knew that she was not involved but were advocates against abortion. One is George Grant and the other is written by Drogin.Secondly, she does not have any material in the Birth Control mag after 1929 because she quit. Holmes has never been touted in any law course that I have had as a liberal. Ever.
> 
> The reason that you look stupid is that you haven't read ANY of this material at all.
> So, you would like a rebuttal to that which I have read and you have not.
> City Pulse - December 10, 2003
> 
> And the reason that you want to play this game is because you are not the least bit interested in this time period. You don't give a damn. You want me to say............ZOMG "Progressive ERA"=Liberal her derr and you want me to say........that is more hideous than slavery and butchering Native Americans. Not because you truly give a fuck. And you know what? You don't win that. You get, this is an amazingly hideous time period AND that you might want to read up a bit more so that it does not happen again. That means checking who is funding what studies and scientists.
> 
> You are ignorant. You really are. Now, go fuck yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....look at that language!
> 
> I'm really getting under your skin, huh?
> Could be because *you slipped up *in mentioning the forced sterilization that the Left
> champioined.....
> ...now you're stuck with it!
> Great!
> 
> So, let's *review*...
> 
> 1. Early 20th century...the *heyday of the Progressives*! An ideology based on bringing paradise, utopia right here on earth!  Of course, it would require both changing human nature, and *'removing' those who failed to meet Progressives' standards!*  Thus, *forced sterilization, eugenics, and deathcamps*.
> 
> Pretty good so far? Pretty Progressive? Or do you like 'Liberal' better?
> 
> 2. Woodrow Wilson, first Progressive President...brought Jim Crow to Washington! Wilson believed that *giving blacks the right to vote *was &#8220;the foundation of every evil in this country.&#8221;
> 
> a.  In the 800-page tome, &#8220;The State,&#8221; he wrote more popular commentary. One of his regular themes was the *advocacy of progressive imperialism in order to subjugate, and thereby elevate, lesser races.* As to the annexation of Puerto Rico and the Philippines, &#8220;they are children and we are men in these deep matters of government and justice&#8230;&#8221;
> 
> 3. The &#8216;-isms&#8217; of the* early twentieth century *were trans-Atlantic, yet, ironically, emphasized nationalism, and war, as well as the idea that nations were organic entities that benefitted from avant-garde *scientific experts and social planners,* exaltation of the public but derogation of the private. Eugenics was an integral part of this thinking. The views of Hegel and Darwin allowed these *elites to treat the nation as a living thing, and thus deal with ills such as urban crowding, a rising population of the lower classes, poor public hygiene, and the advantages of dumbing down bourgeois culture, as one would treat the diseases one might suffer:* biological extirpation, and *eradication.*
> 
> 4. Madison Grant's works of *"scientific racism" have been cited to demonstrate that many of the genocidal and eugenic ideas *associated with the Third Reich did not arise specifically in Germany, and in fact that many of them had origins in other countries including the United States. Edwin Black: War Against the Weak. Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, Four Walls Eight Windows: 2003, pp. 259, 273, 274-275, 296
> 
> Love those Progressives, don't you, *you little Nazi worm*?
> 
> 
> 5.Of course, H.G. Wells was an excellent spokeperson for *your homicidal view*:
> "Wells, famous for his calls for &#8216;liberal fascism,&#8217; and an &#8216;enlightened Nazism,&#8217; supported the *extermination of the &#8216;unfit&#8217; and announced that in his &#8216;New Republic,&#8217; &#8220;swarms of black and brown, and dirty-white and yellow people&#8221; would have to go. "*The Forgotten H.G. Wells &#8211; waka waka waka
> 
> a. Le't not forget Oliver Wendell Holme's *sterilization of Carrie Buck*.
> Love it??
> 
> 6. After eugenics was discredited by Nazi use, leading American eugenicists turned to *contraception and abortion for population control.* In 1953 they issued a document entitled "Freedom of Choice for Parenthood: A Program of Positive Eugenics," in which they linked so-called "voluntary parenthood" to natural selection. CSC - The Darwinian Basis for Eugenics
> 
> a. *Obama's 'science czar' John Holdren *went further...he wanted poison in the water supply!
> 
> 7. With the suppression of the *radical left after World War I, Margaret Sanger *decided to expand support for birth control by promoting it on the basis of medical and public health needs. In 1917 she established a new monthly, the Birth Control Review, and in 1921 she embarked on a campaign of education and publicity designed to win mainstream support for birth control by opening the American Birth Control League. MSPP > About Margaret Sanger > Biographical Sketch
> 
> a. At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by *the "black" and "yellow" peril. *The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as *Planned Parenthood*....*Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," *...And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " *whose religious scruples *prevent their exercising control over their numbers."...It was in 1939 that Sanger's larger vision for *dealing with the reproductive practices of black Americans emerged* BlackGenocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger - Page Two
> 
> b. Sanger and Dr. Clarence Gamble agreed on *'The Negro Project,' *but they would hide their intent by putting a Negro minister at the head...
> "...*We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population*, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members [emphasis added]."
> The Negro Project and Margaret Sanger
> 
> 
> There you have an outline, you hideous little toad....Progressives aligned with human extermination as a policy...a la the Nazis.
> 
> Well, my *little brown-shirted *friend, how do you like them apples?
> 
> Ah-ah-ah...watch the language....
> 
> and...which of us should hurry off to a library???
> 
> You can run, but you can't hide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is great!!! Please, do it again! Do it again!
> The longer that you keep at it, the more it shows that you don't know how to do your own research.
> 
> Let's review.
> Political Chic did not know how to read and interpret a bill.
> Political Chic does not know how to read original material. It is vital that she relies on known right wing hack groups that distort information like the CWA.
> 
> Keep up the good work there, shill.
Click to expand...


So...you couldn't deny or refute any?

Even the part about you being a little Nazi worm???


Great!
Hey....don't you want to thank me for teaching you what kind
of language to avoid?


You are as burned as Edgar Winter on an Ecuadorian beach!


----------



## Disir

Again, here is another copy of the Pivot of Civilization that is on line and available. So that you can actually read this in context. The Pivot of Civilization, by Margaret Sanger

But, hey, you might have to do your own work. It would be that reading and critical thinking part we discussed earlier. This would be important considering that you keep bringing stuff that takes quotes from this.


----------



## Disir

PoliticalChic said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....look at that language!
> 
> I'm really getting under your skin, huh?
> Could be because *you slipped up *in mentioning the forced sterilization that the Left
> champioined.....
> ...now you're stuck with it!
> Great!
> 
> So, let's *review*...
> 
> 1. Early 20th century...the *heyday of the Progressives*! An ideology based on bringing paradise, utopia right here on earth!  Of course, it would require both changing human nature, and *'removing' those who failed to meet Progressives' standards!*  Thus, *forced sterilization, eugenics, and deathcamps*.
> 
> Pretty good so far? Pretty Progressive? Or do you like 'Liberal' better?
> 
> 2. Woodrow Wilson, first Progressive President...brought Jim Crow to Washington! Wilson believed that *giving blacks the right to vote *was the foundation of every evil in this country.
> 
> a.  In the 800-page tome, The State, he wrote more popular commentary. One of his regular themes was the *advocacy of progressive imperialism in order to subjugate, and thereby elevate, lesser races.* As to the annexation of Puerto Rico and the Philippines, they are children and we are men in these deep matters of government and justice
> 
> 3. The -isms of the* early twentieth century *were trans-Atlantic, yet, ironically, emphasized nationalism, and war, as well as the idea that nations were organic entities that benefitted from avant-garde *scientific experts and social planners,* exaltation of the public but derogation of the private. Eugenics was an integral part of this thinking. The views of Hegel and Darwin allowed these *elites to treat the nation as a living thing, and thus deal with ills such as urban crowding, a rising population of the lower classes, poor public hygiene, and the advantages of dumbing down bourgeois culture, as one would treat the diseases one might suffer:* biological extirpation, and *eradication.*
> 
> 4. Madison Grant's works of *"scientific racism" have been cited to demonstrate that many of the genocidal and eugenic ideas *associated with the Third Reich did not arise specifically in Germany, and in fact that many of them had origins in other countries including the United States. Edwin Black: War Against the Weak. Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, Four Walls Eight Windows: 2003, pp. 259, 273, 274-275, 296
> 
> Love those Progressives, don't you, *you little Nazi worm*?
> 
> 
> 5.Of course, H.G. Wells was an excellent spokeperson for *your homicidal view*:
> "Wells, famous for his calls for liberal fascism, and an enlightened Nazism, supported the *extermination of the unfit and announced that in his New Republic, swarms of black and brown, and dirty-white and yellow people would have to go. "*The Forgotten H.G. Wells  waka waka waka
> 
> a. Le't not forget Oliver Wendell Holme's *sterilization of Carrie Buck*.
> Love it??
> 
> 6. After eugenics was discredited by Nazi use, leading American eugenicists turned to *contraception and abortion for population control.* In 1953 they issued a document entitled "Freedom of Choice for Parenthood: A Program of Positive Eugenics," in which they linked so-called "voluntary parenthood" to natural selection. CSC - The Darwinian Basis for Eugenics
> 
> a. *Obama's 'science czar' John Holdren *went further...he wanted poison in the water supply!
> 
> 7. With the suppression of the *radical left after World War I, Margaret Sanger *decided to expand support for birth control by promoting it on the basis of medical and public health needs. In 1917 she established a new monthly, the Birth Control Review, and in 1921 she embarked on a campaign of education and publicity designed to win mainstream support for birth control by opening the American Birth Control League. MSPP > About Margaret Sanger > Biographical Sketch
> 
> a. At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by *the "black" and "yellow" peril. *The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as *Planned Parenthood*....*Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," *...And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " *whose religious scruples *prevent their exercising control over their numbers."...It was in 1939 that Sanger's larger vision for *dealing with the reproductive practices of black Americans emerged* BlackGenocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger - Page Two
> 
> b. Sanger and Dr. Clarence Gamble agreed on *'The Negro Project,' *but they would hide their intent by putting a Negro minister at the head...
> "...*We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population*, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members [emphasis added]."
> The Negro Project and Margaret Sanger
> 
> 
> There you have an outline, you hideous little toad....Progressives aligned with human extermination as a policy...a la the Nazis.
> 
> Well, my *little brown-shirted *friend, how do you like them apples?
> 
> Ah-ah-ah...watch the language....
> 
> and...which of us should hurry off to a library???
> 
> You can run, but you can't hide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is great!!! Please, do it again! Do it again!
> The longer that you keep at it, the more it shows that you don't know how to do your own research.
> 
> Let's review.
> Political Chic did not know how to read and interpret a bill.
> Political Chic does not know how to read original material. It is vital that she relies on known right wing hack groups that distort information like the CWA.
> 
> Keep up the good work there, shill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...you couldn't deny or refute any?
> 
> Even the part about you being a little Nazi worm???
> 
> 
> Great!
> Hey....don't you want to thank me for teaching you what kind
> of language to avoid?
> 
> 
> You are as burned as Edgar Winter on an Ecuadorian beach!
Click to expand...


No, I have refuted you. Now, go do your homework and get back to me. 

I can use whatever language I want.  If the mods think I have crossed the line then I expect to hear from them.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Disir said:


> Again, here is another copy of the Pivot of Civilization that is on line and available. So that you can actually read this in context. The Pivot of Civilization, by Margaret Sanger
> 
> But, hey, you might have to do your own work. It would be that reading and critical thinking part we discussed earlier. This would be important considering that you keep bringing stuff that takes quotes from this.



Nazi worm...is it alright if I call you NW??

Or does everyone just call you 'worm'?

"So that you can actually read this in context."
Context?

So, you admit she said it? And that Progressives worked hard to inflict genocidal policies?

Great!

So you just want to spin it, huh?



And nary a word about the indictments of Wilson, Holdren, Progressive ideology, etc.?
I hate to rub it in, (actually, I love to rub it in) but you said that forced sterilization was an American value...and I beat you over the head with the slander, documenting that it is a Leftist value....Progressive/Liberal value.

So....basically, worm, I hit a home run, huh?
Damn, I'm good!


BTW...the language thing...nothing to do with the board...merely upbringing.


OK...so were you absolutely destroyed?
Does a 1-legged duck swim in a circle?


----------



## Disir

Did you go back and read the material? Or are you simply playing with yourself at the keyboard again?


----------



## peach174

PoliticalChic said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theodore Roosevelt was the very first progressive President,Political Chic
> Woodrow Wilson was the most heavy handed progressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Roosevelt lost the election when he ran as a Progressive....so he was the first Progressive candidate.
> 
> In splitting the vote with Taft, he gave the election to the first President to run on progressive policies...
> 
> BTW, Wilson was the first President to have studied socialism.....he claimed it was the same as democracy.
> 
> And excellent book on the period, and the election: "1912," by James Chace.
Click to expand...



T. Roosevelt was a progressive from the get go.
As President, Government grew with National Parks,Dept. of Commerce & Labor, Fed. Police get power over state police,National Forest Service,National Monuments, Regulation of Railroads all progressive ideology.
He ran a third time 1912 under the bull moose party and lost,but as President 1901-1909 his Government grew and was the start of the progressive ideology.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Disir said:


> Did you go back and read the material? Or are you simply playing with yourself at the keyboard again?



Trying to save face?

Which one?


----------



## PoliticalChic

peach174 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theodore Roosevelt was the very first progressive President,Political Chic
> Woodrow Wilson was the most heavy handed progressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Roosevelt lost the election when he ran as a Progressive....so he was the first Progressive candidate.
> 
> In splitting the vote with Taft, he gave the election to the first President to run on progressive policies...
> 
> BTW, Wilson was the first President to have studied socialism.....he claimed it was the same as democracy.
> 
> And excellent book on the period, and the election: "1912," by James Chace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> T. Roosevelt was a progressive from the get go.
> As President, Government grew with National Parks,Dept. of Commerce & Labor, Fed. Police get power over state police,National Forest Service,National Monuments, Regulation of Railroads all progressive ideology.
> He ran a third time 1912 under the bull moose party and lost,but as President 1901-1909 his Government grew and was the start of the progressive ideology.
Click to expand...


Well, can't argue about Roosevelt's progressive credentials...
...but I think I can make an argument as far as him being the 'first progressive President.'

Look up McKinley's record going back to his days as governor of Ohio...tax reform, etc. and his short time as President, the tariff-President.

To be clear, Roosevelt was the first candidate of the Progressive Party, capital 'P.'

'At 2 oclock in the morning on June 20, 1912, Roosevelt supporters bolted from the credentials committee meeting. Roosevelt: As far as I am concerned, I am through. 'NYTimes, June 20, 1912
He left the Republican Party.

a.	Governor Hiram Johnson of California declared that a new political party would be born later that day. Once financial backing was obtained, the Progressive Party was born. Mowry, Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement, p. 149. 

b. The Progressive Party convention opened August 5 in the Coliseum, which had just housed the Republican convention. It was an assemblage of religious enthusiasts. It was such a convention as [the crusader] Peter the Hermit held. It was a Methodist camp meeting done over into political terms. NYTimes, August 6, 1912. They sang Onward Christian Soldiers, and a play on the revival hymns, as Follow, follow, we will follow Roosevelt.

So...if you mean that he was a product of the times...progressive, in that sense, why isn't McKinley the first progressive President?

Now, I see you have specified a lower case 'p' progressive....and, based on effectiveness, I'm going to agree with you. He certainly governed at odds with the Founders.


----------



## Disir

Is that all you got?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Disir said:


> Is that all you got?



No, worm...

...how about this:

Nyah- nyah- na- na-na!


Beat ya' bloody!


----------



## Disir

Yep, that's all you got.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Disir said:


> Yep, that's all you got.



Ya' little worm...by documenting everything I said about Progressives attempts to exterminatate those they didn't feel up to snuff, I don't need any more.

Idiot.


Oh...now I see...you are so lonely, bereft of human company.....that even the beating you've been taking her is better than lonliness....
...is that it?

So, I'm the sadist,  you the masochist?????

Kinky, you little Nazi worm!

Now....be gone....back under the rock.


----------



## Disir

PoliticalChic said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's all you got.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya' little worm...by documenting everything I said about Progressives attempts to exterminatate those they didn't feel up to snuff, I don't need any more.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> Oh...now I see...you are so lonely, bereft of human company.....that even the beating you've been taking her is better than lonliness....
> ...is that it?
> 
> So, I'm the sadist,  you the masochist?????
> 
> Kinky, you little Nazi worm!
> 
> Now....be gone....back under the rock.
Click to expand...


So, you do not know how to read a bill, you attempt to use book reviews as valid sources, and you are reliant on other's interpretations of information taken from unreliable sources while having the opportunity to research it yourself.  It is now out in the open and now, you are afraid that if you continue on this will become even more obvious. 

Enough of your douchebaggery. Hit the books or admit you're a shill.


----------



## lilbug

Mad Scientist said:


> The gov't shouldn't be in the business of teaching *any* kind of values, that's for the parents to do. The gov't should be in the business of protecting our nation and our rights and civil liberties as individuals, nothing more.



'nuff said!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Disir said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's all you got.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya' little worm...by documenting everything I said about Progressives attempts to exterminatate those they didn't feel up to snuff, I don't need any more.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> Oh...now I see...you are so lonely, bereft of human company.....that even the beating you've been taking her is better than lonliness....
> ...is that it?
> 
> So, I'm the sadist,  you the masochist?????
> 
> Kinky, you little Nazi worm!
> 
> Now....be gone....back under the rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you do not know how to read a bill, you attempt to use book reviews as valid sources, and you are reliant on other's interpretations of information taken from unreliable sources while having the opportunity to research it yourself.  It is now out in the open and now, you are afraid that if you continue on this will become even more obvious.
> 
> Enough of your douchebaggery. Hit the books or admit you're a shill.
Click to expand...


OMG...you're rdean!!!!


----------



## Foxfyre

PoliticalChic said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya' little worm...by documenting everything I said about Progressives attempts to exterminatate those they didn't feel up to snuff, I don't need any more.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> Oh...now I see...you are so lonely, bereft of human company.....that even the beating you've been taking her is better than lonliness....
> ...is that it?
> 
> So, I'm the sadist,  you the masochist?????
> 
> Kinky, you little Nazi worm!
> 
> Now....be gone....back under the rock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you do not know how to read a bill, you attempt to use book reviews as valid sources, and you are reliant on other's interpretations of information taken from unreliable sources while having the opportunity to research it yourself.  It is now out in the open and now, you are afraid that if you continue on this will become even more obvious.
> 
> Enough of your douchebaggery. Hit the books or admit you're a shill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG...you're rdean!!!!
Click to expand...


That would explain soooooo much. . . . .


----------



## hortysir

Disir said:


> Is that all you got?



Translation:
I got nothing


----------



## Money

Mad Scientist said:


> The gov't shouldn't be in the business of teaching *any* kind of values, that's for the parents to do. The gov't should be in the business of protecting our nation and our rights and civil liberties as individuals, nothing more.


I strongly disagree here. I don't think this constitutes any breach of the separation between church and state, and for that reason I don't see why there should be a prohibition to the fact that government has an OBLIGATION to teach values to Americans.

The sort of values that I have in mind are cultivation of a work ethic and ambition for great successes for oneself. I think it is the a biggest issue with public education and the one thing that I noticed strikingly different between my private education in the public schools that I went to.

I think in a lot of ways American public schools use the fact that parents have an obligation to instill values in their children as some excuse for the low performance due to children who do not tend to value education. That's some kind of cop out. I expect that after years of consistent poor results stemming from a lack of value for education, that the US government's education system would aim to remedy that internally.

Teach the value of excellence.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Money said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gov't shouldn't be in the business of teaching *any* kind of values, that's for the parents to do. The gov't should be in the business of protecting our nation and our rights and civil liberties as individuals, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree here. I don't think this constitutes any breach of the separation between church and state, and for that reason I don't see why there should be a prohibition to the fact that government has an OBLIGATION to teach values to Americans.
> 
> The sort of values that I have in mind are cultivation of a work ethic and ambition for great successes for oneself. I think it is the a biggest issue with public education and the one thing that I noticed strikingly different between my private education in the public schools that I went to.
> 
> I think in a lot of ways American public schools use the fact that parents have an obligation to instill values in their children as some excuse for the low performance due to children who do not tend to value education. That's some kind of cop out. I expect that after years of consistent poor results stemming from a lack of value for education, that the US government's education system would aim to remedy that internally.
> 
> Teach the value of excellence.
Click to expand...


I agree with thaaaaa.......
....wait...what's that alluring smell???


Ohhhh>

"Thanks to one ambitious man, you can now smell like your money.

Patrick McCarthy, a Chicago-based vice president of sales at Microsoft, thinks hes designed a product both men and women will open their wallets for. Hes created His Money Cologne and Her Money Eau de Parfum  a product he says could bode well for your earnings potential.

The idea is that money-grubbers might work even harder if they immerse themselves in the scent of dollar bills. Think of it like how the smell of freshly baked bread makes you hungry  except this is a lot more greedy."
Looking for perfume, cologne that smells like money? (AOL News) | Seattle&#039;s Big Blog - seattlepi.com


----------



## Money

PoliticalChic said:


> Money said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gov't shouldn't be in the business of teaching *any* kind of values, that's for the parents to do. The gov't should be in the business of protecting our nation and our rights and civil liberties as individuals, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree here. I don't think this constitutes any breach of the separation between church and state, and for that reason I don't see why there should be a prohibition to the fact that government has an OBLIGATION to teach values to Americans.
> 
> The sort of values that I have in mind are cultivation of a work ethic and ambition for great successes for oneself. I think it is the a biggest issue with public education and the one thing that I noticed strikingly different between my private education in the public schools that I went to.
> 
> I think in a lot of ways American public schools use the fact that parents have an obligation to instill values in their children as some excuse for the low performance due to children who do not tend to value education. That's some kind of cop out. I expect that after years of consistent poor results stemming from a lack of value for education, that the US government's education system would aim to remedy that internally.
> 
> Teach the value of excellence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with thaaaaa.......
> ....wait...what's that alluring smell???
> 
> 
> Ohhhh>
> 
> "Thanks to one ambitious man, you can now smell like your money.
> 
> Patrick McCarthy, a Chicago-based vice president of sales at Microsoft, thinks hes designed a product both men and women will open their wallets for. Hes created His Money Cologne and Her Money Eau de Parfum  a product he says could bode well for your earnings potential.
> 
> The idea is that money-grubbers might work even harder if they immerse themselves in the scent of dollar bills. Think of it like how the smell of freshly baked bread makes you hungry  except this is a lot more greedy."
> Looking for perfume, cologne that smells like money? (AOL News) | Seattle's Big Blog - seattlepi.com
Click to expand...

All this time I've just been rubbing money on myself. This should be a lot more sanitary.


----------



## Bfgrn

The only value schools should teach is the Golden Rule.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how desperately leftists try to insist America operates under a caste system, we don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While 90% of wry baby's comments are the sad result of his being dropped on his head, you must be living on another planet to believe America has no Caste System.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to agree with Dave on that one.  Herman Cain's dad, for instance, was a chauffeur and his mom was a maid.  And look at what he has accomplished and now he is running for POTUS.  I can point to my own family and my own life to demonstrate that nobody is confined by the circumstances of his/her birth in this country.  Disadvantaged?  Yes.  In a situation where you have to work harder than the other guy?  Yes.  That happens and is sometimes the luck of the draw.  But that is very different from a caste system.
> 
> That is one of the traditional values that I think should be emphasized in the schools and by everybody.  If you are born poor, you don't have to stay poor.  If you are ignorant there are limitless opportunities to educate yourself.  Some of our most distinguished citizens would have been called 'disadvantaged' in their childhood and youth, and yet rose above their circumstances to achieve great things.  Nobody should accept being a victim in this country but instead take advantages of the limitless opportunities that our Constitution affords us.  Stop blaming and resenting the other guy and get busy.
Click to expand...


I suppose in the strictest sense, as "Caste" is definded in Victorian England, or contemporary India, the word cannot be strictly applied anywhere. Basically this means if you are born into a certain socio-economic structure, then you will spend your life there. However, there are exceptions to this rule in England, India, and of course the USA.

My comment about caste is more related to the advantages of birth: To believe that if you are born into a wealthy family in the USA, then you have no more advantage than anyone born into a "middle caste (class)" family, is ludicrous.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> While 90% of wry baby's comments are the sad result of his being dropped on his head, you must be living on another planet to believe America has no Caste System.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with Dave on that one.  Herman Cain's dad, for instance, was a chauffeur and his mom was a maid.  And look at what he has accomplished and now he is running for POTUS.  I can point to my own family and my own life to demonstrate that nobody is confined by the circumstances of his/her birth in this country.  Disadvantaged?  Yes.  In a situation where you have to work harder than the other guy?  Yes.  That happens and is sometimes the luck of the draw.  But that is very different from a caste system.
> 
> That is one of the traditional values that I think should be emphasized in the schools and by everybody.  If you are born poor, you don't have to stay poor.  If you are ignorant there are limitless opportunities to educate yourself.  Some of our most distinguished citizens would have been called 'disadvantaged' in their childhood and youth, and yet rose above their circumstances to achieve great things.  Nobody should accept being a victim in this country but instead take advantages of the limitless opportunities that our Constitution affords us.  Stop blaming and resenting the other guy and get busy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose in the strictest sense, as "Caste" is definded in Victorian England, or contemporary India, the word cannot be strictly applied anywhere. Basically this means if you are born into a certain socio-economic structure, then you will spend your life there. However, there are exceptions to this rule in England, India, and of course the USA.
> 
> My comment about caste is more related to the advantages of birth: To believe that if you are born into a wealthy family in the USA, then you have no more advantage than anyone born into a "middle caste (class)" family, is ludicrous.
Click to expand...


Samson...don't you think 'ludicrous' is laying it on a bit too thick.

"I lived for about a decade, on and off, in France and later moved to the United States. Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasures offered by French savoir-vivre for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing: *possibility.*

You know possibility when you breathe it.* For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons *after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work. High French unemployment was never much of a mystery."
Roger Cohen: One France is enough - The New York Times


I can testify to the truth of that quote.


----------



## PoliticalChic

I want to add to the Samson post....
1. While one may begin life with more material things...an argument, and a strong one, can be made that any wealthy person who simply gives these to their scion will raise members of the gang we see in the Pee Party, the OWS group...

2. Real wealth comes from earning not being given. Coolidge got it right:
Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race. 

And this has nothing to do with being born wealthy.


----------



## Samson

PoliticalChic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with Dave on that one.  Herman Cain's dad, for instance, was a chauffeur and his mom was a maid.  And look at what he has accomplished and now he is running for POTUS.  I can point to my own family and my own life to demonstrate that nobody is confined by the circumstances of his/her birth in this country.  Disadvantaged?  Yes.  In a situation where you have to work harder than the other guy?  Yes.  That happens and is sometimes the luck of the draw.  But that is very different from a caste system.
> 
> That is one of the traditional values that I think should be emphasized in the schools and by everybody.  If you are born poor, you don't have to stay poor.  If you are ignorant there are limitless opportunities to educate yourself.  Some of our most distinguished citizens would have been called 'disadvantaged' in their childhood and youth, and yet rose above their circumstances to achieve great things.  Nobody should accept being a victim in this country but instead take advantages of the limitless opportunities that our Constitution affords us.  Stop blaming and resenting the other guy and get busy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose in the strictest sense, as "Caste" is definded in Victorian England, or contemporary India, the word cannot be strictly applied anywhere. Basically this means if you are born into a certain socio-economic structure, then you will spend your life there. However, there are exceptions to this rule in England, India, and of course the USA.
> 
> My comment about caste is more related to the advantages of birth: To believe that if you are born into a wealthy family in the USA, then you have no more advantage than anyone born into a "middle caste (class)" family, is ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Samson...don't you think 'ludicrous' is laying it on a bit too thick.
> 
> "I lived for about a decade, on and off, in France and later moved to the United States. Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasures offered by French savoir-vivre for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing: *possibility.*
> 
> You know possibility when you breathe it.* For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons *after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work. High French unemployment was never much of a mystery."
> Roger Cohen: One France is enough - The New York Times
> 
> 
> I can testify to the truth of that quote.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying that the possibility doesn't exist in the USA to move from one "class" to another. I also don't believe it is impossible to move from one class in France to another class.

However, in either place, France, the USA, or whatever, being born into the wealthiest class will have its undeniable advantages, and those are inheritable. We don't have Dukes, or Earls: We DO have Kennedy's and Bush's and Rockefeller's. Sure, their dynesties don't extend back to the Norman Invasion, but this is only because the Normans didn't invade North America.


----------



## Samson

PoliticalChic said:


> I want to add to the Samson post....
> 1. While one may begin life with more material things...an argument, and a strong one, can be made that any wealthy person who simply gives these to their scion will raise members of the gang we see in the Pee Party, the OWS group...
> 
> 2. Real wealth comes from earning not being given. Coolidge got it right:
> Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
> 
> And this has nothing to do with being born wealthy.



Frankly, I don't see most of the wealthy simply giving away their fortunes to dolts. I'm sure it happens, but Ivy League universities in the USA are not cheap to attend, and their graduates typically are not targeting life-time positions in middle management.


----------



## Si modo

PoliticalChic said:


> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> "In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!


So, would you be in favor of legislating morality?  If so, how would one reconcile that view with the TP's tenets?


----------



## Samson

Si modo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> "In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!
> 
> 
> 
> So, would you be in favor of legislating morality?  If so, how would one reconcile that view with the TP's tenets?
Click to expand...


It would be a heluva lot easier to begin sterilizing the stupid.

Where is rdean when we need him?


----------



## Money

Using the term caste is a bit of hyperbole, but the fact remains that a lot of people identify very strongly with their station in life, commonly their parents' station in life, and the values that go along with that.

I don't align well neither with working class nor welfare-state value systems. I would be upset if the school aims to teach my children working class values, but that would be better than leaving the values education to the media and to Xbox 360.


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose in the strictest sense, as "Caste" is definded in Victorian England, or contemporary India, the word cannot be strictly applied anywhere. Basically this means if you are born into a certain socio-economic structure, then you will spend your life there. However, there are exceptions to this rule in England, India, and of course the USA.
> 
> My comment about caste is more related to the advantages of birth: To believe that if you are born into a wealthy family in the USA, then you have no more advantage than anyone born into a "middle caste (class)" family, is ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson...don't you think 'ludicrous' is laying it on a bit too thick.
> 
> "I lived for about a decade, on and off, in France and later moved to the United States. Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasures offered by French savoir-vivre for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing: *possibility.*
> 
> You know possibility when you breathe it.* For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons *after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work. High French unemployment was never much of a mystery."
> Roger Cohen: One France is enough - The New York Times
> 
> 
> I can testify to the truth of that quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that the possibility doesn't exist in the USA to move from one "class" to another. I also don't believe it is impossible to move from one class in France to another class.
> 
> However, in either place, France, the USA, or whatever, being born into the wealthiest class will have its undeniable advantages, and those are inheritable. We don't have Dukes, or Earls: We DO have Kennedy's and Bush's and Rockefeller's. Sure, their dynesties don't extend back to the Norman Invasion, but this is only because the Normans didn't invade North America.
Click to expand...


My husband was born into poverty as this country defines it.  I was born into better financial circumstances but also into alcoholism and physical, mental, and emotional abuse.  Because of the freedoms this country gives us, both of us were able to rise above our circumstances, live much different lives than our parents, and landed squarely in the Middle Class.  Did others have a leg up on us?  Of course they did.  But that still did not limit our ability to accomplish as much as we had the strength, intellect, and will to accomplish.

We gave our kids what we could in the way of teaching values, emotional support, encouragement, and provided them what we could afford in exposure to sports, music, the arts, and solid academics.  Both are now successful functioning adults each earning well over what Mr. Foxfyre and I earned together at the height of our earning cycle.  Were other parents able to give their kids much more than we were able to give ours?  Of course they did and I don't begrudge them that in the least.  What good is it to work and excel if you can't pass some of that on to your children?

Some of the richer kids have done very well and others not so well.  Our kids have excelled to the level of most of their peers despite having fewer advantages and some of their poorest friends who had almost no advantages as kids are right up there with them.

Sure money, access, and all of that gives some a leg up and there is nothing wrong with that.  I should be able to pass on to my kids what I can of what I have worked for and accomplished. None of us are restricted to the circumstances we were born into and it is up to each of us what we make of the freedom we have.

That is a value that needs to be taught again.  The values that now seem to be emphasized is that it isn't fair that some have more than others, and the less advantaged are entitled to what the more successful have worked for and accomplished.  That is wrong, destructive to all, and should be removed from the national psyche.


----------



## Money

PoliticalChic said:


> I want to add to the Samson post....
> 1. While one may begin life with more material things...an argument, and a strong one, can be made that any wealthy person who simply gives these to their scion will raise members of the gang we see in the Pee Party, the OWS group...
> 
> 2. Real wealth comes from earning not being given. Coolidge got it right:
> Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
> 
> And this has nothing to do with being born wealthy.



I have a fortune cookie in my office that says "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence."  All this time I thought "Confucius say"


----------



## Money

Foxfyre said:


> My husband was born into poverty as this country defines it.  I was born into better financial circumstances but also into alcoholism and physical, mental, and emotional abuse.  Because of the freedoms this country gives us, both of us were able to rise above our circumstances, live much different lives than our parents, and landed squarely in the Middle Class.  Did others have a leg up on us?  Of course they did.  But that still did not limit our ability to accomplish as much as we had the strength, intellect, and will to accomplish.
> 
> We gave our kids what we could in the way of teaching values, emotional support, encouragement, and provided them what we could afford in exposure to sports, music, the arts, and solid academics.  Both are now successful functioning adults each earning well over what Mr. Foxfyre and I earned together at the height of our earning cycle.  Were other parents able to give their kids much more than we were able to give ours?  Of course they did and I don't begrudge them that in the least.  What good is it to work and excel if you can't pass some of that on to your children?
> 
> Some of the richer kids have done very well and others not so well.  Our kids have excelled to the level of most of their peers despite having fewer advantages and some of their poorest friends who had almost no advantages as kids are right up there with them.
> 
> Sure money, access, and all of that gives some a leg up and there is nothing wrong with that.  I should be able to pass on to my kids what I can of what I have worked for and accomplished. None of us are restricted to the circumstances we were born into and it is up to each of us what we make of the freedom we have.
> 
> That is a value that needs to be taught again.  The values that now seem to be emphasized is that it isn't fair that some have more than others, and the less advantaged are entitled to what the more successful have worked for and accomplished.  That is wrong, destructive to all, and should be removed from the national psyche.



Foxfyre, I think that's great.

Now, wouldn't you advocate for students who lack these sorts of values to be informed of them and taught about their virtues? I grew up with religion classes and this was common place in Catholic private education. Without a religious aspect in play, I think it is plausible to teach values that are American in American public schools. And just like religion classes, the effects of having values-education will permeate into other subject matter... too many kids don't know that they're slackers. They don't know the long-term implications of that.

The subject matter shouldn't be negative; it should really break down the long-term implications of ambition and other values.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Samson said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose in the strictest sense, as "Caste" is definded in Victorian England, or contemporary India, the word cannot be strictly applied anywhere. Basically this means if you are born into a certain socio-economic structure, then you will spend your life there. However, there are exceptions to this rule in England, India, and of course the USA.
> 
> My comment about caste is more related to the advantages of birth: To believe that if you are born into a wealthy family in the USA, then you have no more advantage than anyone born into a "middle caste (class)" family, is ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson...don't you think 'ludicrous' is laying it on a bit too thick.
> 
> "I lived for about a decade, on and off, in France and later moved to the United States. Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasures offered by French savoir-vivre for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing: *possibility.*
> 
> You know possibility when you breathe it.* For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons *after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work. High French unemployment was never much of a mystery."
> Roger Cohen: One France is enough - The New York Times
> 
> 
> I can testify to the truth of that quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that the possibility doesn't exist in the USA to move from one "class" to another. I also don't believe it is impossible to move from one class in France to another class.
> 
> However, in either place, France, the USA, or whatever, being born into the wealthiest class will have its undeniable advantages, and those are inheritable. We don't have Dukes, or Earls: We DO have Kennedy's and Bush's and Rockefeller's. Sure, their dynesties don't extend back to the Norman Invasion, but this is only because the Normans didn't invade North America.
Click to expand...


"We DO have Kennedy's and Bush's and Rockefeller's."
This is so much of an aberrtion that it is unfair to even consider them when trying to understand American dynamics.

" 80% of U. S. millionaires are *first generation affluent*. Contrary to popular belief, most people are not born into wealth. They earn their money the old fashioned way, they work for it."

