Young Christians leaving GOP???

[Monkeyman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/11/young-evangelicals-abando_n_101184.html?ybf1=1

[Ferd]

weeeelllllll, i didnt open the link yet.

probably will tomorrow.... but but if that piece of trash told me the sky was blue, I would slap her for the liar she is.

(thisismebeingnice)

[Monkeyman]

Its the Lortab

[Monkeyman]

I don't know Ferd, a lot of young folks may think Iraq was a turning point. I know you don't think so, you have clearly stated, but there is a huge part of the population that thinks the war was a colossal blunder. Yet, I'm sure we will have to wait until Nov to see how big that group is.

[Sweet Pea]

This is scary to me for more than reason - not just political.

It would appear that these young people have not been grounded in the high moral values of true Christianity, if they would so easily leave the Republican party. It is not perfect, but at this point it is the only party that even supports any semblance of things that should be important to us as Christians. And to support Obama?????? (I can't stand the Clintons - but I'd take Hillary over Obama any day) I don't necessarily agree with McCain - in fact, and he certainly would not have been my first choice on the Republican ticket - however, at some point we have to sometime support the lesser of two (or three evils....)

Just as much as teaching our children doctrine - I believe that we have an obligation to ground them in the TRUE history of our great country and teach them that is is our responsibilities as Christians to stand up for righteousness in this land! IMHO, this country is where we are today because for too many years the people of God stood back and didn't get involved in politics.

[Monkeyman]

This is scary to me for more than reason - not just political.

It would appear that these young people have not been grounded in the high moral values of true Christianity, if they would so easily leave the Republican party. It is not perfect, but at this point it is the only party that even supports any semblance of things that should be important to us as Christians. And to support Obama?????? (I can't stand the Clintons - but I'd take Hillary over Obama any day) I don't necessarily agree with McCain - in fact, and he certainly would not have been my first choice on the Republican ticket - however, at some point we have to sometime support the lesser of two (or three evils....)

Just as much as teaching our children doctrine - I believe that we have an obligation to ground them in the TRUE history of our great country and teach them that is is our responsibilities as Christians to stand up for righteousness in this land! IMHO, this country is where we are today because for too many years the people of God stood back and didn't get involved in politics.You mean the righteousness when the Indians were massacred? Or when they shot my great-tata?........

















Just teasin ya Pea!

[Sweet Pea]

You mean the righteousness when the Indians were massacred? Or when they shot my great-tata?........


Just teasin ya Pea!

And just where did I say that was righteousness???????? :boxing

[Praxeas]

weeeelllllll, i didnt open the link yet.

probably will tomorrow.... but but if that piece of trash told me the sky was blue, I would slap her for the liar she is.

(thisismebeingnice)
It came from the Seattle Times actually.

[Monkeyman]

And just where did I say that was righteousness???????? :boxingUh-oh...I feel a smack-down coming!!! But since you are soooo old (WABC), i think I can outrun you.....................:bliss:toofunny

[Praxeas]

This is scary to me for more than reason - not just political.

It would appear that these young people have not been grounded in the high moral values of true Christianity, if they would so easily leave the Republican party. It is not perfect, but at this point it is the only party that even supports any semblance of things that should be important to us as Christians. And to support Obama?????? (I can't stand the Clintons - but I'd take Hillary over Obama any day) I don't necessarily agree with McCain - in fact, and he certainly would not have been my first choice on the Republican ticket - however, at some point we have to sometime support the lesser of two (or three evils....)

Just as much as teaching our children doctrine - I believe that we have an obligation to ground them in the TRUE history of our great country and teach them that is is our responsibilities as Christians to stand up for righteousness in this land! IMHO, this country is where we are today because for too many years the people of God stood back and didn't get involved in politics.
Well here I go with the word subjectivity but I think a LOT of Christians and Americans do not objectively look at facts anymore. A young man told me not too long ago that if he could vote he would vote for Obama. I said "why" and his reply was that he thought it was about time we had a black candidate. Never mind what the man believed in. People today tend to think in sound bites. It's sad.

