Liberals and conservatives....

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ANONONE

You do understand that this rant makes you seem just as nutty as that lady from Texas, right?

By the way, you are aware the majority of the Klu Klux Klan members that did the most damage from the 1940's to the 1970's were registered democrats, right?

You do understand that they were Dixiecrat that migrated to the GOP. Ronald Reagan courted then in 1980. Shall I provide the code words and the speech for you or are you aware of that and just failed to include it?

Originally Posted by ANONONE

I get this weird twitch in my eye every time I hear folks suggest that Republican and Conservative are synonyms.

You are in bed with them, you vote lockstep with them.

Why would anyone think they are snonyms?

I judge on actions not words. The Conservative movement is in bed with the RR. Denounce them or quit griping about how you cannot understand the connection.

[jdean208]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Pretty sure the quote is from Winston Churchill and it is

"Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains."

You are right, discreetgent. Couldn't remember the quote well enough to find its attribution, ao I just made one up containing the gist of the message. Thanks for the accurate quotation.

[Marcus Aurelius]

OK, I may have no brains. You all may attest to that. When I was young, I was a staunch conservative.
Now that I'm older I'm leaning more liberal. Because not every person receiving help is lazy.
Do you have no compassion? There will always be poor amongst us.
Seek a balance my friends. Help those that need help and weed out the others.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by WTF

How's that working out for us?

Vouchers are just another way for people with kids to get people without kids to pay for their kids education.

Mostly I THINK (there 'I think' is for DG, it means you can say any thing not even close to the truth and are not supposed to be called out on it) its a bunch of people that want to teach creationism in the schools.

If we assigned an actual cost to having kids, people would think twice before having ten of them and then crying for vouchers!

People without kids pay for education through the public schools as well.

As far as the creationism theory: sure, that I think is in part right; I think that expanding it to parents who want their kids to attend parochial schools is more correct. Many parochial schools (Catholic, Jewish, etc) that teach mainstream curricula clearly benefit from voucher programs since it helps parents offset the cost of private school tuition.

[guest051510-1]

Give a man a fish and feed him for one day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Welfare keeps people down and keeps them poor. We need to do more than just give hand outs.

BTW, I either have no brain and no heart or I have both a brain and a heart. I see myself as a conservative Liberal and/or a liberal Conservative.

[pjorourke]

The purpose of vouchers is to provide competition to a monopoly. Nothing more, nothing less.

[npita]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

a) There is actually a logic there. People are associated with counties, not jobs. If the Americans wanted to compete with China for jobs, they would charge less for their time, not move to China. The later makes no sense.

It does make sense. You neglected the possibility that Chinese (and the citizens of any other country with which we have so-called free trade agreements) would move here. They already do - we call them illegal immigrants and H1B visas. For true capitalism to exist, the labor market has to enjoy the same freedom to market their skills where the free trade exists. Otherwise, the trade is not really free. The excuses for H1B visas are absurd. I'm a physicist and I can tell you that there is no shortage of physicists (or other highly skilled jobs). There is a shortage of highly skilled people who are willing to remain in jobs requiring their skills at the salaries they are offered. Rather than pay the market rate, companies, universities, etc., simply import the labor that suits them.

b) The premise is that all children are entitled to an education --the rationale being that this will produce an educated citizenry that will be productive. People without children get the benefit of that educated population in the form of goods and services the population produces.

I agree those are good things, but my point is that your argument (and the CATO institute's) is NOT consistent with a truly libertarian viewpoint.

The reason for vouchers is that public schools have a monopoly and have acted like all monopolies -- pushing costs up and quality down. Vouchers introduce competition and don't cost the taxpayer more

They have to cost the taxpayer more. Someone has to pay for what the voucher gives to those who receive them.

-- the vouchers are for less than the per student cost of the public school system. If half the kids go to private schools, half the public schools would close.

The public school system doesn't have the luxury of refusing to accept students. It has to be prepared to accept ALL of the potential students in the school district at any time. Private schools are free to pick, choose and refuse anyone.

I'm NOT a fan of the way public schools are run. I've taught at a university and had to endure thousands of students who did not have the background their high school classwork suggested. My argument is that libertarians are selective in their application of libertarian philosophy.

On the other hand, there are really NO universities that are truly private. For example, the DOE funds research everywhere, including the salaries paid to graduate students. If you are accepted for graduate school (at least in the sciences) at a university like Princeton, it's a free ride plus a monthly stipend. I'm not certain how the ``free ride'' is funded, but monthly stipends come from the research grants awarded to a student's advisor.

c) Big "L" Libertarians are a political party -- and a pretty ineffective one. Small "l" libertarian is a school of thought. I am a libertarian.

That's the first time I've heard that distinction.

[guest041110]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

that texas did indeed have the right to secede from the union. I had heard this as a child growing up and that Texas had the right to divide into as much as 5 states.

One is true, the other isn't.

The annexation document that incorporated Texas into the union had a provision that up to 4 new states, formed out of the existing state, in addition to the State of Texas, upon consent of such State, may be formed.

Wonder what ten senators from Texas could do?