Making money: The path to becoming a millionaire - by Terry Marsh - Helium

"The *vast majority *of today's millionaires did not inherit their money -- they're self-made."
Richistan


According to a study by Prince & Associates, *less than 10% of todays multi-millionaires cited inheritance *as their source of wealth. 
The Decline of Inherited Money - The Wealth Report - WSJ


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Sure money, access, and all of that gives _*some a leg up*_ and there is nothing wrong with that.



Gives "_SOME_ a leg up?"

Let's not try to bury our heads in the sand:

Wealth gives ALMOST ALL a "leg up."

But I agree, there's nothing inherently "wrong" with having a wealthy class: there is no better sociological motivator than gold. Any sociological system that has been based on anything else (and I'm not talking about a dozen hippies living together with goats in a log cabin somewhere in Virginia), is a failure.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Samson said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to add to the Samson post....
> 1. While one may begin life with more material things...an argument, and a strong one, can be made that any wealthy person who simply gives these to their scion will raise members of the gang we see in the Pee Party, the OWS group...
> 
> 2. Real wealth comes from earning not being given. Coolidge got it right:
> Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
> 
> And this has nothing to do with being born wealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't see most of the wealthy simply giving away their fortunes to dolts. I'm sure it happens, but Ivy League universities in the USA are not cheap to attend, and their graduates typically are not targeting life-time positions in middle management.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I don't understand the point you are making vis-a-vis my post...
...the 'giving away' being discussed here is to their children.

As an aside...my expericence at Ivy League universiteies is that there are quite a few dolts...but doors will open to them that may not for others.
This has nothing to do with any reputed caste system....which I deny exists in the United States.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Si modo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> "In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!
> 
> 
> 
> So, would you be in favor of legislating morality?  If so, how would one reconcile that view with the TP's tenets?
Click to expand...


"So, would you be in favor of legislating morality?"

And you gleaned that from the OP....where?


----------



## Samson

PoliticalChic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Samson...don't you think 'ludicrous' is laying it on a bit too thick.
> 
> "I lived for about a decade, on and off, in France and later moved to the United States. Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasures offered by French savoir-vivre for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing: *possibility.*
> 
> You know possibility when you breathe it.* For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons *after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work. High French unemployment was never much of a mystery."
> Roger Cohen: One France is enough - The New York Times
> 
> 
> I can testify to the truth of that quote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that the possibility doesn't exist in the USA to move from one "class" to another. I also don't believe it is impossible to move from one class in France to another class.
> 
> However, in either place, France, the USA, or whatever, being born into the wealthiest class will have its undeniable advantages, and those are inheritable. We don't have Dukes, or Earls: We DO have Kennedy's and Bush's and Rockefeller's. Sure, their dynesties don't extend back to the Norman Invasion, but this is only because the Normans didn't invade North America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "We DO have Kennedy's and Bush's and Rockefeller's."
> This is so much of an aberrtion that it is unfair to even consider them when trying to understand American dynamics.
> 
> " 80% of U. S. millionaires are *first generation affluent*. Contrary to popular belief, most people are not born into wealth. They earn their money the old fashioned way, they work for it."
> 
> Making money: The path to becoming a millionaire - by Terry Marsh - Helium
> 
> "The *vast majority *of today's millionaires did not inherit their money -- they're self-made."
> Richistan
> 
> 
> According to a study by Prince & Associates, *less than 10% of todays multi-millionaires cited inheritance *as their source of wealth.
> The Decline of Inherited Money - The Wealth Report - WSJ
Click to expand...


Today, a "multi-millionaire" really isn't all that rare a bird, and it is no surprise to me that less than 10% site "inheritance" as their source of wealth: If I inherited $10 million, and turned it into $20 million, my "source of wealth" would be whatever I did to double my money.

Abberations seem to be "exceptions to whatever PoliticalChic believes."

It would serve you well to prove, rather than simply claim, that the USA has no Elite Wealthy Class.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Money said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to add to the Samson post....
> 1. While one may begin life with more material things...an argument, and a strong one, can be made that any wealthy person who simply gives these to their scion will raise members of the gang we see in the Pee Party, the OWS group...
> 
> 2. Real wealth comes from earning not being given. Coolidge got it right:
> Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
> 
> And this has nothing to do with being born wealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a fortune cookie in my office that says "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence."  All this time I thought "Confucius say"
Click to expand...


No, the recipe for the cookie was Confucius'....
...and he baked it with the one candle he lit....


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> "In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!



*I believe that the same was said back in the 80s. What you have to realize is that people want to have fun.*


----------



## Samson

PoliticalChic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to add to the Samson post....
> 1. While one may begin life with more material things...an argument, and a strong one, can be made that any wealthy person who simply gives these to their scion will raise members of the gang we see in the Pee Party, the OWS group...
> 
> 2. Real wealth comes from earning not being given. Coolidge got it right:
> Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
> 
> And this has nothing to do with being born wealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't see most of the wealthy simply giving away their fortunes to dolts. I'm sure it happens, but Ivy League universities in the USA are not cheap to attend, and their graduates typically are not targeting life-time positions in middle management.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand the point you are making vis-a-vis my post...
> ...the 'giving away' being discussed here is to their children.
> 
> As an aside...my expericence at Ivy League universiteies is that there are quite a few dolts...but doors will open to them that may not for others.
> This has nothing to do with any reputed caste system....which I deny exists in the United States.
Click to expand...


Yes, the wealthy use their money to improve the chances of their children GROWING their inheritances AND MAINTAINING A CASTE SYSTEM. They do not sit their kids in front of Spongebobsquarepants for 18 years, then simply hand them a check for $100 million!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Samson said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that the possibility doesn't exist in the USA to move from one "class" to another. I also don't believe it is impossible to move from one class in France to another class.
> 
> However, in either place, France, the USA, or whatever, being born into the wealthiest class will have its undeniable advantages, and those are inheritable. We don't have Dukes, or Earls: We DO have Kennedy's and Bush's and Rockefeller's. Sure, their dynesties don't extend back to the Norman Invasion, but this is only because the Normans didn't invade North America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We DO have Kennedy's and Bush's and Rockefeller's."
> This is so much of an aberrtion that it is unfair to even consider them when trying to understand American dynamics.
> 
> " 80% of U. S. millionaires are *first generation affluent*. Contrary to popular belief, most people are not born into wealth. They earn their money the old fashioned way, they work for it."
> 
> Making money: The path to becoming a millionaire - by Terry Marsh - Helium
> 
> "The *vast majority *of today's millionaires did not inherit their money -- they're self-made."
> Richistan
> 
> 
> According to a study by Prince & Associates, *less than 10% of todays multi-millionaires cited inheritance *as their source of wealth.
> The Decline of Inherited Money - The Wealth Report - WSJ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today, a "multi-millionaire" really isn't all that rare a bird, and it is no surprise to me that less than 10% site "inheritance" as their source of wealth: If I inherited $10 million, and turned it into $20 million, my "source of wealth" would be whatever I did to double my money.
> 
> Abberations seem to be "exceptions to whatever PoliticalChic believes."
> 
> It would serve you well to prove, rather than simply claim, that the USA has no Elite Wealthy Class.
Click to expand...


No prob.

There is no perpetual 'Elite Wealthy Class' in America.

There is no 'Rich Class.'

The hypostetical construct is a useful image ginned up by the Left.
You seem to have fallen for it.

"Intellectuals often *make the mistake of basing political analysis on clichés *that misrepresent reality. Sowell shows, for instance, how debates about income distribution in the United States have been distorted by a preoccupation with statistical categories.

a.	 Journalists and academics alike endlessly repeat that *the rich *are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. What these discussions ignore is that *people move with some frequency from category to category over time. Only 5 percent of Americans who were in the bottom quintile of income earners in 1975 were still there in 1991. Only 25 percent of the super-rich in 1996 (the top 1/100th of 1 percent of income earners) remained in that category in 2005. *

b.	Over half of the poor earning at or near the minimum wage are between the *ages of 16 and 24. As Sowell wryly notes, these individuals cannot remain from 16 to 24 years of age indefinitely,* though that age category can of course continue indefinitely, providing many intellectuals with data to fit their preconceptions.

c.	Abstract talk about inequities in income distribution presupposes a social problem, where strictly speaking *one may not exist at all.* Sowells analysis helps us understand why intellectuals so often call for government to promote economic redistribution."
An Independent Mind by Daniel J. Mahoney, City Journal 18 June 2010


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> "In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I believe that the same was said back in the 80s. What you have to realize is that people want to have fun.*
Click to expand...


Thank you, Cyndi Lauper.


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't see most of the wealthy simply giving away their fortunes to dolts. I'm sure it happens, but Ivy League universities in the USA are not cheap to attend, and their graduates typically are not targeting life-time positions in middle management.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand the point you are making vis-a-vis my post...
> ...the 'giving away' being discussed here is to their children.
> 
> As an aside...my expericence at Ivy League universiteies is that there are quite a few dolts...but doors will open to them that may not for others.
> This has nothing to do with any reputed caste system....which I deny exists in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the wealthy use their money to improve the chances of their children GROWING their inheritances AND MAINTAINING A CASTE SYSTEM. They do not sit their kids in front of Spongebobsquarepants for 18 years, then simply hand them a check for $100 million!
Click to expand...


The blessings of liberty the Founders gave us were intended to replace the caste system with no limits leaving each of us to make of that what we can.   Many make the most of what they can; others coast; others sit on their hands and resent what others have.  That is why the poorest of the poor so often rise to that 'elite class' and why some born into the 'elite class' wind up bankrupt or in prison or otherwise in less than noble circumstances than their parents.

Nobody is required to stay where they are.  The fact that some choose to do so does not create a CASTE system.


----------



## Sky Dancer

It is the job of the parents to teach their children values.  It is the role of school teachers to teach children to value learning and work, and how to get along with others.  I think it takes a village to raise a child.  All of us citizens should be looking out for the vulnerable in our communites.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> "In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I believe that the same was said back in the 80s. What you have to realize is that people want to have fun.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you, Cyndi Lauper.
Click to expand...


*You are welcome, Anne.*


----------



## Samson

PoliticalChic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We DO have Kennedy's and Bush's and Rockefeller's."
> This is so much of an aberrtion that it is unfair to even consider them when trying to understand American dynamics.
> 
> " 80% of U. S. millionaires are *first generation affluent*. Contrary to popular belief, most people are not born into wealth. They earn their money the old fashioned way, they work for it."
> 
> Making money: The path to becoming a millionaire - by Terry Marsh - Helium
> 
> "The *vast majority *of today's millionaires did not inherit their money -- they're self-made."
> Richistan
> 
> 
> According to a study by Prince & Associates, *less than 10% of todays multi-millionaires cited inheritance *as their source of wealth.
> The Decline of Inherited Money - The Wealth Report - WSJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today, a "multi-millionaire" really isn't all that rare a bird, and it is no surprise to me that less than 10% site "inheritance" as their source of wealth: If I inherited $10 million, and turned it into $20 million, my "source of wealth" would be whatever I did to double my money.
> 
> Abberations seem to be "exceptions to whatever PoliticalChic believes."
> 
> It would serve you well to prove, rather than simply claim, that the USA has no Elite Wealthy Class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No prob.
> 
> There is no perpetual 'Elite Wealthy Class' in America.
> 
> There is no 'Rich Class.'
> 
> The hypostetical construct is a useful image ginned up by the Left.
> You seem to have fallen for it.
> 
> *25 percent of the super-rich in 1996 remained in that category in 2005. *
Click to expand...


Um......how have I "fallen for" anything?

Your own (sanitized to remove the subjectivity) quote demonstrates that there is a "Super-Rich" class, and that 25% the perpetuated itself over the past decade.

I'm not certain what happened to the other 75% (oddly omitted) however, I doubt they qualified for food stamps. My guess is that for convenient statistical reporting purposes (about which you seem oblivious), they slipped into either the "Super-Duper Rich" class, or into the "Not-so-super Rich" class.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Regarding caste in America:

The book The Invention of the White Race by Theodore W. Allen gives an interesting insight into how the demographic group we now call'white' emerged. He writes: "Until the 17th century, the white skin privilege was recognized neither in the law nor in the social practices of the labor classes. But by the early decades of the eighteenth century, racial oppression would be the norm in the plantation colonies, and African Americans would continue to suffer under its yoke for more than two centuriesAfrican bond-laborers were turned into chattel slaves and were differentiated from their fellow proletarians of European origin. Rocked by the solidarity across racial lines exhibited by the rebellious laboring classes in the wake of the famous Bacon's Rebellion, the plantation bourgeoisie sought a solution to its labor problems in the creation of a buffer control stratum of poor whites, who enjoyed little enough privilege in colonial society beyond that of their skin color, which protected them from enslavementSuch was the invention of the white race." 

America's color-coding was based on the category of labor that one was placed into. This is further elaborated in the book How the Irish Became White, written by Noel Ignatiev, a lecturer at Harvard. He describes how the Irish, who were branded for centuries as the underclass in Europe, came to America and used the labor color-coding system of the American society to get reclassified as the white class. Especially in places where the slaves had been freed, it became important for European immigrant groups to make sure that they were distinguished and protected through labor unions that were racially exclusivist. Blacks often became factory workers in large centralized environments, whereas construction jobs such as plumbing, electrical, masonry, and carpentry became the turf of specific European ethnic labor unions. 

Another useful book is How the Jews Became White Folks, authored by Professor Karen Brodkin at the University of California, Los Angeles. A Jewish woman herself, she tells the story of how the Jews started this climb up the caste ladder of America just fifty years ago to reach their present position, mainly by taking control of specific professions. 

Is There an American Caste System? : Rajiv Malhotra blogs on sulekha, History blogs, Rajiv Malhotra blog from india


----------



## Sky Dancer

Here's another essay on the New American Caste System:
The New American Caste System


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand the point you are making vis-a-vis my post...
> ...the 'giving away' being discussed here is to their children.
> 
> As an aside...my expericence at Ivy League universiteies is that there are quite a few dolts...but doors will open to them that may not for others.
> This has nothing to do with any reputed caste system....which I deny exists in the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the wealthy use their money to improve the chances of their children GROWING their inheritances AND MAINTAINING A CASTE SYSTEM. They do not sit their kids in front of Spongebobsquarepants for 18 years, then simply hand them a check for $100 million!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The blessings of liberty the Founders gave us were intended to replace the caste system with no limits leaving each of us to make of that what we can.   Many make the most of what they can; others coast; others sit on their hands and resent what others have.  That is why the poorest of the poor so often rise to that 'elite class' and why some born into the 'elite class' wind up bankrupt or in prison or otherwise in less than noble circumstances than their parents.
> 
> Nobody is required to stay where they are.  The fact that some choose to do so does not create a CASTE system.
Click to expand...


The founders wouldn't have let you vote, and it would be very unlikely that you would be allowed to work outside the home, so don't begin the "blessings of liberty the Founders gave us" routine.

True, there is no REQUIREMENT that anyone "stay where they are."

But its a little silly to expect most of the wealthy to try to leave their class, or to throw their children into the public school system to try to give them a better chance of living like Archie Bunker.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Another writer sees it this way:

Royal Line (Elite): This is the class of leisure wealth and all-star status. Its where our CEOs, professional athletes, Hollywood actors, mainstream musicians, congressmen and senators reside. These are the people the rest of us write about, read about, watch on TV, and emulate in fashion and culture.

MacWealthy (Privileged): This is the class of well-educated professionals. These are where the lawyers, doctors, scientists, technologists, and consultants come from. These are the high-level business people who live in the MacMansions in our teaming suburbs.

White Fence (Middle): The unique thing about the United States is our ability to delude ourselves. This is the class where the workers reside and all of them think they are in the middle class  no matter what theyre income level. This is where janitors, clerical workers, fire fighters, construction workers, craftsmen, retail salespeople, waitresses, line cooks, and garbage men fall. 

Forgotten (Poor): The unemployed, drop-outs, illegal immigrants, and those who live below and around the poverty line reside here.

DaRK PaRTY ReVIEW


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, a "multi-millionaire" really isn't all that rare a bird, and it is no surprise to me that less than 10% site "inheritance" as their source of wealth: If I inherited $10 million, and turned it into $20 million, my "source of wealth" would be whatever I did to double my money.
> 
> Abberations seem to be "exceptions to whatever PoliticalChic believes."
> 
> It would serve you well to prove, rather than simply claim, that the USA has no Elite Wealthy Class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No prob.
> 
> There is no perpetual 'Elite Wealthy Class' in America.
> 
> There is no 'Rich Class.'
> 
> The hypostetical construct is a useful image ginned up by the Left.
> You seem to have fallen for it.
> 
> *25 percent of the super-rich in 1996 remained in that category in 2005. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um......how have I "fallen for" anything?
> 
> Your own (sanitized to remove the subjectivity) quote demonstrates that there is a "Super-Rich" class, and that 25% the perpetuated itself over the past decade.
> 
> I'm not certain what happened to the other 75% (oddly omitted) however, I doubt they qualified for food stamps. My guess is that for convenient statistical reporting purposes (about which you seem oblivious), they slipped into either the "Super-Duper Rich" class, or into the "Not-so-super Rich" class.
Click to expand...


Still a CASTE SYSTEM suggests that people are stuck with the circumstances they are born into.  I don't think you believe that Americans must forever endure the circumstances they are born into, so I don't know why you seem to be arguing for that point of view.  Our Constitution was intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity meaning that it protects our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The intention was that each individual would then make of that whatever they chose to do.   The fact that so many immigrants arrived here with little more than the shirts on their backs and prospered beyond anything they could expect in their home countries is proof of the lack of a caste system in this country.


----------



## Si modo

PoliticalChic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> "In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!
> 
> 
> 
> So, would you be in favor of legislating morality?  If so, how would one reconcile that view with the TP's tenets?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So, would you be in favor of legislating morality?"
> 
> And you gleaned that from the OP....where?
Click to expand...

Ummm, that's why it was a question?  I could guess what your answer is, but I prefer to ask.


----------



## Sky Dancer

New York Times has written a series of articles on the topic of class:

And new research on mobility, the movement of families up and down the economic ladder, shows there is far less of it than economists once thought and less than most people believe. In fact, mobility, which once buoyed the working lives of Americans as it rose in the decades after World War II, has lately flattened out or possibly even declined, many researchers say.

Mobility is the promise that lies at the heart of the American dream. It is supposed to take the sting out of the widening gulf between the have-mores and the have-nots. There are poor and rich in the United States, of course, the argument goes; but as long as one can become the other, as long as there is something close to equality of opportunity, the differences between them do not add up to class barriers.

Over the next three weeks, The Times will publish a series of articles on class in America, a dimension of the national experience that tends to go unexamined, if acknowledged at all. 
Shadowy Lines That Still Divide - New York Times


----------



## Sky Dancer

It is always the priveleged that say class can be overcome.  It can be overcome, but not everyone is able to overcome it.  That's the American Myth.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Si modo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, would you be in favor of legislating morality?  If so, how would one reconcile that view with the TP's tenets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So, would you be in favor of legislating morality?"
> 
> And you gleaned that from the OP....where?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ummm, that's why it was a question?  I could guess what your answer is, but I prefer to ask.
Click to expand...


Exactly what do you mean by morality?


----------



## Samson

Sky Dancer said:


> White Fence (Middle): The unique thing about the United States is our _*ability to delude ourselves. *_This is the class where the workers reside and all of them think they are in the middle class  no matter what theyre income level. This is where janitors, clerical workers, fire fighters, construction workers, craftsmen, retail salespeople, waitresses, line cooks, and garbage men fall.
> 
> Forgotten (Poor): The unemployed, drop-outs, illegal immigrants, and those who live below and around the poverty line reside here.
> 
> DaRK PaRTY ReVIEW



Um...what does "The Dark Party Review" blogger mean by "ability to delude ourselves?"

I suppose the implication is that members of the "middle class" in a very widely defined class, and it includes members at either end of a spectrum. Sorry, Mr. Blogger, but there are going to be a certain proportion at the bottom of whatever "caste" you want to define. They are not "deluded." They usually have the same lifestyle as those with the median income of their class.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No prob.
> 
> There is no perpetual 'Elite Wealthy Class' in America.
> 
> There is no 'Rich Class.'
> 
> The hypostetical construct is a useful image ginned up by the Left.
> You seem to have fallen for it.
> 
> *25 percent of the super-rich in 1996 remained in that category in 2005. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um......how have I "fallen for" anything?
> 
> Your own (sanitized to remove the subjectivity) quote demonstrates that there is a "Super-Rich" class, and that 25% the perpetuated itself over the past decade.
> 
> I'm not certain what happened to the other 75% (oddly omitted) however, I doubt they qualified for food stamps. My guess is that for convenient statistical reporting purposes (about which you seem oblivious), they slipped into either the "Super-Duper Rich" class, or into the "Not-so-super Rich" class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still a CASTE SYSTEM suggests that people are stuck with the circumstances they are born into.  I don't think you believe that Americans must forever endure the circumstances they are born into, so I don't know why you seem to be arguing for that point of view.  Our Constitution was intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity meaning that it protects our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The intention was that each individual would then make of that whatever they chose to do.   The fact that so many immigrants arrived here with little more than the shirts on their backs and prospered beyond anything they could expect in their home countries is proof of the lack of a caste system in this country.
Click to expand...


Here we go dragging out the "Blessings of Liberty" routine, and the constitution, and our "Inaliable rights"

Let's get real, shall we?

Strictly speaking a "Caste System" doesn't just "suggest," it INSISTS that you will remain in whatever socioeconomic condition into which you are born for the remainder of your life. The USA doesn't have a cast system that fits this STRICT definition, nor does France, or Victorian England, or even India.

In the USA, it is easier to move between socioeconomic conditions, but to believe that there are simply NO BARRIERS is absolute foolishness. Our Consitution (sort of) claims that our GOVERNMENT will not create any barriers, but that doesn't meant they won't happen, or that a government program will effectively prevent them from occuring.

Strictly speaking, a CASTE SYSTEM doesn't just "suggest," it INSISTS


----------



## Si modo

PoliticalChic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So, would you be in favor of legislating morality?"
> 
> And you gleaned that from the OP....where?
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, that's why it was a question?  I could guess what your answer is, but I prefer to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly what do you mean by morality?
Click to expand...

The dictionary definition, but I'll make it more specific pertaining to the OP:  "traditional values".

I honestly didn't think it was a complicated question and meant nothing by it.


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um......how have I "fallen for" anything?
> 
> Your own (sanitized to remove the subjectivity) quote demonstrates that there is a "Super-Rich" class, and that 25% the perpetuated itself over the past decade.
> 
> I'm not certain what happened to the other 75% (oddly omitted) however, I doubt they qualified for food stamps. My guess is that for convenient statistical reporting purposes (about which you seem oblivious), they slipped into either the "Super-Duper Rich" class, or into the "Not-so-super Rich" class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still a CASTE SYSTEM suggests that people are stuck with the circumstances they are born into.  I don't think you believe that Americans must forever endure the circumstances they are born into, so I don't know why you seem to be arguing for that point of view.  Our Constitution was intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity meaning that it protects our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The intention was that each individual would then make of that whatever they chose to do.   The fact that so many immigrants arrived here with little more than the shirts on their backs and prospered beyond anything they could expect in their home countries is proof of the lack of a caste system in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go dragging out the "Blessings of Liberty" routine, and the constitution, and our "Inaliable rights"
> 
> Let's get real, shall we?
> 
> Strictly speaking a "Caste System" doesn't just "suggest," it INSISTS that you will remain in whatever socioeconomic condition into which you are born for the remainder of your life. The USA doesn't have a cast system that fits this STRICT definition, nor does France, or Victorian England, or even India.
> 
> In the USA, it is easier to move between socioeconomic conditions, but to believe that there are simply NO BARRIERS is absolute foolishness. Our Consitution (sort of) claims that our GOVERNMENT will not create any barriers, but that doesn't meant they won't happen, or that a government program will effectively prevent them from occuring.
> 
> Strictly speaking, a CASTE SYSTEM doesn't just "suggest," it INSISTS
Click to expand...


So you are contradicting yourself.  

Yes some people do have barriers.  Some people are too big to be fighter pilots.  Some people are born with physical or mental handicaps that prevent them from qualifying for certain occupations or that will prevent them from achieving certain goals.  Some are too heavy to be jockeys or too short to play professional basketball or lack the aptitude to be a rocket scientist.  Such circumstances of birth are simply the luck of the draw, however, and not a result of any system that puts up barriers for whole groups of people by virtue of their parents, race, ethnicity, or whatever.  An enforced 'caste' or 'class' suggests something people do to other people.  I think that is very very rare in this country.  So rare that it isn't really even a factor.

The fact that some are gifted with more advantages than others is the luck of the draw and not some impossed system of class or caste.  And we all have the same choices to benefit or not from the ability to change our circumstances.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still a CASTE SYSTEM suggests that people are stuck with the circumstances they are born into.  I don't think you believe that Americans must forever endure the circumstances they are born into, so I don't know why you seem to be arguing for that point of view.  Our Constitution was intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity meaning that it protects our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The intention was that each individual would then make of that whatever they chose to do.   The fact that so many immigrants arrived here with little more than the shirts on their backs and prospered beyond anything they could expect in their home countries is proof of the lack of a caste system in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go dragging out the "Blessings of Liberty" routine, and the constitution, and our "Inaliable rights"
> 
> Let's get real, shall we?
> 
> Strictly speaking a "Caste System" doesn't just "suggest," it INSISTS that you will remain in whatever socioeconomic condition into which you are born for the remainder of your life. The USA doesn't have a cast system that fits this STRICT definition, nor does France, or Victorian England, or even India.
> 
> In the USA, it is easier to move between socioeconomic conditions, but to believe that there are simply NO BARRIERS is absolute foolishness. Our Consitution (sort of) claims that our GOVERNMENT will not create any barriers, but that doesn't meant they won't happen, or that a government program will effectively prevent them from occuring.
> 
> Strictly speaking, a CASTE SYSTEM doesn't just "suggest," it INSISTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are contradicting yourself.
> 
> Yes some people do have barriers.  Some people are too big to be fighter pilots.  Some people are born with physical or mental handicaps that prevent them from qualifying for certain occupations or that will prevent them from achieving certain goals.  Some are too heavy to be jockeys or too short to play professional basketball or lack the aptitude to be a rocket scientist.  Such circumstances of birth are simply the luck of the draw, however, and not a result of any system that puts up barriers for whole groups of people by virtue of their parents, race, ethnicity, or whatever.  An enforced 'caste' or 'class' suggests something people do to other people.  I think that is very very rare in this country.  So rare that it isn't really even a factor.
> 
> The fact that some are gifted with more advantages than others is the luck of the draw and not some impossed system of class or caste.  And we all have the same choices to benefit or not from the ability to change our circumstances.
Click to expand...


If you mean by "contradicting" that I don't subscribe to the strictest definition of a "Caste System" then I'm guilty. However I don't believe you can find anywhere where I've claimed there is any such system in the USA, or anywhere else.

I'm pleased we have moved past waving the US Consitution around as if it is some magic wand that prevents any form of socioeconomic class system from happening, and if you choose to believe that only "some" Americans remain within the class into which they are born because they are short, or handicapped, or heavy, or stupid, then that certainly is one theory.

The more realistic theory for me is that socioeconomic barriers are, by definition, difficult to overcome, and that most people don't bother to try. The fact that a few do try, and an even fewer break through, does not serve as an illusion that NO BARRIERS EXIST, and encourage me to begin singing the National Anthem.


----------



## Samson

Si modo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, that's why it was a question?  I could guess what your answer is, but I prefer to ask.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly what do you mean by morality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dictionary definition, but I'll make it more specific pertaining to the OP:  "traditional values".
> 
> I honestly didn't think it was a complicated question and meant nothing by it.
Click to expand...


HA!



I don't believe you!!!


You are teh Debil!!!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Samson said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, a "multi-millionaire" really isn't all that rare a bird, and it is no surprise to me that less than 10% site "inheritance" as their source of wealth: If I inherited $10 million, and turned it into $20 million, my "source of wealth" would be whatever I did to double my money.
> 
> Abberations seem to be "exceptions to whatever PoliticalChic believes."
> 
> It would serve you well to prove, rather than simply claim, that the USA has no Elite Wealthy Class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No prob.
> 
> There is no perpetual 'Elite Wealthy Class' in America.
> 
> There is no 'Rich Class.'
> 
> The hypostetical construct is a useful image ginned up by the Left.
> You seem to have fallen for it.
> 
> *25 percent of the super-rich in 1996 remained in that category in 2005. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um......how have I "fallen for" anything?
> 
> Your own (sanitized to remove the subjectivity) quote demonstrates that there is a "Super-Rich" class, and that 25% the perpetuated itself over the past decade.
> 
> I'm not certain what happened to the other 75% (oddly omitted) however, I doubt they qualified for food stamps. My guess is that for convenient statistical reporting purposes (about which you seem oblivious), they slipped into either the "Super-Duper Rich" class, or into the "Not-so-super Rich" class.
Click to expand...


1. Well, since we agree that at least 3/4 of the "elite wealthy class" ceases to exist as such, it pretty well destroys you premise.....
....whether you admit it or not.

Nor do the stats suggest that the remaining 1/4 is perpetual...it suggests that of a period of times 3/4 of that group moves along the economic ladder, etc., etc. 

Drag your feet as you may, I'm sure that you see that.


2. "how have I "fallen for" anything?"

By continuing to imply that the above concept has no moment.

3. "I doubt they qualified for food stamps."
Why? You just admitted "I'm not certain what happened to the other 75%."

4. "sanitized to remove the subjectivity" and "oddly omitted" and "about which you seem oblivious"
These petulant little digs are the clearest indicia that you know that your argument has been defeated and you don't like it one little bit.

Poor baby.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the wealthy use their money to improve the chances of their children GROWING their inheritances AND MAINTAINING A CASTE SYSTEM. They do not sit their kids in front of Spongebobsquarepants for 18 years, then simply hand them a check for $100 million!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The blessings of liberty the Founders gave us were intended to replace the caste system with no limits leaving each of us to make of that what we can.   Many make the most of what they can; others coast; others sit on their hands and resent what others have.  That is why the poorest of the poor so often rise to that 'elite class' and why some born into the 'elite class' wind up bankrupt or in prison or otherwise in less than noble circumstances than their parents.
> 
> Nobody is required to stay where they are.  The fact that some choose to do so does not create a CASTE system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The founders wouldn't have let you vote, and it would be very unlikely that you would be allowed to work outside the home, so don't begin the "blessings of liberty the Founders gave us" routine.
> 
> True, there is no REQUIREMENT that anyone "stay where they are."
> 
> But its a little silly to expect most of the wealthy to try to leave their class, or to throw their children into the public school system to try to give them a better chance of living like Archie Bunker.
Click to expand...


The Founders included the mechanism which allowed those of us of the distaff persuasion to change the condition to which you refer.

That foresight is a major part of the equation that is America; why do you ignore it.


----------



## Samson

PoliticalChic said:


> 3. "I doubt they qualified for food stamps."
> Why? You just admitted "I'm not certain what happened to the other 75%."



If your idea of critical thinking is to wonder if the 75% of the "super rich" fell from that category into qualifying for food stamps then there's not much hope for you.


----------



## Samson

PoliticalChic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The blessings of liberty the Founders gave us were intended to replace the caste system with no limits leaving each of us to make of that what we can.   Many make the most of what they can; others coast; others sit on their hands and resent what others have.  That is why the poorest of the poor so often rise to that 'elite class' and why some born into the 'elite class' wind up bankrupt or in prison or otherwise in less than noble circumstances than their parents.
> 
> Nobody is required to stay where they are.  The fact that some choose to do so does not create a CASTE system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The founders wouldn't have let you vote, and it would be very unlikely that you would be allowed to work outside the home, so don't begin the "blessings of liberty the Founders gave us" routine.
> 
> True, there is no REQUIREMENT that anyone "stay where they are."
> 
> But its a little silly to expect most of the wealthy to try to leave their class, or to throw their children into the public school system to try to give them a better chance of living like Archie Bunker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Founders included the mechanism which allowed those of us of the distaff persuasion to change the condition to which you refer.
> 
> That foresight is a major part of the equation that is America; why do you ignore it.
Click to expand...


No, The Founders specifically included the disenfranchisement of large portions of american society, but I suppose in your imaginary little world, involking "The Founders" is some sort of Talisman used to ward off reality: Barriers do exist between different socioeconomic groups in The Land of The Free. 

The fact that there are a few able to overcome these barriers doesn't eliminate the fact that they exist. 
The fact that the government doesn't promote these barriers doesn't eliminate the fact that they exist. 
The fact that most Americans are happy being in their current socioeconomic class doesn't eliminate the fact that they exist.

But you go ahead and consider that, despite human nature, "the Founders" emplaced a barrier-free socioeconomic state in which everyone is drinking bubble-up, and eating rainbow stew.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Si modo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, that's why it was a question?  I could guess what your answer is, but I prefer to ask.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly what do you mean by morality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dictionary definition, but I'll make it more specific pertaining to the OP:  "traditional values".
> 
> I honestly didn't think it was a complicated question and meant nothing by it.
Click to expand...


"I honestly didn't think it was a complicated question and meant nothing by it."
Actually, I asked because I feel it is a complicated question, but I apologize if you felt that I was...offended, or challenged.
I love the debate and the examination of this sort of question.

mo·ral·i·ty/m&#601;&#712;ral&#601;t&#275;/Noun: 1.Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. 

Too vague....

How about including the idea that schools should teach the combination of skills, and traits that are identified above, and that add to the chances that both the individual and the society would be most successful.

It seems to me that you can probably guess where I'm coming from, and several of my posts in this thread would add to the answer I'm about to give, but what do you think about these...and are they 'morality'?

1. Rather than the anti-capitalism screeds, as in "The Story of Stuff," I want schools to identify and extoll the economic system that has proven most efficacious: free-market capitalism.
a. the reasons for taxation, and the dangers of excessive taxation.
b. competition
c. entrepreneurship

2. The societal and individual benefits of marriage and a two parent family, and the deleterious results of having children out of wedlock.

3.Schools should take a more proactive stance in the face of criminal behavior: do not shy away from removing student who have exhibited same.


Is that a start?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Samson said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. "I doubt they qualified for food stamps."
> Why? You just admitted "I'm not certain what happened to the other 75%."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your idea of critical thinking is to wonder if the 75% of the "super rich" fell from that category into qualifying for food stamps then there's not much hope for you.
Click to expand...


Still smarting, eh?


----------



## eots

PoliticalChic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. "I doubt they qualified for food stamps."
> Why? You just admitted "I'm not certain what happened to the other 75%."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your idea of critical thinking is to wonder if the 75% of the "super rich" fell from that category into qualifying for food stamps then there's not much hope for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still smarting, eh?
Click to expand...


back in the kitchen woman


----------



## PoliticalChic

eots said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your idea of critical thinking is to wonder if the 75% of the "super rich" fell from that category into qualifying for food stamps then there's not much hope for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still smarting, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> back in the kitchen woman
Click to expand...


Stop peeking!


----------



## Samson

PoliticalChic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. "I doubt they qualified for food stamps."
> Why? You just admitted "I'm not certain what happened to the other 75%."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your idea of critical thinking is to wonder if the 75% of the "super rich" fell from that category into qualifying for food stamps then there's not much hope for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still smarting, eh?
Click to expand...


Indeed: You should offer free Tylenol for anyone attempting to have an intelligent conversation with you.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Samson said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your idea of critical thinking is to wonder if the 75% of the "super rich" fell from that category into qualifying for food stamps then there's not much hope for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still smarting, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed: You should offer free Tylenol for anyone attempting to have an intelligent conversation with you.
Click to expand...


Beware: I dont have a license to kill, but I do have a learners permit.


----------



## Samson

PoliticalChic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still smarting, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed: You should offer free Tylenol for anyone attempting to have an intelligent conversation with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beware: I don&#8217;t have a license to kill, but I do have a learners&#8217; permit.
Click to expand...


Readers of PoliticalChic assume some risk of permanent brain damage, and even death.

I understand that the US Surgeon General is going to require this warning on the USMB banner.


----------



## caela

It's not the school's place to teach morality or "traditional values". It is the school's place to teach my child to read, write, do arithmetic, history, science, civics etc. It is also a school's duty to reinforce such lessons as honesty and integrity through the policies they put in place to deal with children who are less than such.

It is NOT their place to teach my child that having children out of wedlock, or having premarital sex is wrong. It is not their place to teach my child that the only acceptable relationship is that of a man/woman. It is not their place to indoctrinate my child into whatever value system they feel is appropriate. The only values they should have any interaction in trying to teach a child are those that specifically have to do with how a child acts while on school grounds (for classes or school related functions) such as not fighting, not cheating, finishing their work in the appropriate time to earn full credit.

