Government Should Teach Traditional Values

[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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[Sky Dancer]

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?

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

 

[Samson]

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.

Except for women.

Ironically you serve as an excellent living example of The Founders' Wisdom.

 

[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?

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

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.

"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]

- 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.

"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!

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]

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.

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?

 

[Sky Dancer]

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]

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]

You mean govt should teach the traditional values like teachers spanking the students for misbehaving?

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.

 

[NoNukes]

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.

It did not include Indians, Blacks, or women.

 

[Samson]

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.

Sounds like a date......

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

It did not include Indians, Blacks, or women.

It included the mechanism to change that, and it did.

 

[Samson]

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.

It did not include Indians, Blacks, or women.

 

[Sky Dancer]

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.

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. Try turning down the snark a few notches and we may something to talk about.