Actually, the part of seceding from the Union is not correct in a present day sense as was mentioned by the Tea Party folks and to which Perry played up in Austin. Prior to the ending of the Civil War, Texas had that right because it was a Republic that joined the Union by popular vote of its citizens after the Union decided it needed to annex Texas. However, part of the agreement that allowed Texas back into the Union at the end of Civil War contained language that Texas would never again secede from the Union meaning it had to give up that right for the sanctity of the Union. Historically, Texas is the only state in the Union that ever was its own Republic, i.e. its own country, prior to statehood.

As far as the formation of the new states, that requires not only the legislature of each new state to agree but also the US Congress. Do you really think that if people were to consider that in this day and time that the US Congress would be able to act on it much less approve? Besides, Texas has no need to subdivide itself since it currently has the 15th largest economy in the world today.

[guest041110]

Originally Posted by Nicolette Bordeauxva

Give a man a fish and feed him for one day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Welfare keeps people down and keeps them poor. We need to do more than just give hand outs.

BTW, I either have no brain and no heart or I have both a brain and a heart. I see myself as a conservative Liberal and/or a liberal Conservative.

I agree Colette welfare is a bad idea, a very bad idea, and always has been. However, we do need to help those that need help it’s just in the actual doing, or the devil is in the details, that things get lost due to pork in legislation. I also believe through welfare and entitlements, we have the Nanny state that OB and his pals of community organizers are increasing due to their desires to control and that is a very, very bad thing for this country.

I am a conservative but I hold no party affiliation at this time when it comes time to vote. I vote for whom is the most qualified based upon research. I not only have a brain but I also have a heart that has compassion towards others. Yet some of the things I have read in this thread just make me laugh my ass off at the people posting them. We do need far more than hand-outs in order to help people but how that gets done…. that is the devil is in the details, remember?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

People without kids pay for education through the public schools as well.

That is true and why I worded it as such. The people calling for vouchers think that private schooling is better than a public sector, supposedly because it is in the 'Private' sector. Yet they call for a government subsidies in way of a voucher!

DG, I was pointed for supossedly calling you a liar in my previous post.

I'd like to say that was not the case. If you thought so, sorry.

Originally Posted by discreetgent

As far as the creationism theory: sure, that I think is in part right; I think that expanding it to parents who want their kids to attend parochial schools is more correct. Many parochial schools (Catholic, Jewish, etc) that teach mainstream curricula clearly benefit from voucher programs since it helps parents offset the cost of private school tuition.

Again true....my point was that I did not have a link or facts as to why I posted what I did. I just 'Thought" it to be true. I thought you would know the meaning behind my post. I have been known for linking things to explain my 'beliefs'. I was not doing it in this post and just pointed it out. Some how that was contorted into me calling you a liar and points were issued.

I was in no way calling you a liar. We disagree on things, many things in fact but I have never thought you have or would resort to lying.

I do not give a rats ass about the points. I do not want you thinking I think you a liar. Misguided for sure but not a liar!

Originally Posted by WTF

Mostly I THINK (there 'I think' is for DG, it means you can say any thing not even close to the truth and are not supposed to be called out on it if ya add the 'I think')This is a personal attack as defined in our Mission Statement and as I've defined it in previous discussions. Please refrain from this type attack in the future. It is uncalled for and will no longer be tolerated. - JB its a bunch of people that want to teach creationism in the schools.

!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

The purpose of vouchers is to provide competition to a monopoly. Nothing more, nothing less.

Well then it sounds like you should be for the government option in healthcare! LOL

competition is competition afterall!

[jdean208]

Originally Posted by LonesomeDove

Actually, the part of seceding from the Union is not correct in a present day sense as was mentioned by the Tea Party folks and to which Perry played up in Austin. Prior to the ending of the Civil War, Texas had that right because it was a Republic that joined the Union by popular vote of its citizens after the Union decided it needed to annex Texas. However, part of the agreement that allowed Texas back into the Union at the end of Civil War contained language that Texas would never again secede from the Union meaning it had to give up that right for the sanctity of the Union. Historically, Texas is the only state in the Union that ever was its own Republic, i.e. its own country, prior to statehood.

Texas was the only state that was widely recognized as a nation and in existence for a significant period before annexation by the U.S. States that briefly declared nationhood before annexation include California, Vermont, The Republic of West Florida and the Republic of South Carolina. Hawaii was admitted to the union as a nation, but it was not widely recognized as such and had been under U.S. dominion for some time before admission.

[jdean208]

Oh, and the Civil War pretty much settled questions of secession or division without the consent of Congress. Gov. Perry should have done his homework a little better.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by LonesomeDove

Actually, the part of seceding from the Union is not correct in a present day sense as was mentioned by the Tea Party folks and to which Perry played up in Austin. Prior to the ending of the Civil War, Texas had that right because it was a Republic that joined the Union by popular vote of its citizens after the Union decided it needed to annex Texas. However, part of the agreement that allowed Texas back into the Union at the end of Civil War contained language that Texas would never again secede from the Union meaning it had to give up that right for the sanctity of the Union. Historically, Texas is the only state in the Union that ever was its own Republic, i.e. its own country, prior to statehood.

As far as the formation of the new states, that requires not only the legislature of each new state to agree but also the US Congress. Do you really think that if people were to consider that in this day and time that the US Congress would
be able to act on it much less approve? Besides, Texas has no need to subdivide itself since it currently has the 15th largest economy in the world today.

texas is unique in the ability to split into other sates..alone among all states

[Marcus Aurelius]

Then just do it already.