Anything concerning general values are MY prerogative to teach to my child...not theirs. It is my job to teach my child that she is special and loved. It is my job to teach her the value of hard work and the value of the education she will be getting in school. It is my job to teach her to respect ALL people regardless of social or economic class or any other arbitrary labels we like to put on people. It is my job to teach her about relationships, love, respect for herself and others, and any other value you would like to name.

Let the school do their job, I'll do mine.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Samson said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed: You should offer free Tylenol for anyone attempting to have an intelligent conversation with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beware: I dont have a license to kill, but I do have a learners permit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Readers of PoliticalChic assume some risk of permanent brain damage, and even death.
> 
> I understand that the US Surgeon General is going to require this warning on the USMB banner.
Click to expand...


"Readers of PoliticalChic assume some risk of permanent *brain* damage,"

Well, then, good news:  you have absolutely no chance of any deleterious effects.

As a dyslexic, I bet you got lousy grades- but never knew it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

caela said:


> It's not the school's place to teach morality or "traditional values". It is the school's place to teach my child to read, write, do arithmetic, history, science, civics etc. It is also a school's duty to reinforce such lessons as honesty and integrity through the policies they put in place to deal with children who are less than such.
> 
> It is NOT their place to teach my child that having children out of wedlock, or having premarital sex is wrong. It is not their place to teach my child that the only acceptable relationship is that of a man/woman. It is not their place to indoctrinate my child into whatever value system they feel is appropriate. The only values they should have any interaction in trying to teach a child are those that specifically have to do with how a child acts while on school grounds (for classes or school related functions) such as not fighting, not cheating, finishing their work in the appropriate time to earn full credit.
> 
> Anything concerning general values are MY prerogative to teach to my child...not theirs. It is my job to teach my child that she is special and loved. It is my job to teach her the value of hard work and the value of the education she will be getting in school. It is my job to teach her to respect ALL people regardless of social or economic class or any other arbitrary labels we like to put on people. It is my job to teach her about relationships, love, respect for herself and others, and any other value you would like to name.
> 
> Let the school do their job, I'll do mine.



Hard to see how you can 'do your job' since you don't realize that there is hardly an objective way to include 'history, science, civics, ect."
Herein is the entre to Left wing views for children.

Further, would you really object if you could be convinced there are "skills, and traits that are identified above, and that add to the chances that both the individual and the society would be *most successful*."

Really?


----------



## Foxfyre

PoliticalChic said:


> caela said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the school's place to teach morality or "traditional values". It is the school's place to teach my child to read, write, do arithmetic, history, science, civics etc. It is also a school's duty to reinforce such lessons as honesty and integrity through the policies they put in place to deal with children who are less than such.
> 
> It is NOT their place to teach my child that having children out of wedlock, or having premarital sex is wrong. It is not their place to teach my child that the only acceptable relationship is that of a man/woman. It is not their place to indoctrinate my child into whatever value system they feel is appropriate. The only values they should have any interaction in trying to teach a child are those that specifically have to do with how a child acts while on school grounds (for classes or school related functions) such as not fighting, not cheating, finishing their work in the appropriate time to earn full credit.
> 
> Anything concerning general values are MY prerogative to teach to my child...not theirs. It is my job to teach my child that she is special and loved. It is my job to teach her the value of hard work and the value of the education she will be getting in school. It is my job to teach her to respect ALL people regardless of social or economic class or any other arbitrary labels we like to put on people. It is my job to teach her about relationships, love, respect for herself and others, and any other value you would like to name.
> 
> Let the school do their job, I'll do mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to see how you can 'do your job' since you don't realize that there is hardly an objective way to include 'history, science, civics, ect."
> Herein is the entre to Left wing views for children.
> 
> Further, would you really object if you could be convinced there are "skills, and traits that are identified above, and that add to the chances that both the individual and the society would be *most successful*."
> 
> Really?
Click to expand...


I agree with Caela that schools should not be teaching that premarital sex or having kids out of wedlock etc. is right or wrong, good or bad.  I think you are right, however, that a good education includes information on the statistics of poverty and other economic and social factors re those who enter into traditional marriage versus single parents, etc.

There is a problem when the government school imposes a moral value on the facts.

The same goes with information on landmark court decisions, acts of Congress, various government policies, key elements of history and culture etc.  Again the student should not be instructed that one thing is good while the other is bad, but should be providing honest and complete objective information by which the student can make value judgments.  

There is no problem with teaching the facts that will provide sufficient information for the student to consider what values he or she wants to guide his/her life.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Foxfyre said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caela said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the school's place to teach morality or "traditional values". It is the school's place to teach my child to read, write, do arithmetic, history, science, civics etc. It is also a school's duty to reinforce such lessons as honesty and integrity through the policies they put in place to deal with children who are less than such.
> 
> It is NOT their place to teach my child that having children out of wedlock, or having premarital sex is wrong. It is not their place to teach my child that the only acceptable relationship is that of a man/woman. It is not their place to indoctrinate my child into whatever value system they feel is appropriate. The only values they should have any interaction in trying to teach a child are those that specifically have to do with how a child acts while on school grounds (for classes or school related functions) such as not fighting, not cheating, finishing their work in the appropriate time to earn full credit.
> 
> Anything concerning general values are MY prerogative to teach to my child...not theirs. It is my job to teach my child that she is special and loved. It is my job to teach her the value of hard work and the value of the education she will be getting in school. It is my job to teach her to respect ALL people regardless of social or economic class or any other arbitrary labels we like to put on people. It is my job to teach her about relationships, love, respect for herself and others, and any other value you would like to name.
> 
> Let the school do their job, I'll do mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to see how you can 'do your job' since you don't realize that there is hardly an objective way to include 'history, science, civics, ect."
> Herein is the entre to Left wing views for children.
> 
> Further, would you really object if you could be convinced there are "skills, and traits that are identified above, and that add to the chances that both the individual and the society would be *most successful*."
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with Caela that schools should not be teaching that premarital sex or having kids out of wedlock etc. is right or wrong, good or bad.  I think you are right, however, that a good education includes information on the statistics of poverty and other economic and social factors re those who enter into traditional marriage versus single parents, etc.
> 
> There is a problem when the government school imposes a moral value on the facts.
> 
> The same goes with information on landmark court decisions, acts of Congress, various government policies, key elements of history and culture etc.  Again the student should not be instructed that one thing is good while the other is bad, but should be providing honest and complete objective information by which the student can make value judgments.
> 
> There is no problem with teaching the facts that will provide sufficient information for the student to consider what values he or she wants to guide his/her life.
Click to expand...


"...having kids out of wedlock etc. is right or wrong, good or bad."

This has nothing to do with the "government school imposes a moral value on the facts."

Rather, it has do with preparing children to be successful.
These are the facts:
"Here is the lottery ticket that single mothers are handing their innocent children by choosing to raise them without fathers: Controlling for socioeconomic status, race, and place of residence, *the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single parent. *By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy-two percent of juvenile murderers and 60 percent of rapists come from single-mother homes. *Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents, and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers.* Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced. 

A 1990 study by the Progressive Policy Institute showed that after *controlling for single motherhood, the difference between black and white crime rates disappeared.*"
 From Guilty by Ann Coulter


BTW...
*The numbers cited by Coulter come from the Department of Justice's Bureau of Statistics report, *"Intimate Partner Violence in the United States." The survey found that "on average from 2001 to 2005, both females and males who were separated or divorced had the greatest risk of nonfatal intimate partner violence while persons who were married or widowed reported the lowest risk of violence." Between 2001 and 2005, 1.2 out of 1,000 married women reported physical abuse by an "intimate partner" (in this case, their husband), versus 5.5 out of 1,000 among women who never married. 
*In short, Coulter cites the numbers accurately*. 
PolitiFact | Coulter says husbands rarely beat up their wives


If children are lucky enough to have shop class, I know that you would agree that they should be warned about the dangers of the equipment....so....
...you get the idea.

How about it....do we include " teaching that premarital sex or having kids out of wedlock etc. is right or wrong, good or bad."


----------



## caela

PoliticalChic said:


> caela said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the school's place to teach morality or "traditional values". It is the school's place to teach my child to read, write, do arithmetic, history, science, civics etc. It is also a school's duty to reinforce such lessons as honesty and integrity through the policies they put in place to deal with children who are less than such.
> 
> It is NOT their place to teach my child that having children out of wedlock, or having premarital sex is wrong. It is not their place to teach my child that the only acceptable relationship is that of a man/woman. It is not their place to indoctrinate my child into whatever value system they feel is appropriate. The only values they should have any interaction in trying to teach a child are those that specifically have to do with how a child acts while on school grounds (for classes or school related functions) such as not fighting, not cheating, finishing their work in the appropriate time to earn full credit.
> 
> Anything concerning general values are MY prerogative to teach to my child...not theirs. It is my job to teach my child that she is special and loved. It is my job to teach her the value of hard work and the value of the education she will be getting in school. It is my job to teach her to respect ALL people regardless of social or economic class or any other arbitrary labels we like to put on people. It is my job to teach her about relationships, love, respect for herself and others, and any other value you would like to name.
> 
> Let the school do their job, I'll do mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to see how you can 'do your job' since you don't realize that there is hardly an objective way to include 'history, science, civics, ect."
> Herein is the entre to Left wing views for children.
> 
> Further, would you really object if you could be convinced there are "skills, and traits that are identified above, and that add to the chances that both the individual and the society would be *most successful*."
> 
> Really?
Click to expand...


It's not at all hard to be objective with school lessons. 

History: This is what happened on this date. These are the possible causes according to historians.

Civics: This is the way our gov't works. This is the way other gov't systems work. 

Science: If you can't teach science objectively you're an idiot, things like chemistry and biology aren't open to a lot of interpretation.

Leaving topic open for the children to ask questions and have discussions is of course a good thing and should be encouraged, feeding them your own personal bias and shutting down discussions you don't like, is not.

As for what's successful, that in itself can be a moral judgement. If someone can show me that what they want to teach my child is to her benefit, or that they can teach it in a more sound way than I can, I am willing to listen. But I will not just arbitrarily hand over the shaping of my child's values and mores to a school system.

@FoxFyre, I have no problem with them being given the statistical facts of situations if that information is appropriate to the class being taught. Ex. Stats on how many single parent households there are in an urban vs. rural setting, would be totally acceptable in a sociology class, or a statistics class. What I object to is a school system, or teacher, taking it upon themselves to add _their_ value judgements to them.


----------



## caela

PoliticalChic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snipped for length>
> 
> If children are lucky enough to have shop class, I know that you would agree that they should be warned about the dangers of the equipment....so....
> ...you get the idea.
> 
> How about it....do we include " teaching that premarital sex or having kids out of wedlock etc. is right or wrong, good or bad."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No we don't. You give them the statistics and leave the moral judgments off it and let them come to their own conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

somebody would first have to explain what traditional values are ,as they vary from state to state,  home to home, person to person .
then discard the traditions the interfere with  individuals rights...
toss out all the traditions that are based on ignorance and bigotry.
then you might be getting somewhere.


----------



## PoliticalChic

caela said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caela said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the school's place to teach morality or "traditional values". It is the school's place to teach my child to read, write, do arithmetic, history, science, civics etc. It is also a school's duty to reinforce such lessons as honesty and integrity through the policies they put in place to deal with children who are less than such.
> 
> It is NOT their place to teach my child that having children out of wedlock, or having premarital sex is wrong. It is not their place to teach my child that the only acceptable relationship is that of a man/woman. It is not their place to indoctrinate my child into whatever value system they feel is appropriate. The only values they should have any interaction in trying to teach a child are those that specifically have to do with how a child acts while on school grounds (for classes or school related functions) such as not fighting, not cheating, finishing their work in the appropriate time to earn full credit.
> 
> Anything concerning general values are MY prerogative to teach to my child...not theirs. It is my job to teach my child that she is special and loved. It is my job to teach her the value of hard work and the value of the education she will be getting in school. It is my job to teach her to respect ALL people regardless of social or economic class or any other arbitrary labels we like to put on people. It is my job to teach her about relationships, love, respect for herself and others, and any other value you would like to name.
> 
> Let the school do their job, I'll do mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to see how you can 'do your job' since you don't realize that there is hardly an objective way to include 'history, science, civics, ect."
> Herein is the entre to Left wing views for children.
> 
> Further, would you really object if you could be convinced there are "skills, and traits that are identified above, and that add to the chances that both the individual and the society would be *most successful*."
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not at all hard to be objective with school lessons.
> 
> History: This is what happened on this date. These are the possible causes according to historians.
> 
> Civics: This is the way our gov't works. This is the way other gov't systems work.
> 
> Science: If you can't teach science objectively you're an idiot, things like chemistry and biology aren't open to a lot of interpretation.
> 
> Leaving topic open for the children to ask questions and have discussions is of course a good thing and should be encouraged, feeding them your own personal bias and shutting down discussions you don't like, is not.
> 
> As for what's successful, that in itself can be a moral judgement. If someone can show me that what they want to teach my child is to her benefit, or that they can teach it in a more sound way than I can, I am willing to listen. But I will not just arbitrarily hand over the shaping of my child's values and mores to a school system.
> 
> @FoxFyre, I have no problem with them being given the statistical facts of situations if that information is appropriate to the class being taught. Ex. Stats on how many single parent households there are in an urban vs. rural setting, would be totally acceptable in a sociology class, or a statistics class. What I object to is a school system, or teacher, taking it upon themselves to add _their_ value judgements to them.
Click to expand...


1. What, do you live under a rock?

History....teaching how all of the evil that has happened can be laid at the foot of America.

Civics...the benefits of big government, and how it is necessary to restrain the evil corporations.

Science...global warming caused by people, and worship of the earth.

2. "...feeding them your own personal bias and shutting down discussions you don't like, is not."
I wonder if you could identify who and where this was proposed in this thread? If not, it might be an indication that education is necessary. Remedial education.

3. "If someone can show me that what they want to teach my child is to her benefit, or that they can teach it in a more sound way than I can, I am willing to listen." Fair enough...I'm with you here.

4. "But I will not just arbitrarily hand over the shaping of my child's values and mores to a school system."
Unless you homeschool, that is exactly what you have done. 

5. What is your objection to the stats in post #193? 
All true.
You want children to be aware of same, children who are being given sex lessons as early as "a proposal to extend sex education to children as young as kindergarten age."
Read more: Montana Parents Weigh In On Proposed Kindergarten Sex Ed | Fox News

You down with that?


----------



## PoliticalChic

caela said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we don't. You give them the statistics and leave the moral judgments off it and let them come to their own conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said it better than I did....give them the stats from post #193 and there is no doubt as to the conclusion children will determing.
> 
> We may be in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMhwddNQSWQ]"Weird Al" Yankovic - Dare To Be Stupid - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## caela

PoliticalChic said:


> caela said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to see how you can 'do your job' since you don't realize that there is hardly an objective way to include 'history, science, civics, ect."
> Herein is the entre to Left wing views for children.
> 
> Further, would you really object if you could be convinced there are "skills, and traits that are identified above, and that add to the chances that both the individual and the society would be *most successful*."
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not at all hard to be objective with school lessons.
> 
> History: This is what happened on this date. These are the possible causes according to historians.
> 
> Civics: This is the way our gov't works. This is the way other gov't systems work.
> 
> Science: If you can't teach science objectively you're an idiot, things like chemistry and biology aren't open to a lot of interpretation.
> 
> Leaving topic open for the children to ask questions and have discussions is of course a good thing and should be encouraged, feeding them your own personal bias and shutting down discussions you don't like, is not.
> 
> As for what's successful, that in itself can be a moral judgement. If someone can show me that what they want to teach my child is to her benefit, or that they can teach it in a more sound way than I can, I am willing to listen. But I will not just arbitrarily hand over the shaping of my child's values and mores to a school system.
> 
> @FoxFyre, I have no problem with them being given the statistical facts of situations if that information is appropriate to the class being taught. Ex. Stats on how many single parent households there are in an urban vs. rural setting, would be totally acceptable in a sociology class, or a statistics class. What I object to is a school system, or teacher, taking it upon themselves to add _their_ value judgements to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. What, do you live under a rock?
> 
> History....teaching how all of the evil that has happened can be laid at the foot of America.
> 
> Civics...the benefits of big government, and how it is necessary to restrain the evil corporations.
> 
> Science...global warming caused by people, and worship of the earth.
> 
> 2. "...feeding them your own personal bias and shutting down discussions you don't like, is not."
> I wonder if you could identify who and where this was proposed in this thread? If not, it might be an indication that education is necessary. Remedial education.
> 
> 3. "If someone can show me that what they want to teach my child is to her benefit, or that they can teach it in a more sound way than I can, I am willing to listen." Fair enough...I'm with you here.
> 
> 4. "But I will not just arbitrarily hand over the shaping of my child's values and mores to a school system."
> Unless you homeschool, that is exactly what you have done.
> 
> 5. What is your objection to the stats in post #193?
> All true.
> You want children to be aware of same, children who are being given sex lessons as early as "a proposal to extend sex education to children as young as kindergarten age."
> Read more: Montana Parents Weigh In On Proposed Kindergarten Sex Ed | Fox News
> 
> You down with that?
Click to expand...


1) _History....teaching how all of the evil that has happened can be laid at the foot of America._

That's not how history is meant to be taught and there is a lot more of it that happened before America become a country than has happened since. I would LOVE to hear a teacher explain how something like the fall of Rome is the fault of America.

_Civics...the benefits of big government, and how it is necessary to restrain the evil corporations._

Corporations are not a form of gov't despite their current ability to buy politician and leaders the world over. Again, not how the class should be taught. A civic class should be a comparison of types of gov't, their good points and their faults, not a moral judgement on any specific current gov't.

_Science...global warming caused by people, and worship of the earth._

Most people will not argue global warming in and of itself, many will argue over whether we caused it, helped it along, or it is just a natural trend of the Earth itself. I see no problem with putting all the ideas on the table and letting people make their own choices but this is a discussion that is pretty far beyond most primary and junior high kids who are focusing on basic chemistry (hey lets blow things up!) and biology (ewwwww, I have to dissect what?!!!).

2) You're right, I didn't see that suggested in this thread. It was a bias carried over from another thread I was reading.

3) Covered above in your post.

4) No, having my child in a public school isn't handing over the raising of her. It is handing over her education to people who are trained to teach her basic skills like reading and writing. Though in all honesty I am taking that responsibility on myself already (my daughter is 3) because my child has an innate love of learning and wants to learn new things all the time so I work on teaching her the best I can. I know I don't do it as well as a trained teacher, but we seem to be doing all right and she is already starting to read, is trying to make letters, and is working on, very, basic math skills.

5) I didn't say I had any objection to the aforementioned stats. Just that I don't want them presented along with a moral judgement. Part of the point of an education is to teach children to learn to be thinking adults. They won't learn that skill if we don't let them think for themselves. 

Leave teaching morals to the parents, let the schools give them facts and figures, and let them come to their own conclusions somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Foxfyre

PoliticalChic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to see how you can 'do your job' since you don't realize that there is hardly an objective way to include 'history, science, civics, ect."
> Herein is the entre to Left wing views for children.
> 
> Further, would you really object if you could be convinced there are "skills, and traits that are identified above, and that add to the chances that both the individual and the society would be *most successful*."
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Caela that schools should not be teaching that premarital sex or having kids out of wedlock etc. is right or wrong, good or bad.  I think you are right, however, that a good education includes information on the statistics of poverty and other economic and social factors re those who enter into traditional marriage versus single parents, etc.
> 
> There is a problem when the government school imposes a moral value on the facts.
> 
> The same goes with information on landmark court decisions, acts of Congress, various government policies, key elements of history and culture etc.  Again the student should not be instructed that one thing is good while the other is bad, but should be providing honest and complete objective information by which the student can make value judgments.
> 
> There is no problem with teaching the facts that will provide sufficient information for the student to consider what values he or she wants to guide his/her life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...having kids out of wedlock etc. is right or wrong, good or bad."
> 
> This has nothing to do with the "government school imposes a moral value on the facts."
> 
> Rather, it has do with preparing children to be successful.
> These are the facts:
> "Here is the lottery ticket that single mothers are handing their innocent children by choosing to raise them without fathers: Controlling for socioeconomic status, race, and place of residence, *the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single parent. *By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy-two percent of juvenile murderers and 60 percent of rapists come from single-mother homes. *Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents, and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers.* Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced.
> 
> A 1990 study by the Progressive Policy Institute showed that after *controlling for single motherhood, the difference between black and white crime rates disappeared.*"
> From Guilty by Ann Coulter
> 
> 
> BTW...
> *The numbers cited by Coulter come from the Department of Justice's Bureau of Statistics report, *"Intimate Partner Violence in the United States." The survey found that "on average from 2001 to 2005, both females and males who were separated or divorced had the greatest risk of nonfatal intimate partner violence while persons who were married or widowed reported the lowest risk of violence." Between 2001 and 2005, 1.2 out of 1,000 married women reported physical abuse by an "intimate partner" (in this case, their husband), versus 5.5 out of 1,000 among women who never married.
> *In short, Coulter cites the numbers accurately*.
> PolitiFact | Coulter says husbands rarely beat up their wives
> 
> 
> If children are lucky enough to have shop class, I know that you would agree that they should be warned about the dangers of the equipment....so....
> ...you get the idea.
> 
> How about it....do we include " teaching that premarital sex or having kids out of wedlock etc. is right or wrong, good or bad."
Click to expand...


No, you don't teach it as right or wrong, good or bad any more than you teach forms of government as right or wrong, good or bad, or the environmental issues as right or wrong or good or bad.  You give them the statistics and the truth about different choices of lifestyle from single parenthood to traditional marriage to permanently single, etc. and the crime, education results, financial circumstances etc. olf each group.  You give them the rationale behind the various forms of government from feudalism to monarchy to Marxism to democracy to the Constitutional Republic that is the USA and the honest version of what has happened when each was put into practice and let the kids decide which is good, which is bad, etc.   You give both sides of the debate re global warming, exploitation and use of resources, etc. along with the best information available and let the kids decide.

There are all kinds of ways to arm the kids with what they need to know to make value judgments without making those value judgments for them or skewing the information so that only one point of view seems logical.


----------



## Money

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No prob.
> 
> There is no perpetual 'Elite Wealthy Class' in America.
> 
> There is no 'Rich Class.'
> 
> The hypostetical construct is a useful image ginned up by the Left.
> You seem to have fallen for it.
> 
> *25 percent of the super-rich in 1996 remained in that category in 2005. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um......how have I "fallen for" anything?
> 
> Your own (sanitized to remove the subjectivity) quote demonstrates that there is a "Super-Rich" class, and that 25% the perpetuated itself over the past decade.
> 
> I'm not certain what happened to the other 75% (oddly omitted) however, I doubt they qualified for food stamps. My guess is that for convenient statistical reporting purposes (about which you seem oblivious), they slipped into either the "Super-Duper Rich" class, or into the "Not-so-super Rich" class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still a CASTE SYSTEM suggests that people are stuck with the circumstances they are born into.  I don't think you believe that Americans must forever endure the circumstances they are born into, so I don't know why you seem to be arguing for that point of view.  Our Constitution was intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity meaning that it protects our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The intention was that each individual would then make of that whatever they chose to do.   The fact that so many immigrants arrived here with little more than the shirts on their backs and prospered beyond anything they could expect in their home countries is proof of the lack of a caste system in this country.
Click to expand...


Well, like any society we do have social classes. I think there's a big difference between a caste system and having recognizable social classes. a caste system is far more deliberate and sophisticated then anything in place in the United States. At most, here in the United States, individuals take pride in the set of values with which they were raised, and would look to perpetuate those values from one generation to the next. This is far less standardized than you would find even in countries like the United Kingdom, but certainly in countries like India or many countries in Latin America.


----------



## Money

Foxfyre said:


> No, you don't teach it as right or wrong, good or bad any more than you teach forms of government as right or wrong, good or bad, or the environmental issues as right or wrong or good or bad.  You give them the statistics and the truth about different choices of lifestyle from single parenthood to traditional marriage to permanently single, etc. and the crime, education results, financial circumstances etc. olf each group.  You give them the rationale behind the various forms of government from feudalism to monarchy to Marxism to democracy to the Constitutional Republic that is the USA and the honest version of what has happened when each was put into practice and let the kids decide which is good, which is bad, etc.   You give both sides of the debate re global warming, exploitation and use of resources, etc. along with the best information available and let the kids decide.
> 
> There are all kinds of ways to arm the kids with what they need to know to make value judgments without making those value judgments for them or skewing the information so that only one point of view seems logical.



Do you recognize that there is some value in having any sort of judgment placed on what might be good or bad in a society or what might be good or bad for our American society? In the same way that ideally we're preparing students for employment here in America, shouldn't the school system be improving the nature of citizen created by the education system?

Devoid of some of this preparation, we literally leave these kids with weak values instilled by their parents at risk of having those judgments made in a court of law or at a job interview, and to their detriment.

If the goal of education is preparation, this is the missing link.


----------



## Old Rocks

PoliticalChic said:


> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> "In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!



Exactly. That is why the younger folks are leading the OWS movement, and us older workers are just following their lead. Traditional values like hard work should be rewarded and criminals should land in jail. Of course, then we would have to find a whole bunch of people to replace many of those in the banks and wall street.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> "In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. That is why the younger folks are leading the OWS movement, and us older workers are just following their lead. Traditional values like hard work should be rewarded and criminals should land in jail. Of course, then we would have to find a whole bunch of people to replace many of those in the banks and wall street.
Click to expand...


The simplest way to shred the essence of your post is to point out that the Pee Party members, regardless of age, are not those who have participated in the traditional values, i.e., hard work in the sense of having done so educationally is to ask you this....

....what is the unemployment rate for college grads?

Higher than the general population?
Lower?
As in so many other areas....you don't know, do you?


"-- the unemployment rate for college graduates (that is, those holding at least a Bachelors degree) is only 4.3 percent. Moreover, this figure has slowly declined from 5.0 percent in August 2010."
Despite Unemployment Worries, 95% of U.S. College Grads Have Jobs - Jobs & Hire

And, as of September, 2011, it is even lower.....4.2%.

Wise up.

The Pee Party is a construct of the Obamunists to 
1. change the subject of the public discussion....worked with you, huh?
2. magnify the class warfare theme
3. play to the covetous
4. try to convince folks that America is a caste society...as some on this
board try to project.

The members of this rent-a-mob include
1. 60's hippies trying to relive the glory days.
2. Left wingers
3. slackers who want what those who have achived have- without
the concomitant efforts.
4. Left wingers
5. simpletons....if the shoe fits....
6. Did I mention Left wingers?
7. agent provocateurs...the administration
8. Oh, yes...and Left wingers!

Rocks, you should only open your mouth to change feet.

Welcome to the real world.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

PoliticalChic said:


> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> "In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!




Its nice to see people want to preserve america for all the things that made it great instead of fundamentally transforming it into something else.


----------



## Foxfyre

Money said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't teach it as right or wrong, good or bad any more than you teach forms of government as right or wrong, good or bad, or the environmental issues as right or wrong or good or bad.  You give them the statistics and the truth about different choices of lifestyle from single parenthood to traditional marriage to permanently single, etc. and the crime, education results, financial circumstances etc. olf each group.  You give them the rationale behind the various forms of government from feudalism to monarchy to Marxism to democracy to the Constitutional Republic that is the USA and the honest version of what has happened when each was put into practice and let the kids decide which is good, which is bad, etc.   You give both sides of the debate re global warming, exploitation and use of resources, etc. along with the best information available and let the kids decide.
> 
> There are all kinds of ways to arm the kids with what they need to know to make value judgments without making those value judgments for them or skewing the information so that only one point of view seems logical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you recognize that there is some value in having any sort of judgment placed on what might be good or bad in a society or what might be good or bad for our American society? In the same way that ideally we're preparing students for employment here in America, shouldn't the school system be improving the nature of citizen created by the education system?
> 
> Devoid of some of this preparation, we literally leave these kids with weak values instilled by their parents at risk of having those judgments made in a court of law or at a job interview, and to their detriment.
> 
> If the goal of education is preparation, this is the missing link.
Click to expand...


I don't think you have to make moral judgments about the subject matter if you give the students honest history and honest results of what happens when THIS happens or what has typically happened when THAT happens.  It is not necessary to make a moral judgment of whether people prefer to have their unalienable rights secured and then govern themselves or whether they are more comfortable having a powerful central government assign rights and privileges to the people.  The latter would include teaching that a large central government that gives you what you want can also take away anything it wants.  The former would include teaching that the most free forms of society include disparities between rich and poor, achievers and those who choose not to try, etc. and have them think about whether that is good or bad, okay or not okay.

It does not require assigning moral values to teach both sides of the global warming debate, including ALL the facts re each, and let the kids figure out which is most logical.

At the same time you aren't shortchanging the education of the students in any way nor are you suggesting that there are no moral judgments to be made.  To this day I know the religious affiliation of two of my teachers that I had from first grade through college, and I don't know the political affiliation of any.  And yet I am pretty much the most opinionated person on the issues that I know and I think my moral center is in no way weak.  I think most of those who travelled that journey with me would say pretty much the same thing about themselves.    A weak society has values dictated to them.  A strong society adopts values that work, that make sense, that accomplish the greater good.


----------



## Samson

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> "In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its nice to see people want to preserve america for all the things that made it great instead of fundamentally transforming it into something else.
Click to expand...




I wish I was in the land of cotton,
Old times they are not forgotten;
Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.
In Dixie Land where I was born,
Early on one frosty mornin,
Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land!


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Samson said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> "In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its nice to see people want to preserve america for all the things that made it great instead of fundamentally transforming it into something else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I was in the land of cotton,
> Old times they are not forgotten;
> Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.
> In Dixie Land where I was born,
> Early on one frosty mornin,
> Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land!
Click to expand...


Wow you think slavery made america great and not the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution through limiting the power of the govt?  

Yikes!


----------



## Sky Dancer

Texas changed it's history curriculum based on the value of promoting a conservative view.

The curriculum plays down the role of Thomas Jefferson among the founding fathers, questions the separation of church and state, and claims that the U.S. government was infiltrated by Communists during the Cold War. 

Because the Texas textbook market is so large, books assigned to the state's 4.7 million students often rocket to the top of the market, decreasing costs for other school districts and leading them to buy the same materials. 

Discussions ranged from whether President Reagan should get more attention (yes), whether hip-hop should be included as part of lessons on American culture (no), and whether President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis's inaugural address should be studied alongside Abraham Lincoln's (yes). 

Of particular contention was the requirement that lessons on McCarthyism note that "the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government." 

The Venona papers document communication between the Soviet Union and its spies. Historians dispute the extent to which transcripts show Soviet involvement in American government. 

Also contentious were changes that asserted Christian faith of the founding fathers. Historians say the founding fathers had a variety of approaches to religion and faith; some, like Jefferson, were quite secular. 



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031700560.html

My guess is right wing posters here approve of this change in the history textbooks even though historican disagree.


----------



## Foxfyre

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its nice to see people want to preserve america for all the things that made it great instead of fundamentally transforming it into something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I was in the land of cotton,
> Old times they are not forgotten;
> Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.
> In Dixie Land where I was born,
> Early on one frosty mornin,
> Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you think slavery made america great and not the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution through limiting the power of the govt?
> 
> Yikes!
Click to expand...


I think Samson was being sarcastic.     So far he hasn't been too sympatico with the whole concept of schools making it possible for students to have ALL the information they need to make value judgments without the government dictating those values to them.  I believe he is more in agreement with that than he's letting on, but that's just a gut feeling and he certainly can speak for himself.


----------



## Sky Dancer

In a report being released today, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute gives the Texas social studies curriculum standards a "D" while accusing "the conservative majority" of using the curriculum "to promote its political priorities, molding the telling of the past to justify its current views and aims."

"Biblical influences on America's founding are exaggerated, if not invented. The complicated but undeniable history of separation between church and state is flatly dismissed," the group wrote.

The broad swipe from a respected conservative education think tank comes after civil rights groups and minority lawmakers have demanded the board scrap the standards and start over.

The Fordham Institute report faults the new Texas standards for distorting or suppressing aspects that the board found politically unacceptable, such as slavery and segregation, while exaggerating religious influences.

History classes are faulted for &#039;politicized distortion&#039; - Houston Chronicle


----------



## Sky Dancer

Judging from the updated social studies curriculum, conservatives want students to come away from a Texas education with a favorable impression of: women who adhere to traditional gender roles, the Confederacy, some parts of the Constitution, capitalism, the military and religion. They do not think students should learn about women who demanded greater equality; other parts of the Constitution; slavery, Reconstruction and the unequal treatment of nonwhites generally; environmentalists; labor unions; federal economic regulation; or foreigners. 

Here are a few examples. The board has removed mention of the Declaration of the Seneca Falls Convention, the letters of John and Abigail Adams and suffrage advocate Carrie Chapman Catt. As examples of "good citizenship" for third graders, it deleted Harriet Tubman and included Clara Barton, founder of the Red Cross, and Helen Keller (the board seems to have slipped up hereKeller was a committed socialist). The role of religionbut not the separation of church and statereceives emphasis throughout. For example, religious revivals are now listed as one of the twelve major "events and eras" from colonial days to 1877. 

The changes seek to reduce or elide discussion of slavery, mentioned mainly for its "impact" on different regions and the coming of the Civil War. A reference to the Atlantic slave trade is dropped in favor of "Triangular trade." Jefferson Davis's inaugural address as president of the Confederacy will now be studied alongside Abraham Lincoln's speeches. 

In grade one, Veterans Day replaces Martin Luther King Jr.
The Nation: Twisting Texas History : NPR


----------



## Samson

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its nice to see people want to preserve america for all the things that made it great instead of fundamentally transforming it into something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I was in the land of cotton,
> Old times they are not forgotten;
> Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.
> In Dixie Land where I was born,
> Early on one frosty mornin,
> Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you think slavery made america great and not the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution through limiting the power of the govt?
> 
> Yikes!
Click to expand...


America prospered between 1780-1860 ...80 years, and arguably the most critical years because it produced cheap cotton and cotton textiles partly as a result of inexpensive labor.

The US Constitution Withheld freedoms specifically to promote its economy during this period, and "Made America Great" (actually, I wouldn't use "great" as an adjective, but rather "Allowed America to Survive.")

Ironically, part of what has made America "Great" is its ability to do exactly the opposite of
"preserve america for all the things that made it great."

Being able to "Fundamentally transforming itself into something else," is what makes the USA a unique, and successful nation.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Foxfyre said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I was in the land of cotton,
> Old times they are not forgotten;
> Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.
> In Dixie Land where I was born,
> Early on one frosty mornin,
> Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you think slavery made america great and not the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution through limiting the power of the govt?
> 
> Yikes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Samson was being sarcastic.     So far he hasn't been too sympatico with the whole concept of schools making it possible for students to have ALL the information they need to make value judgments without the government dictating those values to them.  I believe he is more in agreement with that than he's letting on, but that's just a gut feeling and he certainly can speak for himself.
Click to expand...


I was being sarcastic too and don't typically find samson to "be that way" about things.

I at least hope he knows thats not what I was referring to


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Samson said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I was in the land of cotton,
> Old times they are not forgotten;
> Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.
> In Dixie Land where I was born,
> Early on one frosty mornin,
> Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you think slavery made america great and not the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution through limiting the power of the govt?
> 
> Yikes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America prospered between 1780-1860 ...80 years, and arguably the most critical years because it produced cheap cotton and cotton textiles partly as a result of inexpensive labor.
> 
> The US Constitution Withheld freedoms specifically to promote its economy during this period, and "Made America Great" (actually, I wouldn't use "great" as an adjective, but rather "Allowed America to Survive.")
> 
> Ironically, part of what has made America "Great" is its ability to do exactly the opposite of
> "preserve america for all the things that made it great."
> 
> Being able to "Fundamentally transforming itself into something else," is what makes the USA a unique, and successful nation.
Click to expand...


Ok you weren't being sarcastic 

Do you really think I personally was referring to slavery and bringing it back, something we fought a civil war to abolish?


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I was in the land of cotton,
> Old times they are not forgotten;
> Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.
> In Dixie Land where I was born,
> Early on one frosty mornin,
> Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you think slavery made america great and not the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution through limiting the power of the govt?
> 
> Yikes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Samson was being sarcastic.     So far he hasn't been too sympatico with the whole concept of schools making it possible for students to have ALL the information they need to make value judgments without the government dictating those values to them.  I believe he is more in agreement with that than he's letting on, but that's just a gut feeling and he certainly can speak for himself.
Click to expand...