[Monkeyman]

It came from the Seattle Times actually.I'm sure he has a problem with Seattle too:D

[Sweet Pea]

Uh-oh...I feel a smack-down coming!!! But since you are soooo old (WABC), i think I can outrun you.....................:bliss:toofunny


I wouldn't count on that..... I've seen you run! :toofunny:toofunny

Just because it was WABC doesn't mean I'm OLD! :bliss:bliss

But I AM old enough to give you a smack-down when you need one! :happydance

[Praxeas]

But, Howard Dean, don't count your chickens quite yet. College-age and 20-something Christians may be leaving the GOP, but only 5 percent of young evangelicals have joined the Democrats, according to the Pew survey. The other 10 percent are wandering the political wilderness, somewhere between "independent" and "unaffiliated

[Praxeas]

Claiborne has traveled around the country the past several years, speaking and preaching mostly to college-age Christians who are "both socially conservative and globally aware." That makes them disenchanted with both major parties, he said.
"It's not about liberal or conservative, or Democrats or Republicans," he said. "I don't think it's a new evangelical left. ... There's a new evangelical stuck-in-the-middle."

[Sweet Pea]

But, Howard Dean, don't count your chickens quite yet. College-age and 20-something Christians may be leaving the GOP, but only 5 percent of young evangelicals have joined the Democrats, according to the Pew survey. The other 10 percent are wandering the political wilderness, somewhere between "independent" and "unaffiliated

Maybe this 10 percent will be the beginning of a new conservative party?

[ManOfWord]

I don't know about "young" Christians leaving the "use 'em, abuse 'em and throw them by the wayside when you're done with them" party, AKA the RNC, but I have left it and am now a registered independent. Think I'm bitter? You're right! I've been in the inner workings of politics for many years and believed that the RNC was the party of moral values. They're not. They're the party of politics first and foremost, THEN they are the party of "morality" only because they think it will get them votes.

I still support conservative candidates, be they R, D or I but I will no longer be owned by a party or be party to partisan politics. There is a reason why many people are leaving the RNC and it, IMO, is quite justified.

[pelathais]

I don't know Ferd, a lot of young folks may think Iraq was a turning point. I know you don't think so, you have clearly stated, but there is a huge part of the population that thinks the war was a colossal blunder. Yet, I'm sure we will have to wait until Nov to see how big that group is.
But the evidence that it was a "blunder" has been lacking entirely. The media creates a mood and sets an agenda - then "commentators" like HuffPo trump all the push polling that makes it look like the elite's agenda has momentum.

Don't forget what year it is. And freedom is never a blunder.

[ChristopherHall]

This is scary to me for more than reason - not just political.

It would appear that these young people have not been grounded in the high moral values of t
rue Christianity, if they would so easily leave the Republican party. It is not perfect, but at this point it is the only party that even supports any semblance of things that should be important to us as Christians. And to support Obama?????? (I can't stand the Clintons - but I'd take Hillary over Obama any day) I don't necessarily agree with McCain - in fact, and he certainly would not have been my first choice on the Republican ticket - however, at some point we have to sometime support the lesser of two (or three evils....)

Just as much as teaching our children doctrine - I believe that we have an obligation to ground them in the TRUE history of our great country and teach them that is is our responsibilities as Christians to stand up for righteousness in this land! IMHO, this country is where we are today because for too many years the people of God stood back and didn't get involved in politics.

I guess I might be one of those younger voters who is disenchanted with the GOP. If I may, I'll comment on your concerns from the perspective of a younger Christian man who is trying to raise a family and address why the GOP doesn't represent me anymore.

The Republicans have always worn the banner of "high moral values"...but really look closely at them. They're no different than the Democrats. Interestingly in recent years it's the Repubilcan candidate who's already in his second or more marriage. Most of the Democrats who have run are at least still married to their first loves. That has always troubled me. This isn't a good example.

The Republicans have rutinely tried to define family values predicated on "two" issues: gay marriage and abortion. Here's the problem...gay people are gay and there's nothing we can do to stop them. There are gay affirming churches and all that garbage. Do I like it? NO. But it's a free country...unless I woke up in a theocratic dictatorship this morning. And abortion, the more educated the electorate gets on the issue the more evident it becomes that banning abortion doesn't prevent abortion. For example the abortion rate in the US is lower today than it was when Roe v. Wade opened the flood gates for legalized abortion procedures. Yet in recent years 16 states have reported a spike in their abortion rates. Why have the abortion rates been so low and only recently have they spiked? Economics. Americans had steadily been doing better economically throughout the past 3 decades. That means more people could afford to choose life and have a family. However in times of economic downturn states show an increase in abortion...abortion is therefore an issue that is linked to economics and poverty. 3 out of 5 women who procure abortions live at or below poverty level. Sadly this also means that a disporportionate number of abortions are performed for minorities. Want to prevent abortions? Help families economicaly. Belgium as the lowest abortion rate on earth...some pro-life Catholic countries in South America have some of the strictist law against abortion. But guess what...more abortion happens in those South American countries than in Belgium and belgium is VERY liberal. What's the difference? Economics and poverty. Abortion is married to proverty. The way to combat abortion is to address poverty and women struggling to help them raise a family.