It is unrealistic to
1. expect students to make "value judgements" about anything: these are people who would gorge themselves on Pizza and Tacos and watch Spongebobsquarepants all day if given the choice.
2. expect their parents to be anything but slightly marginally better at making value judgements: Many cannot even be bothered to feed their kids before sending them to school, much less taking time to teach "value judgements."


----------



## Samson

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you think slavery made america great and not the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution through limiting the power of the govt?
> 
> Yikes!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America prospered between 1780-1860 ...80 years, and arguably the most critical years because it produced cheap cotton and cotton textiles partly as a result of inexpensive labor.
> 
> The US Constitution Withheld freedoms specifically to promote its economy during this period, and "Made America Great" (actually, I wouldn't use "great" as an adjective, but rather "Allowed America to Survive.")
> 
> Ironically, part of what has made America "Great" is its ability to do exactly the opposite of
> "preserve america for all the things that made it great."
> 
> Being able to "Fundamentally transforming itself into something else," is what makes the USA a unique, and successful nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok you weren't being sarcastic
> 
> Do you really think I personally was referring to slavery and bringing it back, something we fought a civil war to abolish?
Click to expand...


No, but I thought I'd pre-empt wrybaby.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sky Dancer said:


> Texas changed it's history curriculum based on the value of promoting a conservative view.
> 
> The curriculum plays down the role of Thomas Jefferson among the founding fathers, questions the separation of church and state, and claims that the U.S. government was infiltrated by Communists during the Cold War.
> 
> Because the Texas textbook market is so large, books assigned to the state's 4.7 million students often rocket to the top of the market, decreasing costs for other school districts and leading them to buy the same materials.
> 
> Discussions ranged from whether President Reagan should get more attention (yes), whether hip-hop should be included as part of lessons on American culture (no), and whether President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis's inaugural address should be studied alongside Abraham Lincoln's (yes).
> 
> Of particular contention was the requirement that lessons on McCarthyism note that "the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government."
> 
> The Venona papers document communication between the Soviet Union and its spies. Historians dispute the extent to which transcripts show Soviet involvement in American government.
> 
> Also contentious were changes that asserted Christian faith of the founding fathers. Historians say the founding fathers had a variety of approaches to religion and faith; some, like Jefferson, were quite secular.
> 
> 
> 
> Historians speak out against proposed Texas textbook changes
> 
> My guess is right wing posters here approve of this change in the history textbooks even though historican disagree.



Have you read "Venona", by Haynes and Klehr?

Have you read "In Denial" by Haynes and Klehr?

Have you read "The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB" by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin?


I have.


It's about time Americans learned of the depth and breadth of the Communist infiltration into our government, and society.
You might want to inform yourself, as well.


Have you read the Declaration of Independance?
If you are suggesting 'secular' as meaning anti- or non-religious, you 
will be surprised to find the following:

There are four references to Devine in Declaration of Independence 1)in first paragraph Laws of Nature and of Natures God, 2) next paragraph endowed by their Creator, 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) divine Providence, last paragraph.
This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Devine, or Natures God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.


My guess is that the ignornant and the uneducated will disapprove of this change in the history textbooks.

Don't you agree?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Foxfyre said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I was in the land of cotton,
> Old times they are not forgotten;
> Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.
> In Dixie Land where I was born,
> Early on one frosty mornin,
> Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you think slavery made america great and not the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution through limiting the power of the govt?
> 
> Yikes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Samson was being sarcastic.     So far he hasn't been too sympatico with the whole concept of schools making it possible for students to have ALL the information they need to make value judgments without the government dictating those values to them.  I believe he is more in agreement with that than he's letting on, but that's just a gut feeling and he certainly can speak for himself.
Click to expand...


"I believe he is more in agreement with that than he's letting on,..."

Yup....Samson is the 'Charlie Brown' of the USMB....

"Who walks in the classroom, cool and slow
Who calls the English teacher, Daddy-O
Charlie Brown, Charlie Brown
He's a clown, that Charlie Brown
He's gonna get caught
Just you wait and see
(Why's everybody always pickin' on me)"


A lot of the time, he's just jerkin' our chains....


----------



## Sky Dancer

PoliticalChic said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas changed it's history curriculum based on the value of promoting a conservative view.
> 
> The curriculum plays down the role of Thomas Jefferson among the founding fathers, questions the separation of church and state, and claims that the U.S. government was infiltrated by Communists during the Cold War.
> 
> Because the Texas textbook market is so large, books assigned to the state's 4.7 million students often rocket to the top of the market, decreasing costs for other school districts and leading them to buy the same materials.
> 
> Discussions ranged from whether President Reagan should get more attention (yes), whether hip-hop should be included as part of lessons on American culture (no), and whether President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis's inaugural address should be studied alongside Abraham Lincoln's (yes).
> 
> Of particular contention was the requirement that lessons on McCarthyism note that "the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government."
> 
> The Venona papers document communication between the Soviet Union and its spies. Historians dispute the extent to which transcripts show Soviet involvement in American government.
> 
> Also contentious were changes that asserted Christian faith of the founding fathers. Historians say the founding fathers had a variety of approaches to religion and faith; some, like Jefferson, were quite secular.
> 
> 
> 
> Historians speak out against proposed Texas textbook changes
> 
> My guess is right wing posters here approve of this change in the history textbooks even though historican disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read "Venona", by Haynes and Klehr?
> 
> Have you read "In Denial" by Haynes and Klehr?
> 
> Have you read "The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB" by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin?
> 
> 
> I have.
> 
> 
> It's about time Americans learned of the depth and breadth of the Communist infiltration into our government, and society.
> You might want to inform yourself, as well.
> 
> 
> Have you read the Declaration of Independance?
> If you are suggesting 'secular' as meaning anti- or non-religious, you
> will be surprised to find the following:
> 
> There are four references to &#8216;Devine&#8217; in Declaration of Independence&#8230; 1)in first paragraph &#8216;Laws of Nature and of Nature&#8217;s God,&#8217; 2) next paragraph &#8216;endowed by their Creator,&#8221; 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) &#8216;divine&#8217; Providence, last paragraph.
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Devine, or Nature&#8217;s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> 
> 
> My guess is that the ignornant and the uneducated will disapprove of this change in the history textbooks.
> 
> Don't you agree?
Click to expand...


Are you a relative of Joseph McCarthy?  Ann Coulter?  Herbert Hoover?

Are you a fanatic?  Seeing spooks everywhere?  Are they jumping out at you from behind potted plants?

Though relatively short, these House Un-American Activities Committee proceedings remain one of the most shameful moments in modern U.S. history.

Where were you during Watergate?


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you think slavery made america great and not the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution through limiting the power of the govt?
> 
> Yikes!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Samson was being sarcastic.     So far he hasn't been too sympatico with the whole concept of schools making it possible for students to have ALL the information they need to make value judgments without the government dictating those values to them.  I believe he is more in agreement with that than he's letting on, but that's just a gut feeling and he certainly can speak for himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is unrealistic to
> 1. expect students to make "value judgements" about anything: these are people who would gorge themselves on Pizza and Tacos and watch Spongebobsquarepants all day if given the choice.
> 2. expect their parents to be anything but slightly marginally better at making value judgements: Many cannot even be bothered to feed their kids before sending them to school, much less taking time to teach "value judgements."
Click to expand...


That is true re some.  And certainly government is teaching piss poor values by taking over responsibilities, such as breakfast or nutrition in general, that was once a traditional value that parents expected to do.  So we are building whole generations of people who never accept responsibility for parenting and providing for their kids.

Another traditional value was preparing yourself to support a family before you started one and that kids needed a mom and dad in the home and so they got married before they started having kids.  Some of the modern generation finds all sorts of reasons to scorn such values, but the fact is people fare much better in that value system than do most who eschew it.  Schools should be teaching that using real time statistics and verifiable truths to do it.  That doesn't require a moral judgment but can be taught entirely objectively and practically.

Schools should be hammering into kids that those who educate themselves and graduate highschool will have infinate more opportunities and likelihood of success than those who drop out.  Those who choose to get some college or a college degree will do even better.  We should be impressing on kids that a diploma alone won't support them but they also need to be acquiring marketable skills or know how.  That also doesn't require a moral judgment but is a purely practical matter as well as being socially responsible.

There are all sorts of values that schools can be promoting without placing any kind of moral judgment on them.  Kids who are never taught how to think critically or who never are pushed to do so probably do usually wind up as the irreponsible numbnuts you describe.  But I believe most people given good information will in time mature enough that they will utilize it.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Edward R. Murrow on his TV program, See It Now, doomed McCarthy. 

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty," Murrow said, in a warning that has been echoed repeatedly since then, from debates over the war in Vietnam to reconciling national security with civil liberties in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. "The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited itand rather successfully."


----------



## Sky Dancer

Funny how the supposedly "small government" folks are so HOT to make publically funded schools cater to right wing propaganda.  You can always tell when a government is on its last legs: it starts going on about "traditional values." It makes sense though. A regime which has lost the respect of the people will complain that people no longer respect "traditional values" (i.e. authority). Rather than adjust their activities to gain respect, politicians simply blame the people they claim to represent and scold them for thinking for themselves.


----------



## Samson

PoliticalChic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you think slavery made america great and not the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution through limiting the power of the govt?
> 
> Yikes!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Samson was being sarcastic.     So far he hasn't been too sympatico with the whole concept of schools making it possible for students to have ALL the information they need to make value judgments without the government dictating those values to them.  I believe he is more in agreement with that than he's letting on, but that's just a gut feeling and he certainly can speak for himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I believe he is more in agreement with that than he's letting on,..."
> 
> Yup....Samson is the 'Charlie Brown' of the USMB....
> 
> "Who walks in the classroom, cool and slow
> Who calls the English teacher, Daddy-O
> Charlie Brown, Charlie Brown
> He's a clown, that Charlie Brown
> He's gonna get caught
> Just you wait and see
> (Why's everybody always pickin' on me)"
> 
> 
> A lot of the time, he's just jerkin' our chains....
Click to expand...




I'm only serious about my Octopron Fetish.


----------



## Sky Dancer

1. Do you think that children should be allowed to watch more than two hours of television a day? 

2. Do you feel that condoms should be available in our high schools?

3. Is merit pay a good thing?

4. Should we have an unlimited speed limit on our highways?

If we teach values, when are we supposed to do it?   Do we take time away from math or social studies?   Teachers complain about the amount of curriculum that has to be taught as it is. What kind of training program would be put in place to train teachers on how to teach values? There is also the cost factor. Any program on values would require funding. Will the benefits outweigh the cost of implementing such a program. Somebody will ultimately be responsible for the expenditures. He or she will become a hero if the values curriculum is successful, but he or she also runs the risk of taking the heat if the program fails.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Values Topics/issues that Should be 
Taught in Public School

Friendship
Responsibility
Peace
Truth



 Values Topics/Issues that Should NOT be Taught in Public School 

Politics  
Culture (art, music, literature, etc.)  
Personal tastes (clothes, hair style, etc.)  
Religion

Interesting how you right wingers only talk to each other and not to a poster with another view.  Why is that?  Do you think the right wing are the only citizens worth talking to?


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Samson was being sarcastic.     So far he hasn't been too sympatico with the whole concept of schools making it possible for students to have ALL the information they need to make value judgments without the government dictating those values to them.  I believe he is more in agreement with that than he's letting on, but that's just a gut feeling and he certainly can speak for himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is unrealistic to
> 1. expect students to make "value judgements" about anything: these are people who would gorge themselves on Pizza and Tacos and watch Spongebobsquarepants all day if given the choice.
> 2. expect their parents to be anything but slightly marginally better at making value judgements: Many cannot even be bothered to feed their kids before sending them to school, much less taking time to teach "value judgements."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true re some.  And certainly government is teaching piss poor values by taking over responsibilities, such as breakfast or nutrition in general, that was once a traditional value that parents expected to do.  So we are building whole generations of people who never accept responsibility for parenting and providing for their kids.
> 
> Another traditional value was preparing yourself to support a family before you started one and that kids needed a mom and dad in the home and so they got married before they started having kids.  Some of the modern generation finds all sorts of reasons to scorn such values, but the fact is people fare much better in that value system than do most who eschew it.  Schools should be teaching that using real time statistics and verifiable truths to do it.  That doesn't require a moral judgment but can be taught entirely objectively and practically.
> 
> Schools should be hammering into kids that those who educate themselves and graduate highschool will have infinate more opportunities and likelihood of success than those who drop out.  Those who choose to get some college or a college degree will do even better.  We should be impressing on kids that a diploma alone won't support them but they also need to be acquiring marketable skills or know how.  That also doesn't require a moral judgment but is a purely practical matter as well as being socially responsible.
> 
> There are all sorts of values that schools can be promoting without placing any kind of moral judgment on them.  Kids who are never taught how to think critically or who never are pushed to do so probably do usually wind up as the irreponsible numbnuts you describe.  But I believe most people given good information will in time mature enough that they will utilize it.
Click to expand...


A. This is a MYTH: "Another traditional value was preparing yourself to support a family before you started one and that kids needed a mom and dad in the home and so they got married before they started having kids." Humans have never embrased this value to the extent that it has ever been "traditional" with the possible exception of Islam where the value can only be enforced with the treat of being STONED TO DEATH!

B. You don't think schools are already "hammering into kids that those who educate themselves and graduate highschool will have infinate more opportunities????"

C.  "There are all sorts of values that schools can be promoting without placing any kind of moral judgment on them." Name ONE, and I will place a moral judgement on it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sky Dancer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas changed it's history curriculum based on the value of promoting a conservative view.
> 
> The curriculum plays down the role of Thomas Jefferson among the founding fathers, questions the separation of church and state, and claims that the U.S. government was infiltrated by Communists during the Cold War.
> 
> Because the Texas textbook market is so large, books assigned to the state's 4.7 million students often rocket to the top of the market, decreasing costs for other school districts and leading them to buy the same materials.
> 
> Discussions ranged from whether President Reagan should get more attention (yes), whether hip-hop should be included as part of lessons on American culture (no), and whether President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis's inaugural address should be studied alongside Abraham Lincoln's (yes).
> 
> Of particular contention was the requirement that lessons on McCarthyism note that "the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government."
> 
> The Venona papers document communication between the Soviet Union and its spies. Historians dispute the extent to which transcripts show Soviet involvement in American government.
> 
> Also contentious were changes that asserted Christian faith of the founding fathers. Historians say the founding fathers had a variety of approaches to religion and faith; some, like Jefferson, were quite secular.
> 
> 
> 
> Historians speak out against proposed Texas textbook changes
> 
> My guess is right wing posters here approve of this change in the history textbooks even though historican disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read "Venona", by Haynes and Klehr?
> 
> Have you read "In Denial" by Haynes and Klehr?
> 
> Have you read "The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB" by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin?
> 
> 
> I have.
> 
> 
> It's about time Americans learned of the depth and breadth of the Communist infiltration into our government, and society.
> You might want to inform yourself, as well.
> 
> 
> Have you read the Declaration of Independance?
> If you are suggesting 'secular' as meaning anti- or non-religious, you
> will be surprised to find the following:
> 
> There are four references to Devine in Declaration of Independence 1)in first paragraph Laws of Nature and of Natures God, 2) next paragraph endowed by their Creator, 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) divine Providence, last paragraph.
> This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Devine, or Natures God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
> 
> 
> My guess is that the ignornant and the uneducated will disapprove of this change in the history textbooks.
> 
> Don't you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a relative of Joseph McCarthy?  Ann Coulter?  Herbert Hoover?
> 
> Are you a fanatic?  Seeing spooks everywhere?  Are they jumping out at you from behind potted plants?
> 
> Though relatively short, these House Un-American Activities Committee proceedings remain one of the most shameful moments in modern U.S. history.
> 
> Where were you during Watergate?
Click to expand...


Now, why is it that you didn't answer as to whether or not you had read the
books mentioned????

Didn't read 'em?
Any of 'em?

Not a one???

Wow....yet you have strong opinions about their content.

Try this:
"The federally funded *National History Standards for elementary schools *were released in 1994, cemented a* revisionist view of American Communism *for schoolteachers, as the guide mentions McCarthy over twenty times, while Edison and the Wright Brothers got no mention. It repeatedly condemns McCarthyism as an unmitigated evil[but] the Hiss-Chambers and Rosenberg cases, the two dominant controversies of the anticommunist era, are described with bland, neutral language crafted *to keep from implying guilt *while not being quite so foolhardy as to actually assert innocence..National Standardsimplies that the cases are part and parcel of the McCartyite horror. From In Denial, by Haynes and Klehr, pg. 151



"...these House Un-American Activities Committee proceedings remain one of the most shameful moments in modern U.S. history."
Nah, this was the *really shameful *one: 

On September 2, 1939, the day after the outbreak of war in Europe, Whittaker Chambers had told much of what he knew about Soviet espionage in the United States to Adolph Berle, Assistant Secretary of State and *Presidents Roosevelts advisor *on internal security. Immediately afterwards, Berle drew up a memorandum for the President which listed Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and the other leading communists for whom Chambers acted as courier. One was a leading presidential aide, Lauchlin Currie.*Roosevelt, however, was not interested. He seems to have dismissed the whole idea of espionage rings within his administration as absurd.* The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archives, the History of the  KGB, by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin.p.107

Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?


----------



## Samson

Sky Dancer said:


> Values Topics/issues that Should be
> Taught in Public School
> 
> Friendship
> Responsibility
> Peace
> Truth



Friendship between Male teachers and cheerleaders.
Responsibility to wear condoms
Peace despite a holocaust
Truth? Perception is everything.


----------



## Sky Dancer

I see.  You only talk seriously amongst yourselves, and with me, you post silly.  OK.  I currently work in education.  I sub at an elementary school as well as run my own private business.  Values are interesting to me and our school has a culture of zero tolerance for bullying as a core value.

In the regard, the public schools should teach children the value of respecting others, following the rules, and being able to control impulses well enough to learn their subjects.

I don't think schools should be politically indoctrinating children.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Sky Dancer said:


> I see.  You only talk seriously amongst yourselves, and with me, you post silly.  OK.  I currently work in education.  I sub at an elementary school as well as run my own private business.  Values are interesting to me and our school has a culture of zero tolerance for bullying as a core value.



If you want the people here to take you seriously then don't disparage them in every post.  Accept that they have some political differneces with you then challenge them respectfully on the issues you want them to discuss.

I read your posts on the previous page and their nature makes it so I wouldn't want to try and discuss with you either, it appears that even if someone makes a reasonable response you will still unreasonably attack them.

That is the impression you have been giving off in recent weeks anyway, a far cry from my first impression of you as a resonable and respectful poster on these forums.

I did see a post where you didn't do that and I'll go respond for you now.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Sky Dancer said:


> 1. Do you think that children should be allowed to watch more than two hours of television a day?
> 
> 2. Do you feel that condoms should be available in our high schools?
> 
> 3. Is merit pay a good thing?
> 
> 4. Should we have an unlimited speed limit on our highways?
> 
> If we teach values, when are we supposed to do it?   Do we take time away from math or social studies?   Teachers complain about the amount of curriculum that has to be taught as it is. What kind of training program would be put in place to train teachers on how to teach values? There is also the cost factor. Any program on values would require funding. Will the benefits outweigh the cost of implementing such a program. Somebody will ultimately be responsible for the expenditures. He or she will become a hero if the values curriculum is successful, but he or she also runs the risk of taking the heat if the program fails.



1)  I feel that is a decision for parents to make, not schools or political parties.

2)  Yes but with parental consent if the student is under 18 since they are minors.  It would also be acceptable if the PTA for that school found it ok to give them away to students under 18 but it would need PTA approval first.

3) Yes its is.  

4) Ummmmmm....that question doesn't seem to relate well but I love driving fast so........


----------



## Sky Dancer

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see.  You only talk seriously amongst yourselves, and with me, you post silly.  OK.  I currently work in education.  I sub at an elementary school as well as run my own private business.  Values are interesting to me and our school has a culture of zero tolerance for bullying as a core value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want the people here to take you seriously then don't disparage them in every post.  Accept that they have some political differneces with you then challenge them respectfully on the issues you want them to discuss.
> 
> I read your posts on the previous page and their nature makes it so I wouldn't want to try and discuss with you either, it appears that even if someone makes a reasonable response you will still unreasonably attack them.
> 
> That is the impression you have been giving off in recent weeks anyway, a far cry from my first impression of you as a resonable and respectful poster on these forums.
> 
> I did see a post where you didn't do that and I'll go respond for you now.
Click to expand...


How have I disparaged you today?  Be specific.  Put whatever sentence you find so insulting forward so I can take a look at it.  I'm trying to tone it down.  I happen to be a passionate person and I get the impression that some of you wish I would "stifle myself?"".  It not my intention to insult anyone just challenge the "right makes right" crowd.


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is unrealistic to
> 1. expect students to make "value judgements" about anything: these are people who would gorge themselves on Pizza and Tacos and watch Spongebobsquarepants all day if given the choice.
> 2. expect their parents to be anything but slightly marginally better at making value judgements: Many cannot even be bothered to feed their kids before sending them to school, much less taking time to teach "value judgements."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true re some.  And certainly government is teaching piss poor values by taking over responsibilities, such as breakfast or nutrition in general, that was once a traditional value that parents expected to do.  So we are building whole generations of people who never accept responsibility for parenting and providing for their kids.
> 
> Another traditional value was preparing yourself to support a family before you started one and that kids needed a mom and dad in the home and so they got married before they started having kids.  Some of the modern generation finds all sorts of reasons to scorn such values, but the fact is people fare much better in that value system than do most who eschew it.  Schools should be teaching that using real time statistics and verifiable truths to do it.  That doesn't require a moral judgment but can be taught entirely objectively and practically.
> 
> Schools should be hammering into kids that those who educate themselves and graduate highschool will have infinate more opportunities and likelihood of success than those who drop out.  Those who choose to get some college or a college degree will do even better.  We should be impressing on kids that a diploma alone won't support them but they also need to be acquiring marketable skills or know how.  That also doesn't require a moral judgment but is a purely practical matter as well as being socially responsible.
> 
> There are all sorts of values that schools can be promoting without placing any kind of moral judgment on them.  Kids who are never taught how to think critically or who never are pushed to do so probably do usually wind up as the irreponsible numbnuts you describe.  But I believe most people given good information will in time mature enough that they will utilize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. This is a MYTH: "Another traditional value was preparing yourself to support a family before you started one and that kids needed a mom and dad in the home and so they got married before they started having kids." Humans have never embrased this value to the extent that it has ever been "traditional" with the possible exception of Islam where the value can only be enforced with the treat of being STONED TO DEATH!
> 
> B. You don't think schools are already "hammering into kids that those who educate themselves and graduate highschool will have infinate more opportunities????"
> 
> C.  "There are all sorts of values that schools can be promoting without placing any kind of moral judgment on them." Name ONE, and I will place a moral judgement on it.
Click to expand...


I have already named several and whether YOU place a moral judgment on it is irrelevent.  It is only relevant that the school/government not place a moral judgment on it but just provide accurate and complete information.

And we will have to agree to disagree on that 'myth'.  I am enough older than you to remember the time in my lifetime, even at the time I got married, to know what the norm, the national value, was.  The values do not always dictate behavior as value and action are separate things.


----------



## Sky Dancer

What the "norm" was when Fox and I were kids is not what the "norm" is now.  Conservatives want to go backward in time to what they consider "traditional" (time long past) values.

Our country has changed in the last 50 years and we have to change with it.  JMO  That's a liberal or progressive view of values.  Equality was once NOT a "tradtional" value, now it is.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Sky Dancer said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see.  You only talk seriously amongst yourselves, and with me, you post silly.  OK.  I currently work in education.  I sub at an elementary school as well as run my own private business.  Values are interesting to me and our school has a culture of zero tolerance for bullying as a core value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want the people here to take you seriously then don't disparage them in every post.  Accept that they have some political differneces with you then challenge them respectfully on the issues you want them to discuss.
> 
> I read your posts on the previous page and their nature makes it so I wouldn't want to try and discuss with you either, it appears that even if someone makes a reasonable response you will still unreasonably attack them.
> 
> That is the impression you have been giving off in recent weeks anyway, a far cry from my first impression of you as a resonable and respectful poster on these forums.
> 
> I did see a post where you didn't do that and I'll go respond for you now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How have I disparaged you today?  Be specific.  Put whatever sentence you find so insulting forward so I can take a look at it.  I'm trying to tone it down.  I happen to be a passionate person and I get the impression that some of you wish I would "stifle myself?"".
Click to expand...


Me personally?  Not at all.  I was just observing your behavior across several threads this week.   I understand that you get attacked too and its easy to let that give you an excuse to respond in kind but sometimes we need to rise above that.  C'mon I know you've read Buddha's writings .

I'm just trying to remind you of the path.

*In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves. 

In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true. *


----------



## Sky Dancer

&#8226;Equality:  Where equality rightly belongs is in a government course, where students should be taught that all people are equal under the law, regardless of race, gender, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

&#8226;Diversity: Accept that we live in a plurality, and our population is composed of different races, gender, religions, and affectional orientation.  We all have different gifts to offer our country

&#8226;Popular Sovereignty: Again, it should, be taught that the Constitution protects us by limiting popular sovereignty in important ways.

&#8226;Liberty: This is something that is a value, but it is one that stems from respect for the individual.

&#8226;Life: Like liberty, this comes from respect for the individual.

&#8226;Patriotism: I&#8217;m of two minds on this one. The first is that people should respect this country, making patriotism a good thing. The second is that I&#8217;m wary of a government institution (public school) attempting to teach patriotism, since it could devolve from respect of the country into obedience of the government. 

&#8226;Pursiut of Happiness: Like life and liberty, this comes from respect for the individual.

&#8226;Truth: Depends on how this one is taught. If it is that the reasoned pursuit of truth is a value, then I absolutely support it. If it is that some higher authority (media or government) knows the truth, then I oppose it.

&#8226;Common Good: Letting a government instution teach the common good is dangerous, since it will likely be the government-defined common good. 

&#8226;Integrity: The value of one&#8217;s own word, and one&#8217;s own work. Kids should learn, from an early age, that it is wrong to their name on another&#8217;s work. In fact, it can be considered theft. Also, kids should be taught that what they say means something, and that they are responsible for keeping their word. 

&#8226;Discipline: This should be valued since it is what helps people overcome their weaknesses. The more disadvantaged the student, the more important discipline becomes.


----------



## Sky Dancer

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want the people here to take you seriously then don't disparage them in every post.  Accept that they have some political differneces with you then challenge them respectfully on the issues you want them to discuss.
> 
> I read your posts on the previous page and their nature makes it so I wouldn't want to try and discuss with you either, it appears that even if someone makes a reasonable response you will still unreasonably attack them.
> 
> That is the impression you have been giving off in recent weeks anyway, a far cry from my first impression of you as a resonable and respectful poster on these forums.
> 
> I did see a post where you didn't do that and I'll go respond for you now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How have I disparaged you today?  Be specific.  Put whatever sentence you find so insulting forward so I can take a look at it.  I'm trying to tone it down.  I happen to be a passionate person and I get the impression that some of you wish I would "stifle myself?"".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me personally?  Not at all.  I was just observing your behavior across several threads this week.   I understand that you get attacked too and its easy to let that give you an excuse to respond in kind but sometimes we need to rise above that.  C'mon I know you've read Buddha's writings .
> 
> I'm just trying to remind you of the path.
> 
> *In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.
> 
> In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true. *
Click to expand...


From now on, if you find a post that seems to be personally attacking of anyone please quote it and point it out to me.  Thank you for acknowledging I have no personally attacked you today.

Yes, I get my character attacked often here.  You haven't done so.  This is general to all posters.  Please attack the writing in my post, not my person.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sky Dancer said:


> What the "norm" was when Fox and I were kids is not what the "norm" is now.  Conservatives want to go backward in time to what they consider "traditional" (time long past) values.
> 
> Our country has changed in the last 50 years and we have to change with it.  JMO  That's a liberal or progressive view of values.  Equality was once NOT a "tradtional" value, now it is.



- Children in father-absent homes are five times more likely to be poor. In
2002, 7.8% of children in married-couple families were living in poverty,
compared to 38.4% of children in female-householder families. 
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Children's Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March
2002, P20-547, Table C8. Washington, D.C.: GPO 2003.

- In 1996, young children living with unmarried mothers were five times
as likely to be poor and ten times as likely to be extremely poor. 
Source: "One in Four: America's Youngest Poor." National Center for children in Poverty. 1996. 

- Almost 75% of American children living in single-parent families will
experience poverty before they turn 11 years old. Only 20 percent of
children in two-parent families will do the same. 
Source: National Commission on Children. Just the Facts: A Summary of Recent information
on America's Children and their Families. Washington, DC, 1993.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Still trying to turn back the hands of time, PC.  How do you propose to do that?

Forced government "nanny families"?  Equality is NOT a traditional value.  It is new, since the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Why do you think these changes have happened in the families you list, (without link btw)?  Libruls fault?  Poor people's fault?


----------



## Foxfyre

PoliticalChic said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the "norm" was when Fox and I were kids is not what the "norm" is now.  Conservatives want to go backward in time to what they consider "traditional" (time long past) values.
> 
> Our country has changed in the last 50 years and we have to change with it.  JMO  That's a liberal or progressive view of values.  Equality was once NOT a "tradtional" value, now it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Children in father-absent homes are five times more likely to be poor. In
> 2002, 7.8% of children in married-couple families were living in poverty,
> compared to 38.4% of children in female-householder families.
> Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Children's Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March
> 2002, P20-547, Table C8. Washington, D.C.: GPO 2003.
> 
> - In 1996, young children living with unmarried mothers were five times
> as likely to be poor and ten times as likely to be extremely poor.
> Source: "One in Four: America's Youngest Poor." National Center for children in Poverty. 1996.
> 
> - Almost 75% of American children living in single-parent families will
> experience poverty before they turn 11 years old. Only 20 percent of
> children in two-parent families will do the same.
> Source: National Commission on Children. Just the Facts: A Summary of Recent information
> on America's Children and their Families. Washington, DC, 1993.
Click to expand...


Exactly PC and thank you.  Traditional values that can be shown to be good values should absolutely be taught using the method you just did.  There are those who scorn the traditional values of 50-60 years ago because the world is much different now than it was then.  But when you look at the verifiable reality, it seems to me that those with a strong sense of values would see the virtues that existed and strive for them again.

Civilizations tend to move in cycles, but we have achieved a level of understanding now that should help us avoid most of the pitfalls of the past and see the pitfalls in the now and seek to do better.  To teach that concept to school children is not imposing moral values but rather is teaching them to think critically.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Neither of you has connected the dots.  You think moving backward is progress.  I don't.  We have to take the world as it is and shape it toward the world we want to create.  Going backwards "romantically" makes no sense to me.  But appeals to people who are rigid.

PC has NOT shown how these so-called "traditional" values can be taught by the government now.  What I suspect some of you want is a theocracy.  Government and religious values merged completely.  Laws to punish those who don't live in the narrrow prescribed conservatively selected value system would be restored.

Some state GOP platforms include restoring sodomy laws.  You want to teach school kids why sodomy laws should be place?

All you folks high five each other and are completely unwilling to look outside your own narrow conclusions.  "Traditional Values" is PCspeak for Christianity.  Making the Bible the law of the land instead of the Constitution.  JMO.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> I have already named several and whether YOU place a moral judgment on it is irrelevent.  It is only relevant that the school/government not place a moral judgment on it but just provide accurate and complete information.
> 
> And we will have to agree to disagree on that 'myth'.  I am enough older than you to remember the time in my lifetime, even at the time I got married, to know what the norm, the national value, was.  The values do not always dictate behavior as value and action are separate things.



All it takes is ONE determined parent to complain about the Individual Rights they were given by The Founders in The Constitution during July 4th, a day that will live in INFAMY for The Land of The Free and Home of The Brave!!!

So you can't just name ONE value you think should be taught?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sky Dancer said:


> Still trying to turn back the hands of time, PC.  How do you propose to do that?
> 
> Forced government "nanny families"?  Equality is NOT a traditional value.  It is new, since the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Why do you think these changes have happened in the families you list, (without link btw)?  Libruls fault?  Poor people's fault?



1. The 'equality' visualized at America's founding was equality of opportunity, equality before the law.

2. The catastrophic error in FDR's thinking was to see 'equality' as a financial outcome....see his 'Second Bill of Rights.'

3.1966 LBJ expanded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program&#8230;under FDR, AFDC had been limited to widows, those who had lost their husbands and now lacked a breadwinner at home to help support the children.

Then began to loosen and expand the rules of AFDC eligibility, eventually getting to the point where any woman living alone with children could take advantage of this program. In doing so, they not only bought a large number of new votes, they also *incentivized out of wedlock births and single motherhood.*As Charles Murray described in &#8220;Losing Ground,&#8221; the Great Society incentivized the same negative behaviors that cause poverty in the first place.

Millions of women discovered that they could be *better off financially by not marrying. *
Prior to 1957, *LBJ &#8220;had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation.* In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of *votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote*: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.&#8221; Robert Caro, &#8220;Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,&#8221; p. xv.

So, what happened? An epiphany? The cynic in me says it was something else&#8230;In 1964, he received 96% of the black vote, a record in presidential elections until 2008. 

So, yes....liberals' fault.
The votes more important than either the fate of the poor, or of the nation.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already named several and whether YOU place a moral judgment on it is irrelevent.  It is only relevant that the school/government not place a moral judgment on it but just provide accurate and complete information.
> 
> And we will have to agree to disagree on that 'myth'.  I am enough older than you to remember the time in my lifetime, even at the time I got married, to know what the norm, the national value, was.  The values do not always dictate behavior as value and action are separate things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All it takes is ONE determined parent to complain about the Individual Rights they were given by The Founders in The Constitution during July 4th, a day that will live in INFAMY for The Land of The Free and Home of The Brave!!!
> 
> So you can't just name ONE value you think should be taught?
Click to expand...


I'm interested to hear what Fox's values are.


----------



## Samson

PoliticalChic said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still trying to turn back the hands of time, PC.  How do you propose to do that?
> 
> Forced government "nanny families"?  Equality is NOT a traditional value.  It is new, since the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Why do you think these changes have happened in the families you list, (without link btw)?  Libruls fault?  Poor people's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The 'equality' visualized at America's founding was equality of opportunity, equality before the law.
Click to expand...




Except for women.

Ironically you serve as an excellent living example of The Founders' Wisdom.


----------



## Sky Dancer

PoliticalChic said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still trying to turn back the hands of time, PC.  How do you propose to do that?
> 
> Forced government "nanny families"?  Equality is NOT a traditional value.  It is new, since the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Why do you think these changes have happened in the families you list, (without link btw)?  Libruls fault?  Poor people's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The 'equality' visualized at America's founding was equality of opportunity, equality before the law.
> 
> 2. The catastrophic error in FDR's thinking was to see 'equality' as a financial outcome....see his 'Second Bill of Rights.'
> 
> 3.1966 LBJ expanded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children programunder FDR, AFDC had been limited to widows, those who had lost their husbands and now lacked a breadwinner at home to help support the children.
> 
> Then began to loosen and expand the rules of AFDC eligibility, eventually getting to the point where any woman living alone with children could take advantage of this program. In doing so, they not only bought a large number of new votes, they also *incentivized out of wedlock births and single motherhood.*As Charles Murray described in Losing Ground, the Great Society incentivized the same negative behaviors that cause poverty in the first place.
> 
> Millions of women discovered that they could be *better off financially by not marrying. *
> Prior to 1957, *LBJ had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation.* In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of *votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote*: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching. Robert Caro, Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3, p. xv.
> 
> So, what happened? An epiphany? The cynic in me says it was something elseIn 1964, he received 96% of the black vote, a record in presidential elections until 2008.
> 
> So, yes....liberals' fault.
> The votes more important than either the fate of the poor, or of the nation.
Click to expand...


Where are your links?

The quality visualized by the Founders was not in place before the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember swollen bellies from hunger in the US, but I am.

Without food stamps many children and elderly would go hungry in our country today.

Our government has built schools, highways, defense, law enforcement, libraries, low cost medical clinics and more.  I am proud of our accomplishments.

It is not just the priveleged rich or the white folks who benefit now.

If you want "traditional values" prior to 1964, go to India and get off on how the poor have to manage there.  I suspect that is how you'd like to see our poor.  No social services, no public libraries, no public works, no public schools, no protective police force etc etc etc.  

Traditional values are a myth, one that is promoted by the religious right, whose agenda is theocracy.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Foxfyre said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the "norm" was when Fox and I were kids is not what the "norm" is now.  Conservatives want to go backward in time to what they consider "traditional" (time long past) values.
> 
> Our country has changed in the last 50 years and we have to change with it.  JMO  That's a liberal or progressive view of values.  Equality was once NOT a "tradtional" value, now it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Children in father-absent homes are five times more likely to be poor. In
> 2002, 7.8% of children in married-couple families were living in poverty,
> compared to 38.4% of children in female-householder families.
> Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Children's Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March
> 2002, P20-547, Table C8. Washington, D.C.: GPO 2003.
> 
> - In 1996, young children living with unmarried mothers were five times
> as likely to be poor and ten times as likely to be extremely poor.
> Source: "One in Four: America's Youngest Poor." National Center for children in Poverty. 1996.
> 
> - Almost 75% of American children living in single-parent families will
> experience poverty before they turn 11 years old. Only 20 percent of
> children in two-parent families will do the same.
> Source: National Commission on Children. Just the Facts: A Summary of Recent information
> on America's Children and their Families. Washington, DC, 1993.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly PC and thank you.  Traditional values that can be shown to be good values should absolutely be taught using the method you just did.  There are those who scorn the traditional values of 50-60 years ago because the world is much different now than it was then.  But when you look at the verifiable reality, it seems to me that those with a strong sense of values would see the virtues that existed and strive for them again.
> 
> Civilizations tend to move in cycles, but we have achieved a level of understanding now that should help us avoid most of the pitfalls of the past and see the pitfalls in the now and seek to do better.  To teach that concept to school children is not imposing moral values but rather is teaching them to think critically.
Click to expand...


"Civilizations tend to move in cycles,..."

Actually, Foxy, this is a fear I have, at the edge of my consciousness.
The OP points out an increase in rectidude among the young...turning on the 60's radical culture.
I sometimes fear that the excesses of the Left may empower excesses from the right...I am opposed, as are you, to the muzzling of any viewpoints....no matter how Leftwing. But, it could happen.
That pendulum can swing as far Right as it has Left.

And the more violent, the more hateful the Left is, the greater the chances!


----------



## Sky Dancer

PoliticalChic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> - Children in father-absent homes are five times more likely to be poor. In
> 2002, 7.8% of children in married-couple families were living in poverty,
> compared to 38.4% of children in female-householder families.
> Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Children's Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March
> 2002, P20-547, Table C8. Washington, D.C.: GPO 2003.
> 
> - In 1996, young children living with unmarried mothers were five times
> as likely to be poor and ten times as likely to be extremely poor.
> Source: "One in Four: America's Youngest Poor." National Center for children in Poverty. 1996.
> 
> - Almost 75% of American children living in single-parent families will
> experience poverty before they turn 11 years old. Only 20 percent of
> children in two-parent families will do the same.
> Source: National Commission on Children. Just the Facts: A Summary of Recent information
> on America's Children and their Families. Washington, DC, 1993.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly PC and thank you.  Traditional values that can be shown to be good values should absolutely be taught using the method you just did.  There are those who scorn the traditional values of 50-60 years ago because the world is much different now than it was then.  But when you look at the verifiable reality, it seems to me that those with a strong sense of values would see the virtues that existed and strive for them again.
> 
> Civilizations tend to move in cycles, but we have achieved a level of understanding now that should help us avoid most of the pitfalls of the past and see the pitfalls in the now and seek to do better.  To teach that concept to school children is not imposing moral values but rather is teaching them to think critically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Civilizations tend to move in cycles,..."
> 
> Actually, Foxy, this is a fear I have, at the edge of my consciousness.
> The OP points out an increase in rectidude among the young...turning on the 60's radical culture.
> I sometimes fear that the excesses of the Left may empower excesses from the right...I am opposed, as are you, to the muzzling of any viewpoints....no matter how Leftwing. But, it could happen.
> That pendulum can swing as far Right as it has Left.
> 
> And the more violent, the more hateful the Left is, the greater the chances!
Click to expand...


And the more violent and hateful the right is, the greater the chances the US will cease to be a republic and a democracy.

You seem to HATE citizens who disagree with your provincial thinking.  

Further, you aren't even willing to talk to your opponents, you only want to converse with people who think just like you.

Please reference your data.  Thank you.


----------



## uscitizen

You mean govt should teach the traditional values like teachers spanking the students for misbehaving?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sky Dancer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still trying to turn back the hands of time, PC.  How do you propose to do that?
> 
> Forced government "nanny families"?  Equality is NOT a traditional value.  It is new, since the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Why do you think these changes have happened in the families you list, (without link btw)?  Libruls fault?  Poor people's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The 'equality' visualized at America's founding was equality of opportunity, equality before the law.
> 
> 2. The catastrophic error in FDR's thinking was to see 'equality' as a financial outcome....see his 'Second Bill of Rights.'
> 
> 3.1966 LBJ expanded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program&#8230;under FDR, AFDC had been limited to widows, those who had lost their husbands and now lacked a breadwinner at home to help support the children.
> 
> Then began to loosen and expand the rules of AFDC eligibility, eventually getting to the point where any woman living alone with children could take advantage of this program. In doing so, they not only bought a large number of new votes, they also *incentivized out of wedlock births and single motherhood.*As Charles Murray described in &#8220;Losing Ground,&#8221; the Great Society incentivized the same negative behaviors that cause poverty in the first place.
> 
> Millions of women discovered that they could be *better off financially by not marrying. *
> Prior to 1957, *LBJ &#8220;had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation.* In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of *votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote*: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.&#8221; Robert Caro, &#8220;Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,&#8221; p. xv.
> 
> So, what happened? An epiphany? The cynic in me says it was something else&#8230;In 1964, he received 96% of the black vote, a record in presidential elections until 2008.
> 
> So, yes....liberals' fault.
> The votes more important than either the fate of the poor, or of the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are your links?
> 
> The quality visualized by the Founders was not in place before the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember swollen bellies from hunger in the US, but I am.
> 
> Without food stamps many children and elderly would go hungry in our country today.
> 
> Our government has built schools, highways, defense, law enforcement, libraries, low cost medical clinics and more.  I am proud of our accomplishments.
> 
> It is not just the priveleged rich or the white folks who benefit now.
> 
> If you want "traditional values" prior to 1964, go to India and get off on how the poor have to manage there.  I suspect that is how you'd like to see our poor.  No social services, no public libraries, no public works, no public schools, no protective police force etc etc etc.
> 
> Traditional values are a myth, one that is promoted by the religious right, whose agenda is theocracy.
Click to expand...


1. "Where are your links?"
Don't by a hypocrite....you know you are impervious to education.

2. Clean off your specs...
The post includes the reference to FDR's Second Bill of Rights, Charles Murray's book and Robert Caro's book.

3. You actually made the ignornat statement "Equality is NOT a traditional value.  It is new, since the 1964 Civil Rights Act."
Buy a ticket on the Clue Train.

4. Did they actually give you a diploma when you graduated from Clown College?


----------



## Sky Dancer

uscitizen said:


> You mean govt should teach the traditional values like teachers spanking the students for misbehaving?



Probably.  Spare the rod spoil the child.  Here's what actually goes on now.  Right wing evangelists have become "stealth candidates" on school boards.  They seek to swing education to go to the right.  Bachmann is one such example.  Pat Roberston's prodigy Ralph Reed started the whole "stealth candidacy" movement.  He told right wing Christians to not let their views known until AFTER they were elected to the school board.


----------



## PoliticalChic

uscitizen said:


> You mean govt should teach the traditional values like teachers spanking the students for misbehaving?



Not quite...you're the only one that should be spanked.

On Pay-Per-View.


----------



## Samson

Sky Dancer said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean govt should teach the traditional values like teachers spanking the students for misbehaving?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably.  Spare the rod spoil the child.
Click to expand...


The value is discipline.

The means is coporal punishment.

As with so many things, you are confusing the two.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still trying to turn back the hands of time, PC.  How do you propose to do that?
> 
> Forced government "nanny families"?  Equality is NOT a traditional value.  It is new, since the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Why do you think these changes have happened in the families you list, (without link btw)?  Libruls fault?  Poor people's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1. The 'equality' visualized at America's founding was equality of opportunity, equality before the law.*
> 
> 2. The catastrophic error in FDR's thinking was to see 'equality' as a financial outcome....see his 'Second Bill of Rights.'
> 
> 3.1966 LBJ expanded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children programunder FDR, AFDC had been limited to widows, those who had lost their husbands and now lacked a breadwinner at home to help support the children.
> 
> Then began to loosen and expand the rules of AFDC eligibility, eventually getting to the point where any woman living alone with children could take advantage of this program. In doing so, they not only bought a large number of new votes, they also *incentivized out of wedlock births and single motherhood.*As Charles Murray described in Losing Ground, the Great Society incentivized the same negative behaviors that cause poverty in the first place.
> 
> Millions of women discovered that they could be *better off financially by not marrying. *
> Prior to 1957, *LBJ had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation.* In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of *votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote*: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching. Robert Caro, Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3, p. xv.
> 
> So, what happened? An epiphany? The cynic in me says it was something elseIn 1964, he received 96% of the black vote, a record in presidential elections until 2008.
> 
> So, yes....liberals' fault.
> The votes more important than either the fate of the poor, or of the nation.
Click to expand...


It did not include Indians, Blacks, or women.


----------



## Samson

PoliticalChic said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean govt should teach the traditional values like teachers spanking the students for misbehaving?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite...you're the only one that should be spanked.
> 
> On Pay-Per-View.
Click to expand...


Sounds like a date......


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still trying to turn back the hands of time, PC.  How do you propose to do that?
> 
> Forced government "nanny families"?  Equality is NOT a traditional value.  It is new, since the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Why do you think these changes have happened in the families you list, (without link btw)?  Libruls fault?  Poor people's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1. The 'equality' visualized at America's founding was equality of opportunity, equality before the law.*
> 
> 2. The catastrophic error in FDR's thinking was to see 'equality' as a financial outcome....see his 'Second Bill of Rights.'
> 
> 3.1966 LBJ expanded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children programunder FDR, AFDC had been limited to widows, those who had lost their husbands and now lacked a breadwinner at home to help support the children.
> 
> Then began to loosen and expand the rules of AFDC eligibility, eventually getting to the point where any woman living alone with children could take advantage of this program. In doing so, they not only bought a large number of new votes, they also *incentivized out of wedlock births and single motherhood.*As Charles Murray described in Losing Ground, the Great Society incentivized the same negative behaviors that cause poverty in the first place.
> 
> Millions of women discovered that they could be *better off financially by not marrying. *
> Prior to 1957, *LBJ had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation.* In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of *votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote*: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching. Robert Caro, Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3, p. xv.
> 
> So, what happened? An epiphany? The cynic in me says it was something elseIn 1964, he received 96% of the black vote, a record in presidential elections until 2008.
> 
> So, yes....liberals' fault.
> The votes more important than either the fate of the poor, or of the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did not include Indians, Blacks, or women.
Click to expand...


It included the mechanism to change that, and it did.


----------



## Samson

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still trying to turn back the hands of time, PC.  How do you propose to do that?
> 
> Forced government "nanny families"?  Equality is NOT a traditional value.  It is new, since the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Why do you think these changes have happened in the families you list, (without link btw)?  Libruls fault?  Poor people's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1. The 'equality' visualized at America's founding was equality of opportunity, equality before the law.*
> 
> 2. The catastrophic error in FDR's thinking was to see 'equality' as a financial outcome....see his 'Second Bill of Rights.'
> 
> 3.1966 LBJ expanded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children programunder FDR, AFDC had been limited to widows, those who had lost their husbands and now lacked a breadwinner at home to help support the children.
> 
> Then began to loosen and expand the rules of AFDC eligibility, eventually getting to the point where any woman living alone with children could take advantage of this program. In doing so, they not only bought a large number of new votes, they also *incentivized out of wedlock births and single motherhood.*As Charles Murray described in Losing Ground, the Great Society incentivized the same negative behaviors that cause poverty in the first place.
> 
> Millions of women discovered that they could be *better off financially by not marrying. *
> Prior to 1957, *LBJ had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation.* In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of *votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote*: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching. Robert Caro, Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3, p. xv.
> 
> So, what happened? An epiphany? The cynic in me says it was something elseIn 1964, he received 96% of the black vote, a record in presidential elections until 2008.
> 
> So, yes....liberals' fault.
> The votes more important than either the fate of the poor, or of the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did not include Indians, Blacks, or women.
Click to expand...


----------



## Sky Dancer

PoliticalChic said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The 'equality' visualized at America's founding was equality of opportunity, equality before the law.
> 
> 2. The catastrophic error in FDR's thinking was to see 'equality' as a financial outcome....see his 'Second Bill of Rights.'
> 
> 3.1966 LBJ expanded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children programunder FDR, AFDC had been limited to widows, those who had lost their husbands and now lacked a breadwinner at home to help support the children.
> 
> Then began to loosen and expand the rules of AFDC eligibility, eventually getting to the point where any woman living alone with children could take advantage of this program. In doing so, they not only bought a large number of new votes, they also *incentivized out of wedlock births and single motherhood.*As Charles Murray described in Losing Ground, the Great Society incentivized the same negative behaviors that cause poverty in the first place.
> 
> Millions of women discovered that they could be *better off financially by not marrying. *
> Prior to 1957, *LBJ had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation.* In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of *votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote*: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching. Robert Caro, Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3, p. xv.
> 
> So, what happened? An epiphany? The cynic in me says it was something elseIn 1964, he received 96% of the black vote, a record in presidential elections until 2008.
> 
> So, yes....liberals' fault.
> The votes more important than either the fate of the poor, or of the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are your links?
> 
> The quality visualized by the Founders was not in place before the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember swollen bellies from hunger in the US, but I am.
> 
> Without food stamps many children and elderly would go hungry in our country today.
> 
> Our government has built schools, highways, defense, law enforcement, libraries, low cost medical clinics and more.  I am proud of our accomplishments.
> 
> It is not just the priveleged rich or the white folks who benefit now.
> 
> If you want "traditional values" prior to 1964, go to India and get off on how the poor have to manage there.  I suspect that is how you'd like to see our poor.  No social services, no public libraries, no public works, no public schools, no protective police force etc etc etc.
> 
> Traditional values are a myth, one that is promoted by the religious right, whose agenda is theocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. "Where are your links?"
> Don't by a hypocrite....you know you are impervious to education.
> 
> 2. Clean off your specs...
> The post includes the reference to FDR's Second Bill of Rights, Charles Murray's book and Robert Caro's book.
> 
> 3. You actually made the ignornat statement "Equality is NOT a traditional value.  It is new, since the 1964 Civil Rights Act."
> Buy a ticket on the Clue Train.
> 
> 4. Did they actually give you a diploma when you graduated from Clown College?
Click to expand...


Ah, the weak resort to insults.  You should provide links, otherwise we'll just assume you're talking off your head.  Try turning down the snark a few notches and we may something to talk about.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sky Dancer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are your links?
> 
> The quality visualized by the Founders was not in place before the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember swollen bellies from hunger in the US, but I am.
> 
> Without food stamps many children and elderly would go hungry in our country today.
> 
> Our government has built schools, highways, defense, law enforcement, libraries, low cost medical clinics and more.  I am proud of our accomplishments.
> 
> It is not just the priveleged rich or the white folks who benefit now.
> 
> If you want "traditional values" prior to 1964, go to India and get off on how the poor have to manage there.  I suspect that is how you'd like to see our poor.  No social services, no public libraries, no public works, no public schools, no protective police force etc etc etc.
> 
> Traditional values are a myth, one that is promoted by the religious right, whose agenda is theocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Where are your links?"
> Don't by a hypocrite....you know you are impervious to education.
> 
> 2. Clean off your specs...
> The post includes the reference to FDR's Second Bill of Rights, Charles Murray's book and Robert Caro's book.
> 
> 3. You actually made the ignornat statement "Equality is NOT a traditional value.  It is new, since the 1964 Civil Rights Act."
> Buy a ticket on the Clue Train.
> 
> 4. Did they actually give you a diploma when you graduated from Clown College?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, the weak resort to insults.  You should provide links, otherwise we'll just assume you're talking off your head.
Click to expand...


I get that warm, fuzzy feeling that only cruelty to the stupid can provide.

Oh...you're a delicate child? 
You must wash in Woolite.


"You should provide links.."
I did....they're called "books."
What is this inordinate fear you have of books?
See if anybody you know has a library card....they can explain the phenomenon
to you.


----------



## Sky Dancer

PoliticalChic said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Where are your links?"
> Don't by a hypocrite....you know you are impervious to education.
> 
> 2. Clean off your specs...
> The post includes the reference to FDR's Second Bill of Rights, Charles Murray's book and Robert Caro's book.
> 
> 3. You actually made the ignornat statement "Equality is NOT a traditional value.  It is new, since the 1964 Civil Rights Act."
> Buy a ticket on the Clue Train.
> 
> 4. Did they actually give you a diploma when you graduated from Clown College?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the weak resort to insults.  You should provide links, otherwise we'll just assume you're talking off your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get that warm, fuzzy feeling that only cruelty to the stupid can provide.
> 
> Oh...you're a delicate child?
> You must wash in Woolite.
> 
> 
> "You should provide links.."
> I did....they're called "books."
> What is this inordinate fear you have of books?
> See if anybody you know has a library card....they can explain the phenomenon
> to you.
Click to expand...


I read plenty.  I also live in a rural area and I have to order most of my books.  When there is an on-line source for me to check your facts I appreciate it.

I don't appreciate the personal attacks in every one of the posts you write to me.

You seem to have complete disdain for anyone who isn't rich or whose politics lean left of yours.

I think you should open a blog and only invite the uberright, like you are.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sky Dancer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the weak resort to insults.  You should provide links, otherwise we'll just assume you're talking off your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get that warm, fuzzy feeling that only cruelty to the stupid can provide.
> 
> Oh...you're a delicate child?
> You must wash in Woolite.
> 
> 
> "You should provide links.."
> I did....they're called "books."
> What is this inordinate fear you have of books?
> See if anybody you know has a library card....they can explain the phenomenon
> to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read plenty.  I also live in a rural area and I have to order most of my books.  When there is an on-line source for me to check your facts I appreciate it.
> 
> I don't appreciate the personal attacks in every one of the posts you write to me.
> 
> You seem to have complete disdain for anyone who isn't rich or whose politics lean left of yours.
> 
> I think you should open a blog and only invite the uberright, like you are.
Click to expand...


I am at a disadvantage when debating with you, or anyone of your ilk.

The problem for me is that I actually value both erudition and credibilty.

You, on the other hand, are free to blather away, claiming whatsoever you wish, whether there is any truth, or connection to reality.

A boon.

Here, let me document same.

1. "...complete disdain for anyone who isn't rich...'
Document that claim?

2. "...complete disdain for anyone ...whose politics lean left of yours."
Well, OK...in your case that's true...but it is because you make statements that
anyone with an education knows is untrue.

3. "...you should open a blog and only invite the uberright, like you are."
See, here you have exposed a complete misunderstanding of my design:
I come here to debate, with the belief that in the marketplace of ideas,
conservative ideas will be revealed as correct.

So, you have it backwards: I love to invite only those with whom I disagree.


4. "When there is an on-line source for me to check your facts I appreciate it."
I read a great deal as well. Often, five books a week. And I take notes....such as you 
see in several of the posts.
If I find my souce on line, I give you the link. If from a book, well, you are on your 
own.
Question...how often have you gone to the source when I give you a link?
Have you found my links to be in error, wrong? 
If so, when?
Because I doubt that happens.


----------



## daws101

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its nice to see people want to preserve america for all the things that made it great instead of fundamentally transforming it into something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I was in the land of cotton,
> Old times they are not forgotten;
> Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.
> In Dixie Land where I was born,
> Early on one frosty mornin,
> Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you think slavery made america great and not the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution through limiting the power of the govt?
> 
> Yikes!
Click to expand...

be careful you're talking above his comprehension level.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

daws101 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I was in the land of cotton,
> Old times they are not forgotten;
> Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.
> In Dixie Land where I was born,
> Early on one frosty mornin,
> Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you think slavery made america great and not the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution through limiting the power of the govt?
> 
> Yikes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> be careful you're talking above his comprehension level.
Click to expand...


nah it was just sampson having some sampson style fun with me


----------



## Sky Dancer

PoliticalChic said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get that warm, fuzzy feeling that only cruelty to the stupid can provide.
> 
> Oh...you're a delicate child?
> You must wash in Woolite.
> 
> 
> "You should provide links.."
> I did....they're called "books."
> What is this inordinate fear you have of books?
> See if anybody you know has a library card....they can explain the phenomenon
> to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read plenty.  I also live in a rural area and I have to order most of my books.  When there is an on-line source for me to check your facts I appreciate it.
> 
> I don't appreciate the personal attacks in every one of the posts you write to me.
> 
> You seem to have complete disdain for anyone who isn't rich or whose politics lean left of yours.
> 
> I think you should open a blog and only invite the uberright, like you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am at a disadvantage when debating with you, or anyone of your ilk.
> 
> The problem for me is that I actually value both erudition and credibilty.
> 
> You, on the other hand, are free to blather away, claiming whatsoever you wish, whether there is any truth, or connection to reality.
> 
> A boon.
> 
> Here, let me document same.
> 
> 1. "...complete disdain for anyone who isn't rich...'
> Document that claim?
> 
> 2. "...complete disdain for anyone ...whose politics lean left of yours."
> Well, OK...in your case that's true...but it is because you make statements that
> anyone with an education knows is untrue.
> 
> 3. "...you should open a blog and only invite the uberright, like you are."
> See, here you have exposed a complete misunderstanding of my design:
> I come here to debate, with the belief that in the marketplace of ideas,
> conservative ideas will be revealed as correct.
> 
> So, you have it backwards: I love to invite only those with whom I disagree.
> 
> 
> 4. "When there is an on-line source for me to check your facts I appreciate it."
> I read a great deal as well. Often, five books a week. And I take notes....such as you
> see in several of the posts.
> If I find my souce on line, I give you the link. If from a book, well, you are on your
> own.
> Question...how often have you gone to the source when I give you a link?
> Have you found my links to be in error, wrong?
> If so, when?
> Because I doubt that happens.
Click to expand...


See you.


----------



## uscitizen

Samson said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean govt should teach the traditional values like teachers spanking the students for misbehaving?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably.  Spare the rod spoil the child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The value is discipline.
> 
> The means is coporal punishment.
> 
> As with so many things, you are confusing the two.
Click to expand...


It is a traditional value.

Not just a value.


----------



## Samson

uscitizen said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably.  Spare the rod spoil the child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The value is discipline.
> 
> The means is coporal punishment.
> 
> As with so many things, you are confusing the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a traditional value.
> 
> Not just a value.
Click to expand...


Ok, discipline is a TRADITIONAL value.

ONE means of enforcing it is corporal punishment.

Perhaps we could use a wet noodle on your pointed head to emphasize the difference.


----------



## logical4u

Disenchanted61 said:


> Government is not responsible for teaching whatever you believe " traditional values " might be,
> but they sure and hell should lead by example and I have yet to see this principle being practiced,
> by anybody in public imagery, or by those of previous generations.



Traditional values:  
don't cheat in school
don't tell lies
be frugal
honor your family, and their values
don't cheat in sports
integrity is the most important thing you can have
be courteous

Yes, I would love to see these encouraged!


----------



## Dr Grump

PoliticalChic said:


> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> "In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!



The left also like traditional values. What traditional values are you talking about anyway?


----------



## logical4u

Jackson said:


> Schools have to go back 60 years to become successful as they once were.  Teach the basics.  Reading, Writing, 'Rithmetic, Geography, History of the US, History of the World, Civics, Literature.
> 
> Stop with the calculators.  Do not introduce computers until the 3rd grade when foundations of the basics have been mastered. Homework each night. No open book tests.
> 
> Expect parent involvement.  Expect the children to meet grade level requirements and let parents know there will be NO SOCIAL PROMOTIONS.  Parents have no say in the advancement of their child to the next grade.  A child can fail a grade twice in the primary and twice in the intermediate/high school.  Psychological testing is required if the student cannot meet the requirements after that time.
> 
> Students cannot quit school until their 18th birthday.
> 
> If a student is suspended, they receive failing marks for that day's work without an opportunity to make up the work.
> 
> Students with truancy problems or not turning in homework will have parents show up with the their child at a hearing with a school hearing officer to determine what fines, penalties will be earned.
> 
> No more foolishess.
> 
> Alternative schools will be available for those who conduct is dangerous to others with uniformed guards on site.
> 
> Parents will learn to be responsible one way or another. Court help will be available.
> 
> Make public schools as good as the private schools.  That's what we want.



Good, but I would add: must maintaing a 2.5 GPA.  If you can't you will be taught how to clean buildings, dig ditches or other menial skills for one year.  You can go back in the classroom after that, but if your grades don't make it .... back to hard labor apprenticeship for you.


----------



## uscitizen

Samson said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The value is discipline.
> 
> The means is coporal punishment.
> 
> As with so many things, you are confusing the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a traditional value.
> 
> Not just a value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, discipline is a TRADITIONAL value.
> 
> ONE means of enforcing it is corporal punishment.
> 
> Perhaps we could use a wet noodle on your pointed head to emphasize the difference.
Click to expand...


duhhh.
for many decades in America is was traditional to enforce the traditional value od discipline in school with traditional coporal punishment.
Both the value and the enforcement method were longheld american traditions.

And we produced stronger citizens when we had those traditions.

For example:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/188464-teenagers-have-no-respect.html


----------



## Samson

uscitizen said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a traditional value.
> 
> Not just a value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, discipline is a TRADITIONAL value.
> 
> ONE means of enforcing it is corporal punishment.
> 
> Perhaps we could use a wet noodle on your pointed head to emphasize the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> duhhh.
> for many decades in America is was traditional to enforce the traditional value od discipline in school with traditional coporal punishment.
> Both the value and the enforcement method were longheld american traditions.
> 
> And we produced stronger citizens when we had those traditions.
> 
> For example:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/188464-teenagers-have-no-respect.html
Click to expand...


I knew you'd eventually catch on, but you still seem confused by the difference between cause and effect; means and end.

_It is possible to have traditional values for discipline WITHOUT corporal punishment._


Has the light come on yet?


----------



## uscitizen

Samson said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, discipline is a TRADITIONAL value.
> 
> ONE means of enforcing it is corporal punishment.
> 
> Perhaps we could use a wet noodle on your pointed head to emphasize the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> duhhh.
> for many decades in America is was traditional to enforce the traditional value od discipline in school with traditional coporal punishment.
> Both the value and the enforcement method were longheld american traditions.
> 
> And we produced stronger citizens when we had those traditions.
> 
> For example:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/188464-teenagers-have-no-respect.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew you'd eventually catch on, but you still seem confused by the difference between cause and effect; means and end.
> 
> _It is possible to have traditional values for discipline WITHOUT corporal punishment._
> 
> 
> Has the light come on yet?
Click to expand...


You are the one with the lumen deficiency.


----------



## Samson

uscitizen said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> duhhh.
> for many decades in America is was traditional to enforce the traditional value od discipline in school with traditional coporal punishment.
> Both the value and the enforcement method were longheld american traditions.
> 
> And we produced stronger citizens when we had those traditions.
> 
> For example:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/188464-teenagers-have-no-respect.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you'd eventually catch on, but you still seem confused by the difference between cause and effect; means and end.
> 
> _It is possible to have traditional values for discipline WITHOUT corporal punishment._
> 
> 
> Has the light come on yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one with the lumen deficiency.
Click to expand...


Realizing you have a problem will be your first step toward recovery.


----------



## Sky Dancer

logical4u said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Schools have to go back 60 years to become successful as they once were.  Teach the basics.  Reading, Writing, 'Rithmetic, Geography, History of the US, History of the World, Civics, Literature.
> 
> Stop with the calculators.  Do not introduce computers until the 3rd grade when foundations of the basics have been mastered. Homework each night. No open book tests.
> 
> Expect parent involvement.  Expect the children to meet grade level requirements and let parents know there will be NO SOCIAL PROMOTIONS.  Parents have no say in the advancement of their child to the next grade.  A child can fail a grade twice in the primary and twice in the intermediate/high school.  Psychological testing is required if the student cannot meet the requirements after that time.
> 
> Students cannot quit school until their 18th birthday.
> 
> If a student is suspended, they receive failing marks for that day's work without an opportunity to make up the work.
> 
> Students with truancy problems or not turning in homework will have parents show up with the their child at a hearing with a school hearing officer to determine what fines, penalties will be earned.
> 
> No more foolishess.
> 
> Alternative schools will be available for those who conduct is dangerous to others with uniformed guards on site.
> 
> Parents will learn to be responsible one way or another. Court help will be available.
> 
> Make public schools as good as the private schools.  That's what we want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good, but I would add: must maintaing a 2.5 GPA.  If you can't you will be taught how to clean buildings, dig ditches or other menial skills for one year.  You can go back in the classroom after that, but if your grades don't make it .... back to hard labor apprenticeship for you.
Click to expand...


Yeah, the good ol days.  When you could beat your wife and kids because they were your property.  Gone are the days when you could put make up on your kids bruises and the teachers would ignroe.  In fact, they'd be happy to help you beat your kids while they were at school.  Ah, conservative values.


----------



## PoliticalChic

logical4u said:


> Disenchanted61 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is not responsible for teaching whatever you believe " traditional values " might be,
> but they sure and hell should lead by example and I have yet to see this principle being practiced,
> by anybody in public imagery, or by those of previous generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional values:
> don't cheat in school
> don't tell lies
> be frugal
> honor your family, and their values
> don't cheat in sports
> integrity is the most important thing you can have
> be courteous
> 
> Yes, I would love to see these encouraged!
Click to expand...


Wait a minute.....Is your name Moses????
I think I've read your stuff before!!


----------



## Samson

PoliticalChic said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disenchanted61 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is not responsible for teaching whatever you believe " traditional values " might be,
> but they sure and hell should lead by example and I have yet to see this principle being practiced,
> by anybody in public imagery, or by those of previous generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional values:
> don't cheat in school
> don't tell lies
> be frugal
> honor your family, and their values
> don't cheat in sports
> integrity is the most important thing you can have
> be courteous
> 
> Yes, I would love to see these encouraged!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute.....Is your name Moses????
> I think I've read your stuff before!!
Click to expand...


I'm waiting for the movie to come out.


----------



## Moonglow

uscitizen said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a traditional value.
> 
> Not just a value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, discipline is a TRADITIONAL value.
> 
> ONE means of enforcing it is corporal punishment.
> 
> Perhaps we could use a wet noodle on your pointed head to emphasize the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> duhhh.
> for many decades in America is was traditional to enforce the traditional value od discipline in school with traditional coporal punishment.
> Both the value and the enforcement method were longheld american traditions.
> 
> And we produced stronger citizens when we had those traditions.
> 
> For example:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/188464-teenagers-have-no-respect.html
Click to expand...


so ur saying their were no teens that were disrespectfull in the old days? Dream on.


----------



## editec

Teach traditional values?

WHOSE traditional values?

Mine?

Great.

Yours?

No thanks!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, discipline is a TRADITIONAL value.
> 
> ONE means of enforcing it is corporal punishment.
> 
> Perhaps we could use a wet noodle on your pointed head to emphasize the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> duhhh.
> for many decades in America is was traditional to enforce the traditional value od discipline in school with traditional coporal punishment.
> Both the value and the enforcement method were longheld american traditions.
> 
> And we produced stronger citizens when we had those traditions.
> 
> For example:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/188464-teenagers-have-no-respect.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so ur saying their were no teens that were disrespectfull in the old days? Dream on.
Click to expand...


"The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for
authority, they show disrespect to their elders.... They no longer
rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents,
chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their
legs, and are tyrants over their teachers."
Attributed to Socrates by Plato


----------



## daws101

Moonglow said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, discipline is a TRADITIONAL value.
> 
> ONE means of enforcing it is corporal punishment.
> 
> Perhaps we could use a wet noodle on your pointed head to emphasize the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> duhhh.
> for many decades in America is was traditional to enforce the traditional value od discipline in school with traditional coporal punishment.
> Both the value and the enforcement method were longheld american traditions.
> 
> And we produced stronger citizens when we had those traditions.
> 
> For example:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/188464-teenagers-have-no-respect.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so ur saying their were no teens that were disrespectfull in the old days? Dream on.
Click to expand...

Teenage Life in the 1950&#8217;s
by Erika Cox

The word Teenager was created in the 1950&#8217;s due to the tremendous population of those in this age category and because teenagers started gaining more independence and freedoms. Teenagers were able to buy more things like food, clothes and music because of an increase in spending money. 

Teenagers were also becoming more independent in the type of music they preferred to listen to, no more listening to what their parents liked, teens flocked to the new music of the decade, which was rock and roll.

Growing up as a teenager prior to World War II, teenagers were expected to take life seriously. Males were expected to join the military or go out and get a job in order to help bring in money for their family or to take care of their future family. 

Females were taught how to take care of the household and prepare themselves to be a dutiful wife and take care of children. Marriage and preparing for a family, more than education or a career, was seen as a definite in the lives of teenagers. Also, teens had very little economic freedom, independence, and input into decision making prior to WWII. 

However, in the 1950&#8217;s, expectations changed for the teenager. The economy started booming and families experienced a great deal of economic power, freedom and independence, including teenagers. 

New medians were created like television and AM radio that attracted teenagers. Also they were able to attend high school dances, create clothing trends, dance fads, and hairstyles to name a few. 

Things were starting to change. In the 1950&#8217;s, teenagers where more inclined and encouraged to attend college, find a skill, and seek a successful career. Their parents had more than likely gone through the depression and a number of wars, and now wanted something more for their children. 

This resulted in teenagers receiving spending money and having more time to socialize with other teenagers. Of course, this newly found independence would often result in conflict between the parents and the child. 

The media played on these emotions and often portrayed teenagers as juvenile delinquents. Peers easily influence teenagers, often at that stage in life what peers think and do becomes more important than what parents think and say. 

Perhaps, some would say looking at society in general that the first indication or act of teenage rebellion began in the 1950&#8217;s. 

Before the 1950&#8217;s, teenagers listened to the music of their parents, but when rock and roll came on the scene teens swarmed to it. Even though teens were able to purchase rock and roll records because they were receiving extra spending money, their parents were opposed to rock and roll music, they despised it, and thought of it as corrupting their children. 

This sometimes caused friction, it seemed as if teenagers were becoming more rebellious, defensive, and at times, disrespectful, and that listening to rock and roll was the root cause of all this rebellion. 

However, this belief was often exaggerated because parents didn&#8217;t understand the newfound independence and freedom that they never experienced. Yet, rock and roll was something new and parents thought it was shocking and terrible. They felt if their children were listening to this dreadful music that the end must be right around the corner. 

Although, this wasn&#8217;t the case in every household it was in a large number of them. Because parents had never experienced this they thought their children were doomed never realizing it was just a phase and it would be over with once the teen reached adulthood. 

Later on this clash became known as the generation gap. Nevertheless, with the help of adults, radio, rock shows, concerts, and TV shows like American Bandstand opened doors for teens in the 1950&#8217;s to experience things teenagers of the past never experienced. Despite all of the uproar, teenagers in the 1950&#8217;s played a huge part in the rise of rock and roll music.


Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
First of all the Civil War occured in the 1860's, decades before the concept of teenagers was developed.

Secondly, 'teen rebellion' first occurred during the 1920s. For the most part 'teen rebellion' disappeared during the 1930's, but resurfaced at the later part of the decade with the Zoot Suit period. After WWII (1941-1945 for the US), the US economy experienced tremendous growth which resulted in prosperity for most groups. It also made teenage ownership of cars possible. This new sense of freedom was coupled with a desire to avoid the perils of their parents generation - namely the Great Depression and WWII. Suburban growth and the growth of college enrollment allowed for more independence.

Drug use has always been a part of the teenage experience. Most people begin using mood altering substances in their teenage years - from alcohol and tobacco to marijuana and harder drugs. Also at the beginning of the 1950s, marijuana was legal in most places, and LSD wasn't 'invented' until the late 50s or early 60's. The drug craze of the late 50s and 60s was fueled in part by the desire to be free and different and in part by the restricting forces brought to bear by concerned parents and the government. Drugs were an escape from reality and gave an intense sense of control over reality.


----------



## logical4u

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Schools have to go back 60 years to become successful as they once were.  Teach the basics.  Reading, Writing, 'Rithmetic, Geography, History of the US, History of the World, Civics, Literature.
> 
> Stop with the calculators.  Do not introduce computers until the 3rd grade when foundations of the basics have been mastered. Homework each night. No open book tests.
> 
> Expect parent involvement.  Expect the children to meet grade level requirements and let parents know there will be NO SOCIAL PROMOTIONS.  Parents have no say in the advancement of their child to the next grade.  A child can fail a grade twice in the primary and twice in the intermediate/high school.  Psychological testing is required if the student cannot meet the requirements after that time.
> 
> Students cannot quit school until their 18th birthday.
> 
> If a student is suspended, they receive failing marks for that day's work without an opportunity to make up the work.
> 
> Students with truancy problems or not turning in homework will have parents show up with the their child at a hearing with a school hearing officer to determine what fines, penalties will be earned.
> 
> No more foolishess.
> 
> Alternative schools will be available for those who conduct is dangerous to others with uniformed guards on site.
> 
> Parents will learn to be responsible one way or another. Court help will be available.
> 
> Make public schools as good as the private schools.  That's what we want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good, but I would add: must maintaing a 2.5 GPA.  If you can't you will be taught how to clean buildings, dig ditches or other menial skills for one year.  You can go back in the classroom after that, but if your grades don't make it .... back to hard labor apprenticeship for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the good ol days.  When you could beat your wife and kids because they were your property.  Gone are the days when you could put make up on your kids bruises and the teachers would ignroe.  In fact, they'd be happy to help you beat your kids while they were at school.  Ah, conservative values.
Click to expand...


Liberal "values" (lack of values) have been controlling the political systems for about 60 years.  In that time, those with "traditional values" made us the most prosperous nation that ever existed on the face of the earth.  Since then, what has liberal values done for the planet: 
poverty: still here
homelessness: still here
family: under attack by those that want the gov't to have all the authority, but no responsibility
global community: starting to eat itself
socialist based nations: collapsing
communist nations: gone, dying, or adapted to partial "capitalism"
Christianity: under attack around the world
Islam: making every country it goes into a place of deceit, destruction and death
Hindus and Buddahists: being systematically eliminated by the communists or the islamists
education: most children do not have the basic skills to survive when they graduate high school as an "adult", but have to be sent to college for remedial classes in math, communication skills, history (that means our children are not educated as well as they were in the '40s)
women: not safe to walk on American streets
children: not safe to live (perverts everywhere), in many cases, murdered before living outside womb, born into single parent households with a 70% chance of staying in poverty, many with no male parent
men: being marginalized as unecessary "tools" (and we wonder why they just make trouble?)
government: local, state and federal, all, more corrupt
drug abuse: listed at almost 10% of the population does nothing to improve society
alcohol abuse: still here (fewer drunk drivers, but the ones that drive drunk make up for it)




Oh, and we still have domestic violence, and abused children, that has not changed (unless your abuser is white and fairly well off, then the children are taken away and put into even more abusive 'foster care').  And now we have the "religion" islam moving into our neighborhoods with people that are murdering their teenage daughters, and beheading their wife.  They mutilate their female children and rape the male children.

So, be honest, how are those "liberal values" working for the world?


----------



## logical4u

Samson said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional values:
> don't cheat in school
> don't tell lies
> be frugal
> honor your family, and their values
> don't cheat in sports
> integrity is the most important thing you can have
> be courteous
> 
> Yes, I would love to see these encouraged!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a minute.....Is your name Moses????
> I think I've read your stuff before!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for the movie to come out.
Click to expand...


I don't have "the staff", shucks!!!!


----------



## daws101

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good, but I would add: must maintaing a 2.5 GPA.  If you can't you will be taught how to clean buildings, dig ditches or other menial skills for one year.  You can go back in the classroom after that, but if your grades don't make it .... back to hard labor apprenticeship for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the good ol days.  When you could beat your wife and kids because they were your property.  Gone are the days when you could put make up on your kids bruises and the teachers would ignroe.  In fact, they'd be happy to help you beat your kids while they were at school.  Ah, conservative values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberal "values" (lack of values) have been controlling the political systems for about 60 years.  In that time, those with "traditional values" made us the most prosperous nation that ever existed on the face of the earth.  Since then, what has liberal values done for the planet:
> poverty: still here
> homelessness: still here
> family: under attack by those that want the gov't to have all the authority, but no responsibility
> global community: starting to eat itself
> socialist based nations: collapsing
> communist nations: gone, dying, or adapted to partial "capitalism"
> Christianity: under attack around the world
> Islam: making every country it goes into a place of deceit, destruction and death
> Hindus and Buddahists: being systematically eliminated by the communists or the islamists
> education: most children do not have the basic skills to survive when they graduate high school as an "adult", but have to be sent to college for remedial classes in math, communication skills, history (that means our children are not educated as well as they were in the '40s)
> women: not safe to walk on American streets
> children: not safe to live (perverts everywhere), in many cases, murdered before living outside womb, born into single parent households with a 70% chance of staying in poverty, many with no male parent
> men: being marginalized as unecessary "tools" (and we wonder why they just make trouble?)
> government: local, state and federal, all, more corrupt
> drug abuse: listed at almost 10% of the population does nothing to improve society
> alcohol abuse: still here (fewer drunk drivers, but the ones that drive drunk make up for it)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and we still have domestic violence, and abused children, that has not changed (unless your abuser is white and fairly well off, then the children are taken away and put into even more abusive 'foster care').  And now we have the "religion" islam moving into our neighborhoods with people that are murdering their teenage daughters, and beheading their wife.  They mutilate their female children and rape the male children.
> 
> So, be honest, how are those "liberal values" working for the world?
Click to expand...


----------



## hortysir

daws101 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the good ol days.  When you could beat your wife and kids because they were your property.  Gone are the days when you could put make up on your kids bruises and the teachers would ignroe.  In fact, they'd be happy to help you beat your kids while they were at school.  Ah, conservative values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal "values" (lack of values) have been controlling the political systems for about 60 years.  In that time, those with "traditional values" made us the most prosperous nation that ever existed on the face of the earth.  Since then, what has liberal values done for the planet:
> poverty: still here
> homelessness: still here
> family: under attack by those that want the gov't to have all the authority, but no responsibility
> global community: starting to eat itself
> socialist based nations: collapsing
> communist nations: gone, dying, or adapted to partial "capitalism"
> Christianity: under attack around the world
> Islam: making every country it goes into a place of deceit, destruction and death
> Hindus and Buddahists: being systematically eliminated by the communists or the islamists
> education: most children do not have the basic skills to survive when they graduate high school as an "adult", but have to be sent to college for remedial classes in math, communication skills, history (that means our children are not educated as well as they were in the '40s)
> women: not safe to walk on American streets
> children: not safe to live (perverts everywhere), in many cases, murdered before living outside womb, born into single parent households with a 70% chance of staying in poverty, many with no male parent
> men: being marginalized as unecessary "tools" (and we wonder why they just make trouble?)
> government: local, state and federal, all, more corrupt
> drug abuse: listed at almost 10% of the population does nothing to improve society
> alcohol abuse: still here (fewer drunk drivers, but the ones that drive drunk make up for it)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and we still have domestic violence, and abused children, that has not changed (unless your abuser is white and fairly well off, then the children are taken away and put into even more abusive 'foster care').  And now we have the "religion" islam moving into our neighborhoods with people that are murdering their teenage daughters, and beheading their wife.  They mutilate their female children and rape the male children.
> 
> So, be honest, how are those "liberal values" working for the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That has to be the most thought out and concise rebuttal I have ever seen


----------



## Samson

hortysir said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal "values" (lack of values) have been controlling the political systems for about 60 years.  In that time, those with "traditional values" made us the most prosperous nation that ever existed on the face of the earth.  Since then, what has liberal values done for the planet:
> poverty: still here
> homelessness: still here
> family: under attack by those that want the gov't to have all the authority, but no responsibility
> global community: starting to eat itself
> socialist based nations: collapsing
> communist nations: gone, dying, or adapted to partial "capitalism"
> Christianity: under attack around the world
> Islam: making every country it goes into a place of deceit, destruction and death
> Hindus and Buddahists: being systematically eliminated by the communists or the islamists
> education: most children do not have the basic skills to survive when they graduate high school as an "adult", but have to be sent to college for remedial classes in math, communication skills, history (that means our children are not educated as well as they were in the '40s)
> women: not safe to walk on American streets
> children: not safe to live (perverts everywhere), in many cases, murdered before living outside womb, born into single parent households with a 70% chance of staying in poverty, many with no male parent
> men: being marginalized as unecessary "tools" (and we wonder why they just make trouble?)
> government: local, state and federal, all, more corrupt
> drug abuse: listed at almost 10% of the population does nothing to improve society
> alcohol abuse: still here (fewer drunk drivers, but the ones that drive drunk make up for it)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and we still have domestic violence, and abused children, that has not changed (unless your abuser is white and fairly well off, then the children are taken away and put into even more abusive 'foster care').  And now we have the "religion" islam moving into our neighborhoods with people that are murdering their teenage daughters, and beheading their wife.  They mutilate their female children and rape the male children.
> 
> So, be honest, how are those "liberal values" working for the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has to be the most thought out and concise rebuttal I have ever seen
Click to expand...


You realize that your sarcasm will bounce off the shit between daws' ears.


----------



## Sky Dancer

hortysir said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal "values" (lack of values) have been controlling the political systems for about 60 years.  In that time, those with "traditional values" made us the most prosperous nation that ever existed on the face of the earth.  Since then, what has liberal values done for the planet:
> poverty: still here
> homelessness: still here
> family: under attack by those that want the gov't to have all the authority, but no responsibility
> global community: starting to eat itself
> socialist based nations: collapsing
> communist nations: gone, dying, or adapted to partial "capitalism"
> Christianity: under attack around the world
> Islam: making every country it goes into a place of deceit, destruction and death
> Hindus and Buddahists: being systematically eliminated by the communists or the islamists
> education: most children do not have the basic skills to survive when they graduate high school as an "adult", but have to be sent to college for remedial classes in math, communication skills, history (that means our children are not educated as well as they were in the '40s)
> women: not safe to walk on American streets
> children: not safe to live (perverts everywhere), in many cases, murdered before living outside womb, born into single parent households with a 70% chance of staying in poverty, many with no male parent
> men: being marginalized as unecessary "tools" (and we wonder why they just make trouble?)
> government: local, state and federal, all, more corrupt
> drug abuse: listed at almost 10% of the population does nothing to improve society
> alcohol abuse: still here (fewer drunk drivers, but the ones that drive drunk make up for it)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and we still have domestic violence, and abused children, that has not changed (unless your abuser is white and fairly well off, then the children are taken away and put into even more abusive 'foster care').  And now we have the "religion" islam moving into our neighborhoods with people that are murdering their teenage daughters, and beheading their wife.  They mutilate their female children and rape the male children.
> 
> So, be honest, how are those "liberal values" working for the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has to be the most thought out and concise rebuttal I have ever seen
Click to expand...


Hardly.  It's just blaming liberals for every social problem that exists in the US or the world.  None of these represent liberal values.  They represent a hodgepodge of general complaints, rants and whines that conservatives want to blame on liberals.

Liberal values include civil rights, reproductive choice, free access to public education, separation of church and state, anti-war, abolition of the death penalty, health care reform, privacy, affirmative action, legislation to break business monopolies, workers rights, tolerance of difference, protecting minorities against the tyranny of the majority, helping those less fortunate, not allowing the government to act on the basis of sectarian faith, courts have a responsibility to protect individual liberties, government should protect the safety and security of it's citizens without sacrificing constitutional values.


----------



## Samson

Sky Dancer said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be the most thought out and concise rebuttal I have ever seen
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly.  It's just blaming liberals for every social problem that exists.  None of these represent liberal values.
Click to expand...




OK, then name a few liberal values.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Samson said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be the most thought out and concise rebuttal I have ever seen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly.  It's just blaming liberals for every social problem that exists.  None of these represent liberal values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, then name a few liberal values.
Click to expand...


Go back and read my post.  The values I have listed are ones that I hold dear my entire life.


----------



## Samson

Sky Dancer said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly.  It's just blaming liberals for every social problem that exists.  None of these represent liberal values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, then name a few liberal values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back and read my post.  The values I have listed are ones that I hold dear my entire life.
Click to expand...


So they're your values, but not so valuable to simply list a few again?



Gotchya.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Samson said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, then name a few liberal values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read my post.  The values I have listed are ones that I hold dear my entire life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they're your values, but not so valuable to simply list a few again?
> 
> 
> 
> Gotchya.
Click to expand...


You have a problem scrolling back one post?


----------



## Samson

Sky Dancer said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read my post.  The values I have listed are ones that I hold dear my entire life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they're your values, but not so valuable to simply list a few again?
> 
> 
> 
> Gotchya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a problem scrolling back one post?
Click to expand...


I've already lost interest.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Samson said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they're your values, but not so valuable to simply list a few again?
> 
> 
> 
> Gotchya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a problem scrolling back one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already lost interest.
Click to expand...


I'm not surprised.  You are not interested in a free exchange of viewpoints, only in bashing.


----------



## Samson

Sky Dancer said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a problem scrolling back one post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already lost interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised.  You are not interested in a free exchange of viewpoints, only in bashing.
Click to expand...


Or you're a bore.


****YAWN****


----------



## Sky Dancer

Samson said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already lost interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised.  You are not interested in a free exchange of viewpoints, only in bashing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or you're a bore.
> 
> 
> ****YAWN****
Click to expand...


Ditto.  Try contributing something substantial to the thread.  Liberal values include individual liberty, an individual&#8217;s right to chose who to marry, upholding the First Amendment, freedom of and from religion and preserving a social safety net to protect families in need.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Samson, you do no favor to your claims by showing such immaturity. Refusing to read someone else's argument is the equivalent of shoving your fingers in your ears.


----------



## Samson

Sky Dancer said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised.  You are not interested in a free exchange of viewpoints, only in bashing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or you're a bore.
> 
> 
> ****YAWN****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ditto.  Try contributing something substantial to the thread.  Liberal values include individual liberty, an individuals right to chose who to marry, upholding the First Amendment, freedom of and from religion and preserving a social safety net to protect families in need.
Click to expand...


Finally decided to list 'em huh?

I cannot see why it was so painful. 

Nothing there terribly original.

The question then becomes how these values are relative to the question: Should government teach them?

Additionally: How?

From a practical POV, there is the conflict between the liberal values for individual rights (actually libertarianism), and the liberal value that has Big Brother government defining what a "social safety net" is, and what "preserve" means, and who "families in need" are.

How do schools teach the individual, dependent on government, that he has the liberty to be independent?


----------



## logical4u

Sky Dancer said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be the most thought out and concise rebuttal I have ever seen
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly.  It's just blaming liberals for every social problem that exists in the US or the world.  None of these represent liberal values.  They represent a hodgepodge of general complaints, rants and whines that conservatives want to blame on liberals.
> 
> Liberal values include civil rights, reproductive choice, free access to public education, separation of church and state, anti-war, abolition of the death penalty, health care reform, privacy, affirmative action, legislation to break business monopolies, workers rights, tolerance of difference, protecting minorities against the tyranny of the majority, helping those less fortunate, not allowing the government to act on the basis of sectarian faith, courts have a responsibility to protect individual liberties, government should protect the safety and security of it's citizens without sacrificing constitutional values.
Click to expand...



Let's see, how I understand that:

civil rights: vote to legally steal off of people that have worked for wealth and give it to people that have no interest in improving themselves

reproductive choice: remove the father from the family, allow women to be used as penis receptacles (Dr. Laura S), and allow irresponsible women that won't use birth control correctly to murder their "mistakes"

free access to public education: where the "children" will be taught what is socially "acceptable", and to ignore their parents' beliefs, sex is taught before math, reading, and writing, history is selectively taught and ignored (this is still the greatest nation (not communism, not socialism) that ever existed on the face of the planet, and it improved life for people world wide because anyone that has ever heard of the freedoms here, want the same where they live)

separation of church and state: elimination of any public statements about Christianity, but WICCA and islam are all good

anti-war: bankrupt the nation, until there is no way to defend the borders, and then we all become slaves to the most ruthless

abolition of the death penalty: it is okay to murder babies, but it is not okay to kill those that commit the most awful crimes against their fellow man (ensuring the crimes are NOT repeated)

health care reform: give the government (anyone that is in charge) complete control over your bodies' health choices, and the power to say "who" gets treatments and "who" doesn't

privacy: all your personal information is monitored by the federal gov't, with health records open to the IRS.  Is it now close to 25% of the population that works for gov't, and will have "access" to all citizens' information

affirmative action: This may have made things better when it started, but now is being used by people that have no intention of doing the actual job, to sue employers, and abuse the "system"

legislation to break business monopolies: the gov't gets to choose which companies succeed and which companies are punished (using regulations) making the government lawmakers wide open for corruption

workers rights: force "people"(that would be employers) to give more than someone's work is worth, inflating prices

tolerance of difference: legislate misbehaviour as acceptable

protecting minorities against the tyranny of the majority: allow minorities to break the law, while requiring tax payers to subsidize them

helping those less fortunate: allowing the "government" to decide who is less fortunate, opening the gov't to widespread corruption

not allowing the government to act on the basis of sectarian faith: eliminating any trace of Judeo/Christian values and embracing corruption

courts have a responsibility to protect individual liberties: re-define the purpose of the courts, originally made to see that the law was upheld, equally.

government should protect the safety and security of it's citizens without sacrificing constitutional values: re-write the Constitution into socialism (that ends up collapsing and installing dictators in the "gov't")

I know what you said sounded so good, but it just doesn't turn out that way.


----------



## bodecea

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be the most thought out and concise rebuttal I have ever seen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly.  It's just blaming liberals for every social problem that exists in the US or the world.  None of these represent liberal values.  They represent a hodgepodge of general complaints, rants and whines that conservatives want to blame on liberals.
> 
> Liberal values include civil rights, reproductive choice, free access to public education, separation of church and state, anti-war, abolition of the death penalty, health care reform, privacy, affirmative action, legislation to break business monopolies, workers rights, tolerance of difference, protecting minorities against the tyranny of the majority, helping those less fortunate, not allowing the government to act on the basis of sectarian faith, courts have a responsibility to protect individual liberties, government should protect the safety and security of it's citizens without sacrificing constitutional values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, how I understand that:
> 
> *civil rights: vote to legally steal off of people that have worked for wealth and give it to people that have no interest in improving themselves*
> reproductive choice: remove the father from the family, allow women to be used as penis receptacles (Dr. Laura S), and allow irresponsible women that won't use birth control correctly to murder their "mistakes"
> 
> free access to public education: where the "children" will be taught what is socially "acceptable", and to ignore their parents' beliefs, sex is taught before math, reading, and writing, history is selectively taught and ignored (this is still the greatest nation (not communism, not socialism) that ever existed on the face of the planet, and it improved life for people world wide because anyone that has ever heard of the freedoms here, want the same where they live)
> 
> separation of church and state: elimination of any public statements about Christianity, but WICCA and islam are all good
> 
> anti-war: bankrupt the nation, until there is no way to defend the borders, and then we all become slaves to the most ruthless
> 
> abolition of the death penalty: it is okay to murder babies, but it is not okay to kill those that commit the most awful crimes against their fellow man (ensuring the crimes are NOT repeated)
> 
> health care reform: give the government (anyone that is in charge) complete control over your bodies' health choices, and the power to say "who" gets treatments and "who" doesn't
> 
> privacy: all your personal information is monitored by the federal gov't, with health records open to the IRS.  Is it now close to 25% of the population that works for gov't, and will have "access" to all citizens' information
> 
> affirmative action: This may have made things better when it started, but now is being used by people that have no intention of doing the actual job, to sue employers, and abuse the "system"
> 
> legislation to break business monopolies: the gov't gets to choose which companies succeed and which companies are punished (using regulations) making the government lawmakers wide open for corruption
> 
> workers rights: force "people"(that would be employers) to give more than someone's work is worth, inflating prices
> 
> tolerance of difference: legislate misbehaviour as acceptable
> 
> protecting minorities against the tyranny of the majority: allow minorities to break the law, while requiring tax payers to subsidize them
> 
> helping those less fortunate: allowing the "government" to decide who is less fortunate, opening the gov't to widespread corruption
> 
> not allowing the government to act on the basis of sectarian faith: eliminating any trace of Judeo/Christian values and embracing corruption
> 
> courts have a responsibility to protect individual liberties: re-define the purpose of the courts, originally made to see that the law was upheld, equally.
> 
> government should protect the safety and security of it's citizens without sacrificing constitutional values: re-write the Constitution into socialism (that ends up collapsing and installing dictators in the "gov't")
> 
> I know what you said sounded so good, but it just doesn't turn out that way.
Click to expand...


I stopped reading after your first one.   Wow.


----------



## Sky Dancer

logical4u said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be the most thought out and concise rebuttal I have ever seen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly.  It's just blaming liberals for every social problem that exists in the US or the world.  None of these represent liberal values.  They represent a hodgepodge of general complaints, rants and whines that conservatives want to blame on liberals.
> 
> Liberal values include civil rights, reproductive choice, free access to public education, separation of church and state, anti-war, abolition of the death penalty, health care reform, privacy, affirmative action, legislation to break business monopolies, workers rights, tolerance of difference, protecting minorities against the tyranny of the majority, helping those less fortunate, not allowing the government to act on the basis of sectarian faith, courts have a responsibility to protect individual liberties, government should protect the safety and security of it's citizens without sacrificing constitutional values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, how I understand that:
> 
> civil rights: vote to legally steal off of people that have worked for wealth and give it to people that have no interest in improving themselves
> 
> reproductive choice: remove the father from the family, allow women to be used as penis receptacles (Dr. Laura S), and allow irresponsible women that won't use birth control correctly to murder their "mistakes"
> 
> free access to public education: where the "children" will be taught what is socially "acceptable", and to ignore their parents' beliefs, sex is taught before math, reading, and writing, history is selectively taught and ignored (this is still the greatest nation (not communism, not socialism) that ever existed on the face of the planet, and it improved life for people world wide because anyone that has ever heard of the freedoms here, want the same where they live)
> 
> separation of church and state: elimination of any public statements about Christianity, but WICCA and islam are all good
> 
> anti-war: bankrupt the nation, until there is no way to defend the borders, and then we all become slaves to the most ruthless
> 
> abolition of the death penalty: it is okay to murder babies, but it is not okay to kill those that commit the most awful crimes against their fellow man (ensuring the crimes are NOT repeated)
> 
> health care reform: give the government (anyone that is in charge) complete control over your bodies' health choices, and the power to say "who" gets treatments and "who" doesn't
> 
> privacy: all your personal information is monitored by the federal gov't, with health records open to the IRS.  Is it now close to 25% of the population that works for gov't, and will have "access" to all citizens' information
> 
> affirmative action: This may have made things better when it started, but now is being used by people that have no intention of doing the actual job, to sue employers, and abuse the "system"
> 
> legislation to break business monopolies: the gov't gets to choose which companies succeed and which companies are punished (using regulations) making the government lawmakers wide open for corruption
> 
> workers rights: force "people"(that would be employers) to give more than someone's work is worth, inflating prices
> 
> tolerance of difference: legislate misbehaviour as acceptable
> 
> protecting minorities against the tyranny of the majority: allow minorities to break the law, while requiring tax payers to subsidize them
> 
> helping those less fortunate: allowing the "government" to decide who is less fortunate, opening the gov't to widespread corruption
> 
> not allowing the government to act on the basis of sectarian faith: eliminating any trace of Judeo/Christian values and embracing corruption
> 
> courts have a responsibility to protect individual liberties: re-define the purpose of the courts, originally made to see that the law was upheld, equally.
> 
> government should protect the safety and security of it's citizens without sacrificing constitutional values: re-write the Constitution into socialism (that ends up collapsing and installing dictators in the "gov't")
> 
> I know what you said sounded so good, but it just doesn't turn out that way.
Click to expand...


No point talking to you.


----------



## logical4u

Sky Dancer said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly.  It's just blaming liberals for every social problem that exists in the US or the world.  None of these represent liberal values.  They represent a hodgepodge of general complaints, rants and whines that conservatives want to blame on liberals.
> 
> Liberal values include civil rights, reproductive choice, free access to public education, separation of church and state, anti-war, abolition of the death penalty, health care reform, privacy, affirmative action, legislation to break business monopolies, workers rights, tolerance of difference, protecting minorities against the tyranny of the majority, helping those less fortunate, not allowing the government to act on the basis of sectarian faith, courts have a responsibility to protect individual liberties, government should protect the safety and security of it's citizens without sacrificing constitutional values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, how I understand that:
> 
> civil rights: vote to legally steal off of people that have worked for wealth and give it to people that have no interest in improving themselves
> 
> reproductive choice: remove the father from the family, allow women to be used as penis receptacles (Dr. Laura S), and allow irresponsible women that won't use birth control correctly to murder their "mistakes"
> 
> free access to public education: where the "children" will be taught what is socially "acceptable", and to ignore their parents' beliefs, sex is taught before math, reading, and writing, history is selectively taught and ignored (this is still the greatest nation (not communism, not socialism) that ever existed on the face of the planet, and it improved life for people world wide because anyone that has ever heard of the freedoms here, want the same where they live)
> 
> separation of church and state: elimination of any public statements about Christianity, but WICCA and islam are all good
> 
> anti-war: bankrupt the nation, until there is no way to defend the borders, and then we all become slaves to the most ruthless
> 
> abolition of the death penalty: it is okay to murder babies, but it is not okay to kill those that commit the most awful crimes against their fellow man (ensuring the crimes are NOT repeated)
> 
> health care reform: give the government (anyone that is in charge) complete control over your bodies' health choices, and the power to say "who" gets treatments and "who" doesn't
> 
> privacy: all your personal information is monitored by the federal gov't, with health records open to the IRS.  Is it now close to 25% of the population that works for gov't, and will have "access" to all citizens' information
> 
> affirmative action: This may have made things better when it started, but now is being used by people that have no intention of doing the actual job, to sue employers, and abuse the "system"
> 
> legislation to break business monopolies: the gov't gets to choose which companies succeed and which companies are punished (using regulations) making the government lawmakers wide open for corruption
> 
> workers rights: force "people"(that would be employers) to give more than someone's work is worth, inflating prices
> 
> tolerance of difference: legislate misbehaviour as acceptable
> 
> protecting minorities against the tyranny of the majority: allow minorities to break the law, while requiring tax payers to subsidize them
> 
> helping those less fortunate: allowing the "government" to decide who is less fortunate, opening the gov't to widespread corruption
> 
> not allowing the government to act on the basis of sectarian faith: eliminating any trace of Judeo/Christian values and embracing corruption
> 
> courts have a responsibility to protect individual liberties: re-define the purpose of the courts, originally made to see that the law was upheld, equally.
> 
> government should protect the safety and security of it's citizens without sacrificing constitutional values: re-write the Constitution into socialism (that ends up collapsing and installing dictators in the "gov't")
> 
> I know what you said sounded so good, but it just doesn't turn out that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No point talking to you.
Click to expand...


This is the "typical" response from a liberal after spouting something they think sounds so great.  You point out what one wants, often, one does not get.  In fact if we were to do all those "liberal values", this country would be defenseless and overrun by the ruthless and cruel (that would mean that no part of "liberal values" would be achieved), and broken into territories run by dictators.
Liberals seem to think that people are searching the world over for someone, intellectually superior, to them, to tell them how to live their life, raise their children, and how to think.  Each liberal you meet seems to think that "they", in particular, are that intellectually superior.  When you inform them, that hey, I have a pretty good idea how to run my life, raise my children, and how to think, they want to pout and have hurt feelings because another person doesn't want to drop all their worldly possessions to follow their lead.  
I enjoy talking to you, at least you "try" to respond with some thought, instead of immediately going into "pout mode".  I guess all you libs have your limits, though.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

My guess is you have AN idea how to run your life, raise your children, etc.  First sign of any population based study that shows a better way, aka intellectual reasoning, and yall get all hurt.  "How dare you tell me I need to vaccinate my children! I know damn well what to do without you!  My credentials?!  Well...  I had unprotected sex.  That more than qualifies me to make life-changing decisions that will affect the long term health and well being of my children.  Go take your liberal ideas and scram!"

Conservatives: well-credentialed parents since the dawn of unprotected sex.


----------



## daveman

SmarterThanHick said:


> My guess is you have AN idea how to run your life, raise your children, etc.  First sign of any population based study that shows a better way, aka intellectual reasoning, and yall get all hurt.  "How dare you tell me I need to vaccinate my children! I know damn well what to do without you!  My credentials?!  Well...  I had unprotected sex.  That more than qualifies me to make life-changing decisions that will affect the long term health and well being of my children.  Go take your liberal ideas and scram!"
> 
> Conservatives: well-credentialed parents since the dawn of unprotected sex.


Read my signature.  It applies to you.


----------



## midcan5

PoliticalChic said:


> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> [..]
> 
> Meaning???   The end is near for the Left!
> 
> Hallelujah!!



This is sorta weird as traditional American values of opportunity, law, sound and honest business practices, supporting America, working hard, being tolerant of all, level playing field, are all liberal values. 

Controlling and monitoring the lives of others, intolerance, removing legal rights, torture, illegal war, booing veterans, not caring for the sick, scapegoating, not working together, and corporate greed are all modern conservative republican values.

Do I have you guys wrong? Nah, you simply don't face up to what you have become. You hide behind a smoke screen in which it is always the other who is at fault. 

You can find yourself here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/189696-libertarian-flame.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/186726-republican-ideology-through-history.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...es-of-midcans-insights-into-contemporary.html


PS  Just bought another American car made by Americans. Good for us and liberals who still support America.


----------



## Samson

SmarterThanHick said:


> My guess is you have AN idea how to run your life, raise your children, etc.  First sign of any population based study that shows a better way, aka intellectual reasoning, and yall get all hurt.  "How dare you tell me I need to vaccinate my children! I know damn well what to do without you!  My credentials?!  Well...  I had unprotected sex.  That more than qualifies me to make life-changing decisions that will affect the long term health and well being of my children.  Go take your liberal ideas and scram!"
> 
> Conservatives: well-credentialed parents since the dawn of unprotected sex.



Liberals (20% of the population according to a "population based study"): the ability to ignore individual liberty whenever it doesn't suit their agenda.


----------



## Katzndogz

The govenment is teaching values.  That's all they do is teach whateve values the government thinks we should have.  They teach their values to the exclusion of any actual education.


----------



## Samson

Tipsycatlover said:


> The govenment is teaching values.  That's all they do is teach whateve values the government thinks we should have.  They teach their values to the exclusion of any actual education.



Yet here you are, writing and reading.........


----------



## Foxfyre

midcan5 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> [..]
> 
> Meaning???   The end is near for the Left!
> 
> Hallelujah!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is sorta weird as traditional American values of opportunity, law, sound and honest business practices, supporting America, working hard, being tolerant of all, level playing field, are all liberal values.
> 
> Controlling and monitoring the lives of others, intolerance, removing legal rights, torture, illegal war, booing veterans, not caring for the sick, scapegoating, not working together, and corporate greed are all modern conservative republican values.
> 
> Do I have you guys wrong? Nah, you simply don't face up to what you have become. You hide behind a smoke screen in which it is always the other who is at fault.
> 
> You can find yourself here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/189696-libertarian-flame.html
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/186726-republican-ideology-through-history.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...es-of-midcans-insights-into-contemporary.html
> 
> 
> PS  Just bought another American car made by Americans. Good for us and liberals who still support America.
Click to expand...


And then there are the poor souls who seem to have NO CLUE re what liberals or conservatives think, believe, or want in this country as testified by the post quoted here.


----------



## Katzndogz

Samson said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The govenment is teaching values.  That's all they do is teach whateve values the government thinks we should have.  They teach their values to the exclusion of any actual education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet here you are, writing and reading.........
Click to expand...


For one thing, I went to school when values and education were really taught and if you gave the teacher trouble, the principle had a paddle to deal with it.  

The state of public education today in the US is worse than dismal.  We have failed in every area of education.


----------



## Foxfyre

Tipsycatlover said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The govenment is teaching values.  That's all they do is teach whateve values the government thinks we should have.  They teach their values to the exclusion of any actual education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet here you are, writing and reading.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For one thing, I went to school when values and education were really taught and if you gave the teacher trouble, the principle had a paddle to deal with it.
> 
> The state of public education today in the US is worse than dismal.  We have failed in every area of education.
Click to expand...


But the values taught were respect for legitimate authority including parents and teachers, patriotism, responsibility (it's up to you to do your homework); punctuality (get to class on time; turn your homework in as scheduled); excellence (those receiving A's and B's earn them by actually doing the work and proving they learned the material); manners (don't disrupt the classroom, remove your hat in class, rise when your elders enter the room, etc.); propriety (pants on the ground or halter tops and skirts up to your hoo ha are not appropriate attire for school) and such as that.

And yes, our schools are the poorer for all those values being abandoned.


----------



## Katzndogz

Foxfyre said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet here you are, writing and reading.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For one thing, I went to school when values and education were really taught and if you gave the teacher trouble, the principle had a paddle to deal with it.
> 
> The state of public education today in the US is worse than dismal.  We have failed in every area of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the values taught were respect for legitimate authority including parents and teachers, patriotism, responsibility (it's up to you to do your homework); punctuality (get to class on time; turn your homework in as scheduled); excellence (those receiving A's and B's earn them by actually doing the work and proving they learned the material); manners (don't disrupt the classroom, remove your hat in class, rise when your elders enter the room, etc.); propriety (pants on the ground or halter tops and skirts up to your hoo ha are not appropriate attire for school) and such as that.
> 
> And yes, our schools are the poorer for all those values being abandoned.
Click to expand...


Many if not all those values were taught in the home and in the church.  Values that the educational system today had determined to be unnecessary if not wrong.


----------



## daws101

Samson said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be the most thought out and concise rebuttal I have ever seen
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize that your sarcasm will bounce off the shit between daws' ears.
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

Tipsycatlover said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> For one thing, I went to school when values and education were really taught and if you gave the teacher trouble, the principle had a paddle to deal with it.
> 
> The state of public education today in the US is worse than dismal.  We have failed in every area of education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the values taught were respect for legitimate authority including parents and teachers, patriotism, responsibility (it's up to you to do your homework); punctuality (get to class on time; turn your homework in as scheduled); excellence (those receiving A's and B's earn them by actually doing the work and proving they learned the material); manners (don't disrupt the classroom, remove your hat in class, rise when your elders enter the room, etc.); propriety (pants on the ground or halter tops and skirts up to your hoo ha are not appropriate attire for school) and such as that.
> 
> And yes, our schools are the poorer for all those values being abandoned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many if not all those values were taught in the home and in the church.  Values that the educational system today had determined to be unnecessary if not wrong.
Click to expand...


I was blessed to get an education when the schools were part of the community and reinforced the values taught in the home and church as listed above.  Shared values of the community kept the people focused and strong, instilled character and beneficial attitudes in their citizens, and we were spared most of the ugly side of today's 'more enlightend' progressive attitudes.

Were there negatives in that society all those decades ago?  Of course there were and no doubt some of our more 'progressive' brethren here will bring those up as though the negatives were all that existed in that time.  Which of course is a crock, but they don't care and they aren't interested in seeing it any other way.

But this thread focuses on education, and I am 100% certain that the education the public schools provided in those days was far far superior to what most public schools provide today.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet here you are, writing and reading.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For one thing, I went to school when values and education were really taught and if you gave the teacher trouble, the principle had a paddle to deal with it.
> 
> The state of public education today in the US is worse than dismal.  We have failed in every area of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the values taught were respect for legitimate authority including parents and teachers, patriotism, responsibility (it's up to you to do your homework); punctuality (get to class on time; turn your homework in as scheduled); excellence (those receiving A's and B's earn them by actually doing the work and proving they learned the material); manners (don't disrupt the classroom, remove your hat in class, rise when your elders enter the room, etc.); propriety (pants on the ground or halter tops and skirts up to your hoo ha are not appropriate attire for school) and such as that.
> 
> And yes, our schools are the poorer for all those values being abandoned.
Click to expand...


"Abandoned?"

Schools abandoned nothing, Ms Cleaver.

PARENTS, on the other hand, have changed a great deal. The primary "evolutionary" change has been the two income household; A secondary change has been the increasing divorce rate. Parents have abandoned the time-consuming activities associated with teaching values at home.


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> For one thing, I went to school when values and education were really taught and if you gave the teacher trouble, the principle had a paddle to deal with it.
> 
> The state of public education today in the US is worse than dismal.  We have failed in every area of education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the values taught were respect for legitimate authority including parents and teachers, patriotism, responsibility (it's up to you to do your homework); punctuality (get to class on time; turn your homework in as scheduled); excellence (those receiving A's and B's earn them by actually doing the work and proving they learned the material); manners (don't disrupt the classroom, remove your hat in class, rise when your elders enter the room, etc.); propriety (pants on the ground or halter tops and skirts up to your hoo ha are not appropriate attire for school) and such as that.
> 
> And yes, our schools are the poorer for all those values being abandoned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Abandoned?"
> 
> Schools abandoned nothing, Ms Cleaver.
> 
> PARENTS, on the other hand, have changed a great deal. The primary "evolutionary" change has been the two income household; A secondary change has been the increasing divorce rate. Parents have abandoned the time-consuming activities associated with teaching values at home.
Click to expand...


Sorry my friend, but I've BEEN in the schools these days including sitting in the classroom, and they are VERY different from what they used to be.  And it is the products of those same schools that are today's parents.

So yes, today's schools may reflect the values of their community as they did when I was in school.  But it is very different values being reflected now than was the case when I was in school.   If we could put conservatives back in charge of the schools for a generation of school children, we would all be infinitely better off than we are now and I believe children would again be getting a first class education in the public schools.

That won't happen unless we get the federal government and teacher's union out of the schools entirely.


----------



## daws101

values, aka standards are taught at home and by society in general.
schools in the last 30 years have had stop or cut back any "values" teaching because in that same 30 year period it has conflicted with so called home /religious values.


----------



## Foxfyre

daws101 said:


> values, aka standards are taught at home and by society in general.
> schools in the last 30 years have had stop or cut back any "values" teaching because in that same 30 year period it has conflicted with so called home /religious values.



Baloney.  Those same schools I grew up in were in communities in which the Church was the social center of the community, just about EVERYBODY belonged to and attended one, and the home values reigned supreme.   And I grew up in ultra conservative small towns.   And in all those years I can tell you the religious affiliation of two of my teachers and the political affiliation of none.  I cannot remember EVER being told in the school what to think religiously, politically, or historically or anything else.  We were taught to think criticially and analyze the prevailing wisdom of the various periods of history.

These days specific attitudes about sociopolitical issues are being pushed.  That didn't happen in my day.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the values taught were respect for legitimate authority including parents and teachers, patriotism, responsibility (it's up to you to do your homework); punctuality (get to class on time; turn your homework in as scheduled); excellence (those receiving A's and B's earn them by actually doing the work and proving they learned the material); manners (don't disrupt the classroom, remove your hat in class, rise when your elders enter the room, etc.); propriety (pants on the ground or halter tops and skirts up to your hoo ha are not appropriate attire for school) and such as that.
> 
> And yes, our schools are the poorer for all those values being abandoned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Abandoned?"
> 
> Schools abandoned nothing, Ms Cleaver.
> 
> PARENTS, on the other hand, have changed a great deal. The primary "evolutionary" change has been the two income household; A secondary change has been the increasing divorce rate. Parents have abandoned the time-consuming activities associated with teaching values at home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry my friend, but I've BEEN in the schools these days including sitting in the classroom, and they are VERY different from what they used to be.  And it is the products of those same schools that are today's parents.
> 
> So yes, today's schools may reflect the values of their community as they did when I was in school.  But it is very different values being reflected now than was the case when I was in school.   If we could put conservatives back in charge of the schools for a generation of school children, we would all be infinitely better off than we are now and I believe children would again be getting a first class education in the public schools.
> 
> That won't happen unless we get the federal government and teacher's union out of the schools entirely.
Click to expand...


yeah, parents have nothing to do with it...


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Abandoned?"
> 
> Schools abandoned nothing, Ms Cleaver.
> 
> PARENTS, on the other hand, have changed a great deal. The primary "evolutionary" change has been the two income household; A secondary change has been the increasing divorce rate. Parents have abandoned the time-consuming activities associated with teaching values at home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry my friend, but I've BEEN in the schools these days including sitting in the classroom, and they are VERY different from what they used to be.  And it is the products of those same schools that are today's parents.
> 
> So yes, today's schools may reflect the values of their community as they did when I was in school.  But it is very different values being reflected now than was the case when I was in school.   If we could put conservatives back in charge of the schools for a generation of school children, we would all be infinitely better off than we are now and I believe children would again be getting a first class education in the public schools.
> 
> That won't happen unless we get the federal government and teacher's union out of the schools entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah, parents have nothing to do with it...
Click to expand...


Now I didn't say that did I.

But ask yourself why parents are so different now than they were then.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry my friend, but I've BEEN in the schools these days including sitting in the classroom, and they are VERY different from what they used to be.  And it is the products of those same schools that are today's parents.
> 
> So yes, today's schools may reflect the values of their community as they did when I was in school.  But it is very different values being reflected now than was the case when I was in school.   If we could put conservatives back in charge of the schools for a generation of school children, we would all be infinitely better off than we are now and I believe children would again be getting a first class education in the public schools.
> 
> That won't happen unless we get the federal government and teacher's union out of the schools entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, parents have nothing to do with it...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I didn't say that did I.
> 
> But ask yourself why parents are so different now than they were then.
Click to expand...


I did.

More work, and more are divorced.


----------



## daws101

Foxfyre said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> values, aka standards are taught at home and by society in general.
> schools in the last 30 years have had stop or cut back any "values" teaching because in that same 30 year period it has conflicted with so called home /religious values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baloney.  Those same schools I grew up in were in communities in which the Church was the social center of the community, just about EVERYBODY belonged to and attended one, and the home values reigned supreme.   And I grew up in ultra conservative small towns.   And in all those years I can tell you the religious affiliation of two of my teachers and the political affiliation of none.  I cannot remember EVER being told in the school what to think religiously, politically, or historically or anything else.  We were taught to think criticially and analyze the prevailing wisdom of the various periods of history.
> 
> These days specific attitudes about sociopolitical issues are being pushed.  That didn't happen in my day.
Click to expand...

yes it did, in those far off days the schools and churches homes were nearly one in the same,especially in small towns.
it not till the late sixties did that start to change most schools became more "liberal"
here are some examples of schools teaching "values"  

 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKxBKfRph_g]Snap Out of It! (Emotional Balance) (1951) - YouTube[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wuQOki7jjY]Girls Beware (1961) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre

daws101 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> values, aka standards are taught at home and by society in general.
> schools in the last 30 years have had stop or cut back any "values" teaching because in that same 30 year period it has conflicted with so called home /religious values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baloney.  Those same schools I grew up in were in communities in which the Church was the social center of the community, just about EVERYBODY belonged to and attended one, and the home values reigned supreme.   And I grew up in ultra conservative small towns.   And in all those years I can tell you the religious affiliation of two of my teachers and the political affiliation of none.  I cannot remember EVER being told in the school what to think religiously, politically, or historically or anything else.  We were taught to think criticially and analyze the prevailing wisdom of the various periods of history.
> 
> These days specific attitudes about sociopolitical issues are being pushed.  That didn't happen in my day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes it did, in those far off days the schools and churches homes were nearly one in the same,especially in small towns.
> it not till the late sixties did that start to change most schools became more "liberal"
> here are some examples of schools teaching "values"
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKxBKfRph_g]Snap Out of It! (Emotional Balance) (1951) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wuQOki7jjY]Girls Beware (1961) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQpM2kNouD4]Act Your Age (1949) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvoVOzULZY0]Let&#39;s Be Good Citizens at School (1953) - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


No it didn't.  I know it didn't because I was there.  The schools didn't start becoming more liberal until mostly after the 70's and it wasn't until the late 80's and the 90's that I saw the extremism beginning to show up in classroom content, just about the time people started looking at the federal government as the primary driving force behind education.  And that was also about the time that the 60's rebel generation was taking over the power in the classrooms, administration, government, and the media.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Yeah, it's real extreme to teach tolerance of different religions, cultures, ethnicities, and sexual orientation.

It's real extreme to have a zero tolerance policy of bullying in the schools.  Gone are the "good ol' days" when you could beat the crap out of a black kid or a gay and get commended for it.  Poor RWNJ's, they are so oppressed now.

Yeah, blame it on the sixties and the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Conservatives always want to turn the world backwards.

I subscribe to Teaching Tolerance.  How radical of me.

Conservatives think Church belongs in the public school system.  I don't.

I believe in dealing with REALITY.  Families don't look the way they did in the fifties.  They are more complex, with step families, multi-ethnic, multi-racial, mixed religion, one parent, two parent, three parent, four parent household, and YES, like it or not GAY families too.  Get over it.

By all means, don't be challenged by living in a plurality.  Pretend this is a white right wing Christian, misogynist, heterosexist nation.

Turn back the hands of time to when women and children were chattel, blacks were slaves or lynchable, homosexuals were jailed or hospitalized, and alcoholic unhappy wives were the norm.

Oh, yeah, nostalgia for the good old days, when if you were a courageous leader who stood up for something, you were assassinated.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Core democratic values:  life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the common good, justice, equality, diversity, truth, popular sovreignity and patriotism.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baloney.  Those same schools I grew up in were in communities in which the Church was the social center of the community, just about EVERYBODY belonged to and attended one, and the home values reigned supreme.   And I grew up in ultra conservative small towns.   And in all those years I can tell you the religious affiliation of two of my teachers and the political affiliation of none.  I cannot remember EVER being told in the school what to think religiously, politically, or historically or anything else.  We were taught to think criticially and analyze the prevailing wisdom of the various periods of history.
> 
> These days specific attitudes about sociopolitical issues are being pushed.  That didn't happen in my day.
> 
> 
> 
> yes it did, in those far off days the schools and churches homes were nearly one in the same,especially in small towns.
> it not till the late sixties did that start to change most schools became more "liberal"
> here are some examples of schools teaching "values"
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKxBKfRph_g]Snap Out of It! (Emotional Balance) (1951) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wuQOki7jjY]Girls Beware (1961) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQpM2kNouD4]Act Your Age (1949) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvoVOzULZY0]Let's Be Good Citizens at School (1953) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it didn't.  I know it didn't because I was there.  The schools didn't start becoming more liberal until mostly after the 70's and it wasn't until the late 80's and the 90's that I saw the extremism beginning to show up in classroom content, _*just about the time people started looking at the federal government as the primary driving force behind education*_.  And that was also about the time that the 60's rebel generation was taking over the power in the classrooms, administration, government, and the media.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how anyone could possibly mistake the US Federal Government as anything remotely similar to "the primary driving force behind education."

At best, it is a distant second.

Almost none of a public school's budget comes from federal funding.
The LOCAL elected school board writes school policy.

It wasn't until the 70's and 80's that women began to work at jobs that allowed them to be independant (career women) in significant numbers. It was about this time that the divorce rate rose to 50%+ all marriages. Without a stay-at-home mom, and many broken homes, values that had been "traditional" began to disappear. Schools began to see increased discipline problems, adolescent drug and alcohol use, etc.,etc.

This had nothing to do with "liberal values" displacing "traditional values," unless you consider a liberal value as one that encouraged women to be more than nurses, secretaries, airline stewardesses, and hairdressers. Frankly I'd expect that if anyone had a daughter, then they would appreciate this value.


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes it did, in those far off days the schools and churches homes were nearly one in the same,especially in small towns.
> it not till the late sixties did that start to change most schools became more "liberal"
> here are some examples of schools teaching "values"
> 
> Snap Out of It! (Emotional Balance) (1951) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> Girls Beware (1961) - YouTube
> 
> Act Your Age (1949) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Be Good Citizens at School (1953) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it didn't.  I know it didn't because I was there.  The schools didn't start becoming more liberal until mostly after the 70's and it wasn't until the late 80's and the 90's that I saw the extremism beginning to show up in classroom content, _*just about the time people started looking at the federal government as the primary driving force behind education*_.  And that was also about the time that the 60's rebel generation was taking over the power in the classrooms, administration, government, and the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how anyone could possibly mistake the US Federal Government as anything remotely similar to "the primary driving force behind education."
> 
> At best, it is a distant second.
> 
> Almost none of a public school's budget comes from federal funding.
> The LOCAL elected school board writes school policy.
> 
> It wasn't until the 70's and 80's that women began to work at jobs that allowed them to be independant (career women) in significant numbers. It was about this time that the divorce rate rose to 50%+ all marriages. Without a stay-at-home mom, and many broken homes, values that had been "traditional" began to disappear. Schools began to see increased discipline problems, adolescent drug and alcohol use, etc.,etc.
> 
> This had nothing to do with "liberal values" displacing "traditional values," unless you consider a liberal value as one that encouraged women to be more than nurses, secretaries, airline stewardesses, and hairdressers. Frankly I'd expect that if anyone had a daughter, then they would appreciate this value.
Click to expand...


I was a daughter then and I simply see things differently than you do.  I never once felt restricted to strictly 'women's' jobs and yes, the more the 'liberal values' began to rip the families apart, the more negative consequences we began to see in that.  Women's liberation--definitely a liberal value--went way to the left to denigrate men and fathers and exalt the independent woman who needed no man while those of more conservative values didn't feel any need for liberation because we already were.  But the "men aren't necessary' mantra had its effect and the trend of fatherless homes began to escalate to dangerous proportions with all the negative consequences resulting from that.  It became fashionable to abort the conceived baby rather than adjust the lifestyle to accommodate a new life, and that too has had its negative consequences.

Conservative values are for two parent homes as much as possible, parenting, feeding your kids, disciplining your kids and teaching important values, parental involvement, knowing what was in the curriculum your kids are learning, and expecting kids to be educated and not promoted because it was too much trouble to see that they learned the material before pushing them on, knowing your kids' teachers, and paying attention.

It was not conservative values that changed all that.


----------



## daws101

Foxfyre said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baloney.  Those same schools I grew up in were in communities in which the Church was the social center of the community, just about EVERYBODY belonged to and attended one, and the home values reigned supreme.   And I grew up in ultra conservative small towns.   And in all those years I can tell you the religious affiliation of two of my teachers and the political affiliation of none.  I cannot remember EVER being told in the school what to think religiously, politically, or historically or anything else.  We were taught to think criticially and analyze the prevailing wisdom of the various periods of history.
> 
> These days specific attitudes about sociopolitical issues are being pushed.  That didn't happen in my day.
> 
> 
> 
> yes it did, in those far off days the schools and churches homes were nearly one in the same,especially in small towns.
> it not till the late sixties did that start to change most schools became more "liberal"
> here are some examples of schools teaching "values"
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKxBKfRph_g]Snap Out of It! (Emotional Balance) (1951) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wuQOki7jjY]Girls Beware (1961) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQpM2kNouD4]Act Your Age (1949) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvoVOzULZY0]Let's Be Good Citizens at School (1953) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it didn't.  I know it didn't because I was there.  The schools didn't start becoming more liberal until mostly after the 70's and it wasn't until the late 80's and the 90's that I saw the extremism beginning to show up in classroom content, just about the time people started looking at the federal government as the primary driving force behind education.  And that was also about the time that the 60's rebel generation was taking over the power in the classrooms, administration, government, and the media.
Click to expand...

bullshit ...I started school in 1964 in Georgia desegregation had just started in that state where, one of the values being taught was racism...until the democratic government stepped in.
if that is not an example of schools teaching values there is not one.    

A History of Public Education in the United States
by Deeptha Thattai 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial Summary 
This article explores the history of the United States' public education system, tracing its development from its roots in Puritan and Congregationalist religious schools in the 1600s and subsequently the availability of free elementary education thanks to the efforts of Common School reformers in the 1800s. It continues on to the dramatic changes of the 1900s, culminating in today's highly decentralized (but still very imperfect) system. It explores the impact that many figures of great importance in America's history have had on the education system, and discusses various social, legal and cultural factors that have all influenced public education. The article also touches on issues of racial and gender equality.


Early History
American public education differs from that of many other nations in that it is primarily the responsibility of the states and individual school districts. The national system of formal education in the United States developed in the 19th century. Jefferson was the first American leader to suggest creating a public school system. His ideas formed the basis of education systems developed in the 19th century. 
The most preliminary form of public education was in existence in the 1600s in the New England colonies of Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire. The overriding belief on educating the children was more due to religious reasons and was easy to implement, as the only groups in existence were the Puritans and the Congregationalists. However, the influx of people from many countries and belonging to different faiths led to a weakening of the concept. People refused to learn only in English and opposed the clergy imposing their religious views through public education. By the middle of the eighteenth century, private schooling had become the norm. 

After the Declaration of Independence, 14 states had their own constitutions by 1791, and out of the 14, 7 states had specific provisions for education. Jefferson believed that education should be under the control of the government, free from religious biases, and available to all people irrespective of their status in society. Others who vouched for public education around the same time were Benjamin Rush, Noah Webster, Robert Coram and George Washington. It was still very difficult to translate the concept to practice because of the political upheavals, vast immigration, and economic transformations. Thus, even for many more decades, there were many private schools, and charitable and religious institutions dominating the scene. 

The Beginning of the Public Education System
Until the 1840s the education system was highly localized and available only to wealthy people. Reformers who wanted all children to gain the benefits of education opposed this. Prominent among them were Horace Mann in Massachusetts and Henry Barnard in Connecticut. Mann started the publication of the Common School Journal, which took the educational issues to the public. The common-school reformers argued for the case on the belief that common schooling could create good citizens, unite society and prevent crime and poverty. As a result of their efforts, free public education at the elementary level was available for all American children by the end of the 19th century. Massachusetts passed the first compulsory school attendance laws in 1852, followed by New York in 1853. By 1918 all states had passed laws requiring children to attend at least elementary school. The Catholics were, however, opposed to common schooling and created their own private schools. Their decision was supported by the 1925 Supreme Court rule in Pierce v. Society of Sisters that states could not compel children to attend public schools, and that children could attend private schools instead. 
High Schools
The first publicly supported secondary school in the United States was the Boston Latin School, founded in 1635. Harvard was the first University in existence at that time. The attendance in secondary schools was very little because the curriculum was specialized and hard. The demand for skilled workers in the middle of the eighteenth century led Benjamin Franklin to start a new kind of secondary school. Thus, the American Academy was established in Philadelphia in 1751. American high schools eventually replaced Latin grammar schools. The rise in American high school attendance was one of the most striking developments in U.S. education during the 20th century. From 1900 to 1996 the percentage of teenagers who graduated from high school increased from about 6 percent to about 85 percent. As the 20th century progressed, most states enacted legislation extending compulsory education laws to the age of 16. It is essential to look at the history of public education along with the events shaping the country in the early years of the 20th century. The Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War, wars with other countries, civil rights movement, student protests and the numerous political events within the country all had their effects on the education system too. In the 1920s and 30s, progressive education was the word of the day; the focus then shifted to intellectual discipline and curriculum development projects in the later decades. 
During the 20th century participation in higher or postsecondary education in the United States increased tremendously. At the beginning of the century about 2 percent of Americans from the ages of 18 to 24 were enrolled in a college. Near the end of the century more than 60 percent of this age group, or over 14 million students, were enrolled in about 3500 four-year and two-year colleges. 

The Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 provided federal financial support to state universities. Many land-grant colleges and state universities were established through gifts of federal land to the states for the support of higher education. Financial support was extended to the universities and this in turn led to increased research. In addition, the numbers of students attending college increased dramatically after World War II ended in 1945. 

Involvement at the Local and Federal Levels
Individual statesrather than the federal governmenthave primary authority over public education in the United States. Eventually, every state developed a department of education and enacted laws regulating finance, the hiring of school personnel, student attendance, and curriculum. In general, however, local districts oversee the administration of schools, with the exception of licensing requirements and general rules concerning health and safety. Public schools have also relied heavily on local property taxes to meet the vast majority of school expenses. American schools have thus tended to reflect the educational values and financial capabilities of the communities in which they are located. 
By the middle of the 20th century, most states took a more active regulatory role than in the past. States consolidated school districts into larger units with common procedures. In 1940 there were over 117,000 school districts in the United States, but by 1990 the number had decreased to just over 15,000. The states also became much more responsible for financing education. In 1940 local property taxes financed 68 percent of public school expenses, while the states contributed 30 percent. In 1990 local districts and states each contributed 47 percent to public school revenues. The federal government provided most of the remaining funds. 

During the 1980s and 1990s, virtually all states have given unprecedented attention to their role in raising education standards. A federal report published in 1983 indicated very low academic achievement in public schools.  This resulted in states taking up more responsibility and involvement. This report, A Nation at Risk, suggested that American students were outperformed on international academic tests by students from other industrial societies. Statistics also suggested that American test scores were declining over time. As a result, most states have implemented reform strategies that emphasize more frequent testing conducted by states, more effective state testing, and more state-mandated curriculum requirements. 
The federal government's activities in the field of education have further centralized American schooling. The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 helped create vocational programs in high schools, and the GI Bill of 1944 was the first important federal effort to provide financial aid for military veterans to attend college. In addition, federal civil rights laws require all schools and colleges to conform to national standards of educational equality. 

The federal commitment to improve and finance public schools expanded enormously when Congress passed the National Defense Education Act of 1958 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. In these two landmark statutes, Congress addressed for the first time such broad problems as expanding educational opportunity for poor children and improving instruction in pivotal but usually neglected subjects, such as science, mathematics, and foreign languages. Other federal acts that addressed educational issues in this period were the Vocational Education Act of 1963, the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1963, and the International Education Act of 1966. 

Other Issues
In spite of the belief that public education should be available to every child irrespective of race, gender or economic status, this has not happened in reality. Discrimination in schools on the basis of race and gender has always persisted. Girls were not admitted in schools until many years after the establishment of schools, and even then, they were not taught the same subjects as boys. Since the 1950s, public policy toward education has addressed discrimination issues in education more than educational issues. The federal government has especially been concerned with issues of equality in school districts. 
Racial Equality
The first blacks arrived as slaves in the colonies in 1619. By the middle of the nineteenth century there were 4.5 million blacks in this country. The earliest education given to them was by the missionaries to convert them to Christianity. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts established many schools. The southern states opposed the education of blacks because these states were still favoring slavery. In spite of individual efforts, the education of blacks remained very low until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. The literacy rate that was around 5% in the 1860s rose to 40% in 1890 and by 1910 it was at 70%. 
During the 1950s segregation by race in public and private schools was still common in the United States. The South had separate schools for African Americans and whites and this system had been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). In the North no such laws existed, but racial segregation was still common in schools. Segregation usually resulted in inferior education for blacks. Average public expenditures for white schools exceeded expenditures for black schools. Teachers in white schools generally received higher pay than did teachers in black schools, and facilities in most white schools were far superior to facilities in most black schools. 

In 1954 the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. Despite vigorous resistance for many years by many southern states, by 1980 the federal courts had largely succeeded in eliminating the system of legalized segregation in southern schools. 

Even after the court rulings, it was difficult to eliminate discrimination in practice. Many whites and middle class blacks had moved out of central cities by the 1970s, leaving poor blacks and rising populations of Hispanic Americans to attend urban schools. Native Americans, who had already lost all their lands to whites, also face the additional burden of poverty, which keeps them away from schools. 

Most federally mandated desegregation efforts have been aimed at increasing educational achievement among African American students. However, many educators cite continued inequality in educational opportunities for Hispanic American students. 

Gender Equality
Women have been equally discriminated against in American schools. Even in coeducational schools, practically no encouragement was given to the girls. Prominent women educators who have contributed significantly include Catharine Esther Beecher, Emma Willard, Mary Lyon, Jane Addams, Susan Anthony, Mrs. Carl Schurz, and Mary McLeod. They established higher-level institutions for women and offered subjects that earlier educators deemed unnecessary for women. The first coeducational college was Oberlin College (founded in 1833), the first enduring all-women's college was Vassar College (1861), and the first graduate school for women was at Bryn Mawr College (1880). 
The emergence of the women's rights movement during the 1960s was a boost against sexual discrimination. Title IX of the 1972 federal Education Amendments prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in educational institutions that received federal aid. Educators are of the opinion that even after all these measures, women do not get equal pay in jobs. Discrimination in professional jobs still exists. 

Conclusions
The advancement in technology and learning methods has brought about a lot of change for the better in the public education. However, other social problems that affect the public schools today are violence, drugs, alcohol, smoking, and sex-related issues. The American public school has always been looked upon as a system that inculcates the ideals of equality and freedom in the individual. It has changed historically according to the upheavals in the society. But the pitiful standard of high school education today has left many educators wondering how to improve the system, so much so that in his first week of ascending the Presidency, Bush introduced his No child left behind education plan. It is eventually the role of the public that should influence public education, which is not much prevalent now. 
Sources
A History of Public Education In The United States


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it didn't.  I know it didn't because I was there.  The schools didn't start becoming more liberal until mostly after the 70's and it wasn't until the late 80's and the 90's that I saw the extremism beginning to show up in classroom content, _*just about the time people started looking at the federal government as the primary driving force behind education*_.  And that was also about the time that the 60's rebel generation was taking over the power in the classrooms, administration, government, and the media.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how anyone could possibly mistake the US Federal Government as anything remotely similar to "the primary driving force behind education."
> 
> At best, it is a distant second.
> 
> Almost none of a public school's budget comes from federal funding.
> The LOCAL elected school board writes school policy.
> 
> It wasn't until the 70's and 80's that women began to work at jobs that allowed them to be independant (career women) in significant numbers. It was about this time that the divorce rate rose to 50%+ all marriages. Without a stay-at-home mom, and many broken homes, values that had been "traditional" began to disappear. Schools began to see increased discipline problems, adolescent drug and alcohol use, etc.,etc.
> 
> This had nothing to do with "liberal values" displacing "traditional values," unless you consider a liberal value as one that encouraged women to be more than nurses, secretaries, airline stewardesses, and hairdressers. Frankly I'd expect that if anyone had a daughter, then they would appreciate this value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was a daughter then and I simply see things differently than you do.  I never once felt restricted to strictly 'women's' jobs and yes, the more the 'liberal values' began to rip the families apart, the more negative consequences we began to see in that.  Women's liberation--definitely a liberal value--_*went way to the left to denigrate men and fathers and exalt the independent woman who needed no man while those of more conservative values didn't feel any need for liberation because we already were.*_  But the "men aren't necessary' mantra had its effect and the trend of fatherless homes began to escalate to dangerous proportions with all the negative consequences resulting from that.  It became fashionable to abort the conceived baby rather than adjust the lifestyle to accommodate a new life, and that too has had its negative consequences.
> 
> Conservative values are for two parent homes as much as possible, parenting, feeding your kids, disciplining your kids and teaching important values, parental involvement, knowing what was in the curriculum your kids are learning, and expecting kids to be educated and not promoted because it was too much trouble to see that they learned the material before pushing them on, knowing your kids' teachers, and paying attention.
> 
> It was not conservative values that changed all that.
Click to expand...


Wait a minute...are you saying that Women's _Liberation_, certainly by name alone if nothing else, is a _Liberal_ value that has been harmful to society as a whole? That girls shouldn't be taught Math, least they become Man-hating-rug-munching, scientists and engineers?


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how anyone could possibly mistake the US Federal Government as anything remotely similar to "the primary driving force behind education."
> 
> At best, it is a distant second.
> 
> Almost none of a public school's budget comes from federal funding.
> The LOCAL elected school board writes school policy.
> 
> It wasn't until the 70's and 80's that women began to work at jobs that allowed them to be independant (career women) in significant numbers. It was about this time that the divorce rate rose to 50%+ all marriages. Without a stay-at-home mom, and many broken homes, values that had been "traditional" began to disappear. Schools began to see increased discipline problems, adolescent drug and alcohol use, etc.,etc.
> 
> This had nothing to do with "liberal values" displacing "traditional values," unless you consider a liberal value as one that encouraged women to be more than nurses, secretaries, airline stewardesses, and hairdressers. Frankly I'd expect that if anyone had a daughter, then they would appreciate this value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a daughter then and I simply see things differently than you do.  I never once felt restricted to strictly 'women's' jobs and yes, the more the 'liberal values' began to rip the families apart, the more negative consequences we began to see in that.  Women's liberation--definitely a liberal value--_*went way to the left to denigrate men and fathers and exalt the independent woman who needed no man while those of more conservative values didn't feel any need for liberation because we already were.*_  But the "men aren't necessary' mantra had its effect and the trend of fatherless homes began to escalate to dangerous proportions with all the negative consequences resulting from that.  It became fashionable to abort the conceived baby rather than adjust the lifestyle to accommodate a new life, and that too has had its negative consequences.
> 
> Conservative values are for two parent homes as much as possible, parenting, feeding your kids, disciplining your kids and teaching important values, parental involvement, knowing what was in the curriculum your kids are learning, and expecting kids to be educated and not promoted because it was too much trouble to see that they learned the material before pushing them on, knowing your kids' teachers, and paying attention.
> 
> It was not conservative values that changed all that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute...are you saying that Women's _Liberation_, certainly by name alone if nothing else, is a _Liberal_ value that has been harmful to society as a whole? That girls shouldn't be taught Math, least they become Man-hating-rug-munching, scientists and engineers?
Click to expand...


I am saying women's liberation as the liberal's taught it was a viscious, man-hating, marriage destroying, destructive force in our society and has done severe damage to the kids.  Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences.  Never in my life have I been taught that there are some things women are incapable of doing or that I should not follow my dream because it was 'unsuitable' or 'off limits' to women.  Nor was I required to see men as some sort of inferior species that accomplished things only by bullying or subjecting women.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a daughter then and I simply see things differently than you do.  I never once felt restricted to strictly 'women's' jobs and yes, the more the 'liberal values' began to rip the families apart, the more negative consequences we began to see in that.  Women's liberation--definitely a liberal value--_*went way to the left to denigrate men and fathers and exalt the independent woman who needed no man while those of more conservative values didn't feel any need for liberation because we already were.*_  But the "men aren't necessary' mantra had its effect and the trend of fatherless homes began to escalate to dangerous proportions with all the negative consequences resulting from that.  It became fashionable to abort the conceived baby rather than adjust the lifestyle to accommodate a new life, and that too has had its negative consequences.
> 
> Conservative values are for two parent homes as much as possible, parenting, feeding your kids, disciplining your kids and teaching important values, parental involvement, knowing what was in the curriculum your kids are learning, and expecting kids to be educated and not promoted because it was too much trouble to see that they learned the material before pushing them on, knowing your kids' teachers, and paying attention.
> 
> It was not conservative values that changed all that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a minute...are you saying that Women's _Liberation_, certainly by name alone if nothing else, is a _Liberal_ value that has been harmful to society as a whole? That girls shouldn't be taught Math, least they become Man-hating-rug-munching, scientists and engineers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am saying women's liberation as the liberal's taught it was a viscious, man-hating, marriage destroying, destructive force in our society and has done severe damage to the kids.  Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences.  Never in my life have I been taught that there are some things women are incapable of doing or that I should not follow my dream because it was 'unsuitable' or 'off limits' to women.  Nor was I required to see men as some sort of inferior species that accomplished things only by bullying or subjecting women.
Click to expand...




Why do you think there was some sort of "Liberal Conspiracy?"

Doesn't it make perfectly good sense that women that were "free" and "liberated," might enjoy an array of choices other than being dependant on a male income?


----------



## Sky Dancer

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a daughter then and I simply see things differently than you do.  I never once felt restricted to strictly 'women's' jobs and yes, the more the 'liberal values' began to rip the families apart, the more negative consequences we began to see in that.  Women's liberation--definitely a liberal value--_*went way to the left to denigrate men and fathers and exalt the independent woman who needed no man while those of more conservative values didn't feel any need for liberation because we already were.*_  But the "men aren't necessary' mantra had its effect and the trend of fatherless homes began to escalate to dangerous proportions with all the negative consequences resulting from that.  It became fashionable to abort the conceived baby rather than adjust the lifestyle to accommodate a new life, and that too has had its negative consequences.
> 
> Conservative values are for two parent homes as much as possible, parenting, feeding your kids, disciplining your kids and teaching important values, parental involvement, knowing what was in the curriculum your kids are learning, and expecting kids to be educated and not promoted because it was too much trouble to see that they learned the material before pushing them on, knowing your kids' teachers, and paying attention.
> 
> It was not conservative values that changed all that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a minute...are you saying that Women's _Liberation_, certainly by name alone if nothing else, is a _Liberal_ value that has been harmful to society as a whole? That girls shouldn't be taught Math, least they become Man-hating-rug-munching, scientists and engineers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am saying women's liberation as the liberal's taught it was a viscious, man-hating, marriage destroying, destructive force in our society and has done severe damage to the kids.  Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences.  Never in my life have I been taught that there are some things women are incapable of doing or that I should not follow my dream because it was 'unsuitable' or 'off limits' to women.  Nor was I required to see men as some sort of inferior species that accomplished things only by bullying or subjecting women.
Click to expand...


What a sad note for a former feminist to call the women's liberation movement man-hating, and marriage destroying.

You must really hate liberals.  You continually blame us for everything that's wrong with your world.  Sad.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> What a sad note for a former feminist to call the women's liberation movement man-hating, and marriage destroying.



Its also sad the poster made such accusations without providing any evidence. 



> You must really hate liberals. You continually blame us for everything that's wrong with your world. Sad.


In which case facts and evidence arent necessary, only rightist dogma.


----------



## Sky Dancer

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What a sad note for a former feminist to call the women's liberation movement man-hating, and marriage destroying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its also sad the poster made such accusations without providing any evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must really hate liberals. You continually blame us for everything that's wrong with your world. Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which case facts and evidence arent necessary, only rightist dogma.
Click to expand...


Right wing hate speech, pure and simple.


----------



## daws101

Sky Dancer said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a sad note for a former feminist to call the women's liberation movement man-hating, and marriage destroying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its also sad the poster made such accusations without providing any evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must really hate liberals. You continually blame us for everything that's wrong with your world. Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In which case facts and evidence arent necessary, only rightist dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right wing hate speech, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

 not so much hate but jealousy.


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a minute...are you saying that Women's _Liberation_, certainly by name alone if nothing else, is a _Liberal_ value that has been harmful to society as a whole? That girls shouldn't be taught Math, least they become Man-hating-rug-munching, scientists and engineers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying women's liberation as the liberal's taught it was a viscious, man-hating, marriage destroying, destructive force in our society and has done severe damage to the kids.  Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences.  Never in my life have I been taught that there are some things women are incapable of doing or that I should not follow my dream because it was 'unsuitable' or 'off limits' to women.  Nor was I required to see men as some sort of inferior species that accomplished things only by bullying or subjecting women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think there was some sort of "Liberal Conspiracy?"
> 
> Doesn't it make perfectly good sense that women that were "free" and "liberated," might enjoy an array of choices other than being dependant on a male income?
Click to expand...


You aren't reading what I am writing.  Nor understanding it apparently.  I said nothing about women being dependent on a male income.  I didn't even infer such a thing.  I said nothing about women being dependent on men period and didn't even infer such a thing.

Nor did I suggest that the "men are unnecessary" kind of women's lib was a conspiracy.  It was one of those misguided movements that we see from time to time.  It seems to have pretty much run its course, but the ugly legacy of it does linger on.  In my opinion it did do a terrible disservice to the values in this country most especially for the children.

But it is getting away from the thesis of the thread which is the government pushing of values in the school so can we move back to that?


----------



## Katzndogz

I was there, right at the beginning!  Boy was I a "women's libber".  I was fed up with male employers putting their hands up my skirt.  A skirt that in those days was MANDATED by company rules.  Pat me on the head and take credit for all my work.  Burned me UP!  Burn the Bra!

Then the feminists took over.  The movement was poisoned by hyperinsanity.  It wasn't equality, WE wanted equality.  They wanted accommodation for their failings.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Tipsycatlover said:


> I was there, right at the beginning!  Boy was I a "women's libber".  I was fed up with male employers putting their hands up my skirt.  A skirt that in those days was MANDATED by company rules.  Pat me on the head and take credit for all my work.  Burned me UP!  Burn the Bra!
> 
> Then the feminists took over.  The movement was poisoned by hyperinsanity.  It wasn't equality, WE wanted equality.  They wanted accommodation for their failings.



My sister, then 19 was working for an insurance company in 1964, I was a junior in high school.  I remember her complaining one evening that she was training a new employee, a man, and he was earning more than she.

I remember when I was 14, a friend who had visited his sister who was in the Navy and stationed in the South, telling us that public restrooms & water fountains had signs, "Whites Only".

I remember wondering why some people are so mean, nay, evil.  And now I know, bigotry and ignorance,; on display everyday on this message board.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying women's liberation as the liberal's taught it was a viscious, man-hating, marriage destroying, destructive force in our society and has done severe damage to the kids.  Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences.  Never in my life have I been taught that there are some things women are incapable of doing or that I should not follow my dream because it was 'unsuitable' or 'off limits' to women.  Nor was I required to see men as some sort of inferior species that accomplished things only by bullying or subjecting women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think there was some sort of "Liberal Conspiracy?"
> 
> Doesn't it make perfectly good sense that women that were "free" and "liberated," might enjoy an array of choices other than being dependant on a male income?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't reading what I am writing.  Nor understanding it apparently.  I said nothing about women being dependent on a male income.  I didn't even infer such a thing.  I said nothing about women being dependent on men period and didn't even infer such a thing.
> 
> Nor did I suggest that the "men are unnecessary" kind of women's lib was a conspiracy.  It was one of those misguided movements that we see from time to time.  It seems to have pretty much run its course, but the ugly legacy of it does linger on.  In my opinion it did do a terrible disservice to the values in this country most especially for the children.
> 
> But it is getting away from the thesis of the thread which is the government pushing of values in the school so can we move back to that?
Click to expand...


You said:

 "Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences...."

"before that" implies there was something...some event?...some "misguided movement" that you believe was completely spontaneous, yet was also a result of some sort of "Liberal" (Women's Liberation Dogma). This is an absurd dichototomy: "Misguided" means that it was badly lead, impliying that there was SOME LEADERSHIP. Guess what? this means that there was a PLAN, or a CONSPIRACY.

You also say that Women's Liberation...was "freeing, liberating." This IMPLIES that there was something holding women back; that something was restraining them. Help me out here: If it wasn't MEN, then what was it???? I didn't know that it was a huge leap of logic to believe that it was women's dependance on income from men that was the primary restraint on their freedom! Please enlighten me! Were they literally being chained to kitchen sinks??? 

The fact is that women are just as deserving as men in the employment pool where there are no concerns about physical strength. They took jobs that were outside the TRADITIONAL home, but continued to have kids: Unhappily this often left less time for them to teach value lessons, and the result was a bunch of unmannered idjots attending public school. Desperate to correct the problem of undisiplined students, schools began teaching values. Nothing here is any result of an Evul Liberal Agenda unless you believe that a Woman's Place is At Home.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think there was some sort of "Liberal Conspiracy?"
> 
> Doesn't it make perfectly good sense that women that were "free" and "liberated," might enjoy an array of choices other than being dependant on a male income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't reading what I am writing.  Nor understanding it apparently.  I said nothing about women being dependent on a male income.  I didn't even infer such a thing.  I said nothing about women being dependent on men period and didn't even infer such a thing.
> 
> Nor did I suggest that the "men are unnecessary" kind of women's lib was a conspiracy.  It was one of those misguided movements that we see from time to time.  It seems to have pretty much run its course, but the ugly legacy of it does linger on.  In my opinion it did do a terrible disservice to the values in this country most especially for the children.
> 
> But it is getting away from the thesis of the thread which is the government pushing of values in the school so can we move back to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> "Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences...."
> 
> "before that" implies there was something...some event?...some "misguided movement" that you believe was completely spontaneous, yet was also a result of some sort of "Liberal" (Women's Liberation Dogma). This is an absurd dichototomy: "Misguided" means that it was badly lead, impliying that there was SOME LEADERSHIP. Guess what? this means that there was a PLAN, or a CONSPIRACY.
> 
> You also say that Women's Liberation...was "freeing, liberating." This IMPLIES that there was something holding women back; that something was restraining them. Help me out here: If it wasn't MEN, then what was it???? I didn't know that it was a huge leap of logic to believe that it was women's dependance on income from men that was the primary restraint on their freedom! Please enlighten me! Were they literally being chained to kitchen sinks???
> 
> The fact is that women are just as deserving as men in the employment pool where there are no concerns about physical strength. They took jobs that were outside the TRADITIONAL home, but continued to have kids: Unhappily this often left less time for them to teach value lessons, and the result was a bunch of unmannered idjots attending public school. Desperate to correct the problem of undisiplined students, schools began teaching values. Nothing here is any result of an Evul Liberal Agenda unless you believe that a Woman's Place is At Home.
Click to expand...


What she means is women's liberation when SHE was a part of the movement was freeing and liberating and as soon as she left it went down hill.


----------



## Sky Dancer

daws101 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its also sad the poster made such accusations without providing any evidence.
> 
> 
> In which case facts and evidence arent necessary, only rightist dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right wing hate speech, pure and simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not so much hate but jealousy.
Click to expand...


Rage that they think is "righteous".  It's just hate.


----------



## peach174

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a daughter then and I simply see things differently than you do.  I never once felt restricted to strictly 'women's' jobs and yes, the more the 'liberal values' began to rip the families apart, the more negative consequences we began to see in that.  Women's liberation--definitely a liberal value--_*went way to the left to denigrate men and fathers and exalt the independent woman who needed no man while those of more conservative values didn't feel any need for liberation because we already were.*_  But the "men aren't necessary' mantra had its effect and the trend of fatherless homes began to escalate to dangerous proportions with all the negative consequences resulting from that.  It became fashionable to abort the conceived baby rather than adjust the lifestyle to accommodate a new life, and that too has had its negative consequences.
> 
> Conservative values are for two parent homes as much as possible, parenting, feeding your kids, disciplining your kids and teaching important values, parental involvement, knowing what was in the curriculum your kids are learning, and expecting kids to be educated and not promoted because it was too much trouble to see that they learned the material before pushing them on, knowing your kids' teachers, and paying attention.
> 
> It was not conservative values that changed all that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a minute...are you saying that Women's _Liberation_, certainly by name alone if nothing else, is a _Liberal_ value that has been harmful to society as a whole? That girls shouldn't be taught Math, least they become Man-hating-rug-munching, scientists and engineers?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I am saying women's liberation as the liberals taught it was a vicious, man-hating, marriage destroying, destructive force in our society and has done severe damage to the kids.  Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences.  Never in my life have I been taught that there are some things women are incapable of doing or that I should not follow my dream because it was 'unsuitable' or 'off limits' to women.  Nor was I required to see men as some sort of inferior species that accomplished things only by bullying or subjecting women.[/QUOTE]


Foxfyre is right. We both grew up in the late 60's and early 70's where the lefty socialists took over the movement and turned it into anti marriage, bra burning (very destructive force)
Gloria Steinem one of the lefties leading voices of the movement, quotes;

A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after.
 Gloria Steinem 

"In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: Either she's a feminist or a masochist
 Gloria Steinem 
Notice this one - one way of thinking only.

Some of us are becoming the men we wanted to marry.
- Gloria Steinem 

We've begun to raise daughters more like sons... but few have the courage to raise our sons more like our daughters.
- Gloria Steinem 

This is the group who took over the movement's ideology;
All liberal Democrats.
They demand that marriage and the family be eliminated., that children be cared for by the society as a whole and not "belong" to anyone and that extra-uterine means of reproduction be developed as "a humane goal." They also oppose sexual intercourse ("at present its psychology is dominancepassivity") and suggest the exploration of other means of sexual gratification as a way toward "physical relations. . .(that) would be an extension of communication between individuals." In a demonstration at the Marriage License Bureau and City Hall the Feminists made additional demands for economic and educational reparations for women and repeal of all state laws pertaining to marriage, divorce and annulment.


----------



## Samson

peach174 said:


> in the late 60's and early 70's where the lefty socialists took over the movement and turned it into anti marriage, bra burning (very destructive force)
> Gloria Steinem one of the lefties leading voices of the movement, quotes;
> 
> A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after.
>  Gloria Steinem
> 
> "In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: Either she's a feminist or a masochist
>  Gloria Steinem
> Notice this one - one way of thinking only.
> 
> Some of us are becoming the men we wanted to marry.
> - Gloria Steinem
> 
> We've begun to raise daughters more like sons... but few have the courage to raise our sons more like our daughters.
> - Gloria Steinem
> 
> This is the group who took over the movement's ideology;
> All liberal Democrats.
> They demand that marriage and the family be eliminated., that children be cared for by the society as a whole and not "belong" to anyone and that extra-uterine means of reproduction be developed as "a humane goal." They also oppose sexual intercourse ("at present its psychology is dominancepassivity") and suggest the exploration of other means of sexual gratification as a way toward "physical relations. . .(that) would be an extension of communication between individuals." In a demonstration at the Marriage License Bureau and City Hall the Feminists made additional demands for economic and educational reparations for women and repeal of all state laws pertaining to marriage, divorce and annulment.



Assuming your absurd notion that there was some Liberal Democratic Conspiracy, and that most women did not simply want to get a better job:

Why was it so easy to "take over the movement's ideology?"



Was it the opposition to sexual intercourse?


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think there was some sort of "Liberal Conspiracy?"
> 
> Doesn't it make perfectly good sense that women that were "free" and "liberated," might enjoy an array of choices other than being dependant on a male income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't reading what I am writing.  Nor understanding it apparently.  I said nothing about women being dependent on a male income.  I didn't even infer such a thing.  I said nothing about women being dependent on men period and didn't even infer such a thing.
> 
> Nor did I suggest that the "men are unnecessary" kind of women's lib was a conspiracy.  It was one of those misguided movements that we see from time to time.  It seems to have pretty much run its course, but the ugly legacy of it does linger on.  In my opinion it did do a terrible disservice to the values in this country most especially for the children.
> 
> But it is getting away from the thesis of the thread which is the government pushing of values in the school so can we move back to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> "Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences...."
> 
> "before that" implies there was something...some event?...some "misguided movement" that you believe was completely spontaneous, yet was also a result of some sort of "Liberal" (Women's Liberation Dogma). This is an absurd dichototomy: "Misguided" means that it was badly lead, impliying that there was SOME LEADERSHIP. Guess what? this means that there was a PLAN, or a CONSPIRACY.
> 
> You also say that Women's Liberation...was "freeing, liberating." This IMPLIES that there was something holding women back; that something was restraining them. Help me out here: If it wasn't MEN, then what was it???? I didn't know that it was a huge leap of logic to believe that it was women's dependance on income from men that was the primary restraint on their freedom! Please enlighten me! Were they literally being chained to kitchen sinks???
> 
> The fact is that women are just as deserving as men in the employment pool where there are no concerns about physical strength. They took jobs that were outside the TRADITIONAL home, but continued to have kids: Unhappily this often left less time for them to teach value lessons, and the result was a bunch of unmannered idjots attending public school. Desperate to correct the problem of undisiplined students, schools began teaching values. Nothing here is any result of an Evul Liberal Agenda unless you believe that a Woman's Place is At Home.
Click to expand...


Again Samson, you aren't reading what I am writing.  I am 100% a women's liberation champion and that has been part of my vocation and/or avocation for much of my adult life.  And if you can't see the possibility in a difference between promoting equity in opportunity and fairness for women as opposed to the militant and hateful movement that caused as much or more damage than good, then I probably won't be able to persuade you with anything I say.

I was a charter member and officer in N.O.W. when it first came to Kansas.  I left the organization when I could see that its purpose was as much to denigrate men, tear down traditional values, and put 'political correctness' into every place in society as it was to further the cause of women.  Nor was it interested in promoting equality and fairness to all women but mostly for liberal women who shared their views.  You can see that even now in their silence toward the brutal treatment of such women as Condoleeza Rice, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and other prominent conservative women, but they will go to bat for the slightest affront to one of their own.

I have been a professional woman all of my adult life.  I took off a bit of time with each of my kids when they were infants, but otherwise have held some sort of paying job since I was 14.  I have been a professional woman in a man's world doing work more commonly done by men a great deal of that time.  Don't try to put me barefoot and pregant in the kitchen and pretend that I don't know what a glass ceiling or inequities are or don't care.

But I damn sure know the difference between destructive policies and helpful ones.  And I don't have to be blind to unintended negative consequences in order to be true to my convictions and beliefs.


----------



## Sky Dancer

What a bunch of hooey.  An embittered former NOW member, ex-feminist, projecting her biases against liberals.   You see the fact that women in power, including conservatives are attacked in the media as a failure of women's liberation movement.  Au Contraire.  They are powerful enough to warrant attention, lots of it, positive and negative.

No wonder you don't want to be friends.  I stand up to you, Fox.  With a lot of passion.

I can't believe you are whining about Bachmann, Palin and Condie Rice taking some flack.  You sure don't care when it's Hillary, or Helen Thomas.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't reading what I am writing.  Nor understanding it apparently.  I said nothing about women being dependent on a male income.  I didn't even infer such a thing.  I said nothing about women being dependent on men period and didn't even infer such a thing.
> 
> Nor did I suggest that the "men are unnecessary" kind of women's lib was a conspiracy.  It was one of those misguided movements that we see from time to time.  It seems to have pretty much run its course, but the ugly legacy of it does linger on.  In my opinion it did do a terrible disservice to the values in this country most especially for the children.
> 
> But it is getting away from the thesis of the thread which is the government pushing of values in the school so can we move back to that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> "Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences...."
> 
> "before that" implies there was something...some event?...some "misguided movement" that you believe was completely spontaneous, yet was also a result of some sort of "Liberal" (Women's Liberation Dogma). This is an absurd dichototomy: "Misguided" means that it was badly lead, impliying that there was SOME LEADERSHIP. Guess what? this means that there was a PLAN, or a CONSPIRACY.
> 
> You also say that Women's Liberation...was "freeing, liberating." This IMPLIES that there was something holding women back; that something was restraining them. Help me out here: If it wasn't MEN, then what was it???? I didn't know that it was a huge leap of logic to believe that it was women's dependance on income from men that was the primary restraint on their freedom! Please enlighten me! Were they literally being chained to kitchen sinks???
> 
> The fact is that women are just as deserving as men in the employment pool where there are no concerns about physical strength. They took jobs that were outside the TRADITIONAL home, but continued to have kids: Unhappily this often left less time for them to teach value lessons, and the result was a bunch of unmannered idjots attending public school. Desperate to correct the problem of undisiplined students, schools began teaching values. Nothing here is any result of an Evul Liberal Agenda unless you believe that a Woman's Place is At Home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again Samson, you aren't reading what I am writing.  I am 100% a women's liberation champion and that has been part of my vocation and/or avocation for much of my adult life.  And if you can't see the possibility in a difference between promoting equity in opportunity and fairness for women as opposed to the militant and hateful movement that caused as much or more damage than good, then I probably won't be able to persuade you with anything I say.
> 
> I was a charter member and officer in N.O.W. when it first came to Kansas.  I left the organization when I could see that its purpose was as much to denigrate men, tear down traditional values, and put 'political correctness' into every place in society as it was to further the cause of women.  Nor was it interested in promoting equality and fairness to all women but mostly for liberal women who shared their views.  You can see that even now in their silence toward the brutal treatment of such women as Condoleeza Rice, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and other prominent conservative women, but they will go to bat for the slightest affront to one of their own.
> 
> I have been a professional woman all of my adult life.  I took off a bit of time with each of my kids when they were infants, but otherwise have held some sort of paying job since I was 14.  I have been a professional woman in a man's world doing work more commonly done by men a great deal of that time.  Don't try to put me barefoot and pregant in the kitchen and pretend that I don't know what a glass ceiling or inequities are or don't care.
> 
> But I damn sure know the difference between destructive policies and helpful ones.  And I don't have to be blind to unintended negative consequences in order to be true to my convictions and beliefs.
Click to expand...


All I really wanna know is: Did you go bra-less?


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> "Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences...."
> 
> "before that" implies there was something...some event?...some "misguided movement" that you believe was completely spontaneous, yet was also a result of some sort of "Liberal" (Women's Liberation Dogma). This is an absurd dichototomy: "Misguided" means that it was badly lead, impliying that there was SOME LEADERSHIP. Guess what? this means that there was a PLAN, or a CONSPIRACY.
> 
> You also say that Women's Liberation...was "freeing, liberating." This IMPLIES that there was something holding women back; that something was restraining them. Help me out here: If it wasn't MEN, then what was it???? I didn't know that it was a huge leap of logic to believe that it was women's dependance on income from men that was the primary restraint on their freedom! Please enlighten me! Were they literally being chained to kitchen sinks???
> 
> The fact is that women are just as deserving as men in the employment pool where there are no concerns about physical strength. They took jobs that were outside the TRADITIONAL home, but continued to have kids: Unhappily this often left less time for them to teach value lessons, and the result was a bunch of unmannered idjots attending public school. Desperate to correct the problem of undisiplined students, schools began teaching values. Nothing here is any result of an Evul Liberal Agenda unless you believe that a Woman's Place is At Home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again Samson, you aren't reading what I am writing.  I am 100% a women's liberation champion and that has been part of my vocation and/or avocation for much of my adult life.  And if you can't see the possibility in a difference between promoting equity in opportunity and fairness for women as opposed to the militant and hateful movement that caused as much or more damage than good, then I probably won't be able to persuade you with anything I say.
> 
> I was a charter member and officer in N.O.W. when it first came to Kansas.  I left the organization when I could see that its purpose was as much to denigrate men, tear down traditional values, and put 'political correctness' into every place in society as it was to further the cause of women.  Nor was it interested in promoting equality and fairness to all women but mostly for liberal women who shared their views.  You can see that even now in their silence toward the brutal treatment of such women as Condoleeza Rice, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and other prominent conservative women, but they will go to bat for the slightest affront to one of their own.
> 
> I have been a professional woman all of my adult life.  I took off a bit of time with each of my kids when they were infants, but otherwise have held some sort of paying job since I was 14.  I have been a professional woman in a man's world doing work more commonly done by men a great deal of that time.  Don't try to put me barefoot and pregant in the kitchen and pretend that I don't know what a glass ceiling or inequities are or don't care.
> 
> But I damn sure know the difference between destructive policies and helpful ones.  And I don't have to be blind to unintended negative consequences in order to be true to my convictions and beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I really wanna know is: Did you go bra-less?
Click to expand...


No, sorry.  I was too well endowed.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again Samson, you aren't reading what I am writing.  I am 100% a women's liberation champion and that has been part of my vocation and/or avocation for much of my adult life.  And if you can't see the possibility in a difference between promoting equity in opportunity and fairness for women as opposed to the militant and hateful movement that caused as much or more damage than good, then I probably won't be able to persuade you with anything I say.
> 
> I was a charter member and officer in N.O.W. when it first came to Kansas.  I left the organization when I could see that its purpose was as much to denigrate men, tear down traditional values, and put 'political correctness' into every place in society as it was to further the cause of women.  Nor was it interested in promoting equality and fairness to all women but mostly for liberal women who shared their views.  You can see that even now in their silence toward the brutal treatment of such women as Condoleeza Rice, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and other prominent conservative women, but they will go to bat for the slightest affront to one of their own.
> 
> I have been a professional woman all of my adult life.  I took off a bit of time with each of my kids when they were infants, but otherwise have held some sort of paying job since I was 14.  I have been a professional woman in a man's world doing work more commonly done by men a great deal of that time.  Don't try to put me barefoot and pregant in the kitchen and pretend that I don't know what a glass ceiling or inequities are or don't care.
> 
> But I damn sure know the difference between destructive policies and helpful ones.  And I don't have to be blind to unintended negative consequences in order to be true to my convictions and beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I really wanna know is: Did you go bra-less?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sorry.  I was too well endowed.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> 
> "In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- *aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."*
> As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
> Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values
> 
> 
> Meaning???
> The end is near for the Left!
> 
> 
> Hallelujah!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Throughout human history are accounts of those who were able to reason over and above the conventional wisdom of their peers and promote a more accurate truth.
> 
> While I want government out of all forms of social engineering, it is encouraging that maybe humankind is still able to reason over and above the conventional wisdom of their peers.  If we have Americans returning to their Classical Liberal roots, again appreciating our unique and exceptional American history, roots, culture, borders, and values that have withstood the test of time, that is a breath of fresh air and very encouraging to me.
> 
> Maybe even the deplorable and unconscionable public education system has not been able to brainwash all the young and there are some still able to think and do critical reasoning in spite of all that.
Click to expand...

And yet you are a champion of the mortgage deduction, which is NOTHING but social engineering.


----------



## Foxfyre

It is social engineering only if some groups are eligible for the mortgage deduction while others are not.  So long as the deduction is made available to everybody without regard to socioeconomic status or political affiliation, it is not social engineering but an affirmation of the traditional value of property/home ownership and recognizes the benefits in that for society as a whole.  It does not require the government to take property from one person and give it to another in order to accomplish that.   And it does not involve any mandates.  I certainly hope the schools are still teaching the economic benefits to the individual and the community when home ownership is a priority and the norm.  They taught that when I was in school.


----------



## daws101

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again Samson, you aren't reading what I am writing.  I am 100% a women's liberation champion and that has been part of my vocation and/or avocation for much of my adult life.  And if you can't see the possibility in a difference between promoting equity in opportunity and fairness for women as opposed to the militant and hateful movement that caused as much or more damage than good, then I probably won't be able to persuade you with anything I say.
> 
> I was a charter member and officer in N.O.W. when it first came to Kansas.  I left the organization when I could see that its purpose was as much to denigrate men, tear down traditional values, and put 'political correctness' into every place in society as it was to further the cause of women.  Nor was it interested in promoting equality and fairness to all women but mostly for liberal women who shared their views.  You can see that even now in their silence toward the brutal treatment of such women as Condoleeza Rice, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and other prominent conservative women, but they will go to bat for the slightest affront to one of their own.
> 
> I have been a professional woman all of my adult life.  I took off a bit of time with each of my kids when they were infants, but otherwise have held some sort of paying job since I was 14.  I have been a professional woman in a man's world doing work more commonly done by men a great deal of that time.  Don't try to put me barefoot and pregant in the kitchen and pretend that I don't know what a glass ceiling or inequities are or don't care.
> 
> But I damn sure know the difference between destructive policies and helpful ones.  And I don't have to be blind to unintended negative consequences in order to be true to my convictions and beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I really wanna know is: Did you go bra-less?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sorry.  I was too well endowed.
Click to expand...

 by n.e.a. or privately funded?


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> It is social engineering only if some groups are eligible for the mortgage deduction while others are not.  So long as the deduction is made available to everybody without regard to socioeconomic status or political affiliation, it is not social engineering but an affirmation of the traditional value of property/home ownership and recognizes the benefits in that for society as a whole.  It does not require the government to take property from one person and give it to another in order to accomplish that.   And it does not involve any mandates.  I certainly hope the schools are still teaching the economic benefits to the individual and the community when home ownership is a priority and the norm.  They taught that when I was in school.


Nah, it's social engineering because they encourage you to have a mortgage and be a homeowner. That's why the tax break. Same with EITC.


----------



## Foxfyre

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is social engineering only if some groups are eligible for the mortgage deduction while others are not.  So long as the deduction is made available to everybody without regard to socioeconomic status or political affiliation, it is not social engineering but an affirmation of the traditional value of property/home ownership and recognizes the benefits in that for society as a whole.  It does not require the government to take property from one person and give it to another in order to accomplish that.   And it does not involve any mandates.  I certainly hope the schools are still teaching the economic benefits to the individual and the community when home ownership is a priority and the norm.  They taught that when I was in school.
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, it's social engineering because they encourage you to have a mortgage and be a homeowner. That's why the tax break. Same with EITC.
Click to expand...


There is no relationship between the EITC and home ownership.  EITC does nothing to encourage self sufficiency or economic independence.

Home ownership provides economic stability for both the homeowner and the community.  Home owners have an interest in keeping property and resale values up, in having good schools, in having reasonable zoning policies, and in the effect and purpose of property taxes and bond issues.  The homeowner's mortgage deduction helps the homeowner pay about the same amount each month to be buying a home as he/she would be paying in rent.  But a home in a stable neighborhood steadily builds equity as well as invvariably improving aesthetics and quality of life.

While renting and not having the responsibility for property suits some people,  rent is just an out of pocket expense that builds no wealth of any kind for the renter.  In contrast, neighborhoods in which home ownership is the norm will almost always have a higher percentage of two parent families, lower crime, better schools, and an improve quality of life as well as building an estate that usually helps the homewoner retire more comfortably and economically independent.


----------



## Ravi

Foxfyre said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is social engineering only if some groups are eligible for the mortgage deduction while others are not.  So long as the deduction is made available to everybody without regard to socioeconomic status or political affiliation, it is not social engineering but an affirmation of the traditional value of property/home ownership and recognizes the benefits in that for society as a whole.  It does not require the government to take property from one person and give it to another in order to accomplish that.   And it does not involve any mandates.  I certainly hope the schools are still teaching the economic benefits to the individual and the community when home ownership is a priority and the norm.  They taught that when I was in school.
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, it's social engineering because they encourage you to have a mortgage and be a homeowner. That's why the tax break. Same with EITC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no relationship between the EITC and home ownership.  EITC does nothing to encourage self sufficiency or economic independence.
> 
> Home ownership provides economic stability for both the homeowner and the community.  Home owners have an interest in keeping property and resale values up, in having good schools, in having reasonable zoning policies, and in the effect and purpose of property taxes and bond issues.  The homeowner's mortgage deduction helps the homeowner pay about the same amount each month to be buying a home as he/she would be paying in rent.  But a home in a stable neighborhood steadily builds equity as well as invvariably improving aesthetics and quality of life.
> 
> While renting and not having the responsibility for property suits some people,  rent is just an out of pocket expense that builds no wealth of any kind for the renter.  In contrast, neighborhoods in which home ownership is the norm will almost always have a higher percentage of two parent families, lower crime, better schools, and an improve quality of life as well as building an estate that usually helps the homewoner retire more comfortably and economically independent.
Click to expand...

At least you seem to admit that it is social engineering.

And yes, EITC does promote responsibility. You don't get it if you don't work. It keeps people off the welfare roles.


----------



## daveman

Foxfyre said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
> as a shock!
> 
> This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...
> 
> In terms of expressing the view that view that *government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society* guess which age group showed the highest support!!!
> 
> C'mon....guess!
> 
> [..]
> 
> Meaning???   The end is near for the Left!
> 
> Hallelujah!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is sorta weird as traditional American values of opportunity, law, sound and honest business practices, supporting America, working hard, being tolerant of all, level playing field, are all liberal values.
> 
> Controlling and monitoring the lives of others, intolerance, removing legal rights, torture, illegal war, booing veterans, not caring for the sick, scapegoating, not working together, and corporate greed are all modern conservative republican values.
> 
> Do I have you guys wrong? Nah, you simply don't face up to what you have become. You hide behind a smoke screen in which it is always the other who is at fault.
> 
> You can find yourself here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/189696-libertarian-flame.html
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/186726-republican-ideology-through-history.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...es-of-midcans-insights-into-contemporary.html
> 
> 
> PS  Just bought another American car made by Americans. Good for us and liberals who still support America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then there are the poor souls who seem to have NO CLUE re what liberals or conservatives think, believe, or want in this country as testified by the post quoted here.
Click to expand...

It's just the usual mindless leftist mantra:  "Liberal good, conservative _baaaaad_."


----------



## Sky Dancer

daveman said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is sorta weird as traditional American values of opportunity, law, sound and honest business practices, supporting America, working hard, being tolerant of all, level playing field, are all liberal values.
> 
> Controlling and monitoring the lives of others, intolerance, removing legal rights, torture, illegal war, booing veterans, not caring for the sick, scapegoating, not working together, and corporate greed are all modern conservative republican values.
> 
> Do I have you guys wrong? Nah, you simply don't face up to what you have become. You hide behind a smoke screen in which it is always the other who is at fault.
> 
> You can find yourself here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/189696-libertarian-flame.html
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/186726-republican-ideology-through-history.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...es-of-midcans-insights-into-contemporary.html
> 
> 
> PS  Just bought another American car made by Americans. Good for us and liberals who still support America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then there are the poor souls who seem to have NO CLUE re what liberals or conservatives think, believe, or want in this country as testified by the post quoted here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just the usual mindless leftist mantra:  "Liberal good, conservative _baaaaad_."
Click to expand...


No, it's usually you guys saying "conservative good, liberal bad."


----------



## daveman

Sky Dancer said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then there are the poor souls who seem to have NO CLUE re what liberals or conservatives think, believe, or want in this country as testified by the post quoted here.
> 
> 
> 
> It's just the usual mindless leftist mantra:  "Liberal good, conservative _baaaaad_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's usually you guys saying "conservative good, liberal bad."
Click to expand...

See?  You just proved my point!


----------



## Foxfyre

Ravi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, it's social engineering because they encourage you to have a mortgage and be a homeowner. That's why the tax break. Same with EITC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no relationship between the EITC and home ownership.  EITC does nothing to encourage self sufficiency or economic independence.
> 
> Home ownership provides economic stability for both the homeowner and the community.  Home owners have an interest in keeping property and resale values up, in having good schools, in having reasonable zoning policies, and in the effect and purpose of property taxes and bond issues.  The homeowner's mortgage deduction helps the homeowner pay about the same amount each month to be buying a home as he/she would be paying in rent.  But a home in a stable neighborhood steadily builds equity as well as invvariably improving aesthetics and quality of life.
> 
> While renting and not having the responsibility for property suits some people,  rent is just an out of pocket expense that builds no wealth of any kind for the renter.  In contrast, neighborhoods in which home ownership is the norm will almost always have a higher percentage of two parent families, lower crime, better schools, and an improve quality of life as well as building an estate that usually helps the homewoner retire more comfortably and economically independent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least you seem to admit that it is social engineering.
> 
> And yes, EITC does promote responsibility. You don't get it if you don't work. It keeps people off the welfare roles.
Click to expand...


I guess if you reaaaaaaallly stretched the definition of social engineering, you wouldn't be entirely wrong about that.

The dictionary definition:



> *social engineering*
> n
> the manipulation of the social position and function of individuals in order to manage change in a society



So is promotion of something proven to produce a benefit to all of society without respect for race, gender, socioeconomic standing, political affiliation, etc. the same thing as "manipulation of social position and function of individuals?"   Gut level I see a difference between those two things, but in a much broader sense you could have a point.


----------



## Sky Dancer

daveman said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just the usual mindless leftist mantra:  "Liberal good, conservative _baaaaad_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's usually you guys saying "conservative good, liberal bad."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See?  You just proved my point!
Click to expand...


C'mon dave.  You and the other conservatives dis liberals all the time.  We never get to actually talk about anything.  I'm saying conservative pundits have their own mantra, and it's bad, bad, bad, godless, liberals.

For example, let's try talking about government inefficiency.  I hate government inefficiency, yet YOU FOLKS think I LOOOOVE big government waste because I'm a liberal.

I don't.  It's a stereotype.  My wife is an accountant for our local county.  She could tell you horror stories of waste in government.  Example, tons of medications being destroyed at high cost of disposal because the state can't afford to pay the rent to store it.

Does that make sense?

Not to me.

But hey, let's not talk about anything like that because we're too busy labelling each other.

You guys would probably blame liberals for that waste, wouldn't you?

Is labelling each other a value that government should teach?

Do you have any problem with teaching tolerance in school?


----------



## daveman

Sky Dancer said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's usually you guys saying "conservative good, liberal bad."
> 
> 
> 
> See?  You just proved my point!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon dave.  You and the other conservatives dis liberals all the time.  We never get to actually talk about anything.  I'm saying conservative pundits have their own mantra, and it's bad, bad, bad, godless, liberals.
Click to expand...

I am responsible ONLY for the things I say.  I have no control over the opinions of others.


Sky Dancer said:


> For example, let's try talking about government inefficiency.  I hate government inefficiency, yet YOU FOLKS think I LOOOOVE big government waste because I'm a liberal.
> 
> I don't.  It's a stereotype.  My wife is an accountant for our local county.  She could tell you horror stories of waste in government.  Example, tons of medications being destroyed at high cost of disposal because the state can't afford to pay the rent to store it.
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> Not to me.


Nor to me.  That's why I love my job.  I make sure a contractor does the things he's paid by Uncle Sam to do.  If he doesn't, I recommend he doesn't get paid for what he didn't do.


----------



## Sky Dancer

daveman said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> See?  You just proved my point!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon dave.  You and the other conservatives dis liberals all the time.  We never get to actually talk about anything.  I'm saying conservative pundits have their own mantra, and it's bad, bad, bad, godless, liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am responsible ONLY for the things I say.  I have no control over the opinions of others.
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, let's try talking about government inefficiency.  I hate government inefficiency, yet YOU FOLKS think I LOOOOVE big government waste because I'm a liberal.
> 
> I don't.  It's a stereotype.  My wife is an accountant for our local county.  She could tell you horror stories of waste in government.  Example, tons of medications being destroyed at high cost of disposal because the state can't afford to pay the rent to store it.
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> Not to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor to me.  That's why I love my job.  I make sure a contractor does the things he's paid by Uncle Sam to do.  If he doesn't, I recommend he doesn't get paid for what he didn't do.
Click to expand...


I was so mad about the medication issue.  It really angers me.  There are people in our country who cannot afford medication and our government is paying to destroy it because they can't afford to store it?

Why not give it away then?  Or sell it cheaply to low cost health clinics?

The impression I have of conservatives is you guys don't think the government should help poor people at all.  You think charity can handle it all.

That's wrong, it's not true.

BTW your signature is annoying.  It implies that you are some kind of a god to pass judgment on others who should "do" what you think they should do and not speak up.

Do you think liberals "do nothing"?  BS.  I've worked my whole life and will continue to do so until I drop dead.  I don't just talk, I back my talk with action.


----------



## daveman

Sky Dancer said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon dave.  You and the other conservatives dis liberals all the time.  We never get to actually talk about anything.  I'm saying conservative pundits have their own mantra, and it's bad, bad, bad, godless, liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> I am responsible ONLY for the things I say.  I have no control over the opinions of others.
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, let's try talking about government inefficiency.  I hate government inefficiency, yet YOU FOLKS think I LOOOOVE big government waste because I'm a liberal.
> 
> I don't.  It's a stereotype.  My wife is an accountant for our local county.  She could tell you horror stories of waste in government.  Example, tons of medications being destroyed at high cost of disposal because the state can't afford to pay the rent to store it.
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> Not to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor to me.  That's why I love my job.  I make sure a contractor does the things he's paid by Uncle Sam to do.  If he doesn't, I recommend he doesn't get paid for what he didn't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was so mad about the medication issue.  It really angers me.  There are people in our country who cannot afford medication and our government is paying to destroy it because they can't afford to store it?
> 
> Why not give it away then?  Or sell it cheaply to low cost health clinics?
> 
> The impression I have of conservatives is you guys don't think the government should help poor people at all.  You think charity can handle it all.
> 
> That's wrong, it's not true.
Click to expand...

Your impression is not correct.  I know of no conservatives who oppose a public-funded  safety net for those who truly need it.  

Stop relying on the left to inform you of conservative views.  They consistently get it wrong.  If you have a question, ask a conservative.


----------



## Sky Dancer

daveman said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am responsible ONLY for the things I say.  I have no control over the opinions of others.
> 
> Nor to me.  That's why I love my job.  I make sure a contractor does the things he's paid by Uncle Sam to do.  If he doesn't, I recommend he doesn't get paid for what he didn't do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was so mad about the medication issue.  It really angers me.  There are people in our country who cannot afford medication and our government is paying to destroy it because they can't afford to store it?
> 
> Why not give it away then?  Or sell it cheaply to low cost health clinics?
> 
> The impression I have of conservatives is you guys don't think the government should help poor people at all.  You think charity can handle it all.
> 
> That's wrong, it's not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your impression is not correct.  I know of no conservatives who oppose a public-funded  safety net for those who truly need it.
> 
> Stop relying on the left to inform you of conservative views.  They consistently get it wrong.  If you have a question, ask a conservative.
Click to expand...


Stop telling me I should not listen to democrats or liberals views of conservatives.  

You may be coming from a reasonable point of view, but I can't say that's universally true for your side of the aisle.

What I see on these forums is a ton of demonizing of liberals.  You guys think we're all worthless.  BS.  We work, have values, have brains and pay taxes too.

Some of your pals are pretty darn snarky and snooty.


----------



## daveman

Sky Dancer said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was so mad about the medication issue.  It really angers me.  There are people in our country who cannot afford medication and our government is paying to destroy it because they can't afford to store it?
> 
> Why not give it away then?  Or sell it cheaply to low cost health clinics?
> 
> The impression I have of conservatives is you guys don't think the government should help poor people at all.  You think charity can handle it all.
> 
> That's wrong, it's not true.
> 
> 
> 
> Your impression is not correct.  I know of no conservatives who oppose a public-funded  safety net for those who truly need it.
> 
> Stop relying on the left to inform you of conservative views.  They consistently get it wrong.  If you have a question, ask a conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop telling me I should not listen to democrats or liberals views of conservatives.
Click to expand...

Why not?  They keep getting it wrong.  If you like wrong information, please continue.  But if you want the truth, you're not getting it from the sources you prefer.


Sky Dancer said:


> You may be coming from a reasonable point of view, but I can't say that's universally true for your side of the aisle.
> 
> What I see on these forums is a ton of demonizing of liberals.  You guys think we're all worthless.  BS.  We work, have values, have brains and pay taxes too.
> 
> Some of your pals are pretty darn snarky and snooty.


Again:  I am responsible for no opinions but my own.


----------



## Sky Dancer

I went bra less, and I take the damn thing off every chance I get.


----------