The Republicans are beginning to loose on these issues because even though we don't like gays, we know government can't control people or their relationsips. Also Republicans are failing to address poverty and abortion. Sorry...we've had more gay marriage and abortion under Republican presidents...it's obvious their "moral values banner" is only for show right before election day.

More young Christians are starting to see rampant corporate abuse and power. The Republicans for the most part only admit it exists when it becomes too great to keep hidden. They loose here for us.

Health care. The majority of the uninsured in our country are hard working Americans who can't afford rising insurance premiums or they are independent business owners who can't afford it. The absolutely poor already have state programs they turn to. It's hard to raise a family when your insurance premium is $900 a month. The Democrats are the only one's with a plan here.

War. The Republicans have proven themselves incapbable of choose the right wars at the right times. Preemptive war against a nation predicated upon weapons that they didn't have...that's a terrifying prospect. Over 80,000 Iraqi civilians have died in this war...if you think only soldiers are dying please think again. The greater portion of this price has been paid by innocent Iraqis. The cost of the war is FAR greater than anything we can afford to sustain. It makes the cost of national health insurance look conservative. Oh...please note...we're drafting a national health insurance program through the Iraqi ministry of Health...partly funded by OUR tax dollars. So now Iraqi's get national health insurance while 140 million Americans are uninsured or under insured and premiums keep on risin'. Geeeeee thanks.

Recent scandals reveal that Republicans are just as morally debased as Democrats. So the ol' moral politician claim doesn't help.

Younger Christians are more international. We've been to foreign countries and have seen what they have done for their citizens...and we increasingly wonder why America is being run more and more like a banna republic.

Like Hillary over Obama? But why doesn't America take Hillary more seriously seeing she's far more conservative than Obama? Well...thank the GOP, they've demonized the Clintons for nearly 16 years. The majority of Americans don't trust her because Rush Limbaugh has slammed her for years and years. Now someone is running to left of her and the America electorate feels he'd be better than her. Don't like Obama's gains? The GOP might be a factor. If I were Obama I'd send a thank you letter to talk show hosts expressing my gratitude. LOL

The environment. Younger Christians are taking global warming and environmental issues far more seriously than the GOP does. This means gains for the Democrats. Our kids have to raise their children in the environment we create. We vote...protect it.

So that's just a little taste of why so many young evangelicals are getting disenchanted with the GOP. I think the GOP might discover that's ignoring these concerns is going to cost them in the long run.

This isn't meant to argue with anything you said. This is just a glimps into why many young evangelicals are becoming disenchanted with the GOP.

God bless.

[Baron1710]

The Republicans have always worn the banner of "high moral values"...but really look closely at them. They're no different than the Democrats. Interestingly in recent years it's the Repubilcan candidate who's already in his second or more marriage. Most of the Democrats who have run are at least still married to their first loves. That has always troubled me. This isn't a good example.

The Republicans have rutinely tried to define family values predicated on "two" issues: gay marriage and abortion. Here's the problem...gay people are gay and there's nothing we can do to stop them. There are gay affirming churches and all that garbage. Do I like it? NO. But it's a free country...unless I woke up in a theocratic dictatorship this morning.

Making special provisions to force small business owners to hire gays, giving them the benefits afforded to married couples, and giving them and their message a platform in our public schools is not the work of Republicans.

So since murders tend to be in the lower income side of town maybe we should just decriminalize murder and that would reduce the murder rate? Saying we shouldn't regulate abortion because people will break the law makes as much sense as not posting a speed limit because people speed. Abortion is more than a preference it’s the taking of a human life, and you ought to have to show there is a very good reason for ending a human life.

The fact that some Republicans have had multiple marriages (as have some Democrats) is irrelevant. Knowing right from wrong and doing it is not always the same thing.

As for economics, I am a free market believer. I believe the socialist planes of the Democrats will sink our economy. You might think the Robin Hood form of government is a great idea, but I still think Robin Hood is a thief regardless of who he steals from.

[Sweet Pea]

To C Hall and MOW - I agree that there are many things about the GOP that are out of whack - and I don't believe that all Republicans hold the same views regarding the sanctity of life and the gay agenda that we hold as Christians. So maybe being an Independent is the answer - but ultimately, I think you will be hard-pressed to find a Democrat candidate who holds these views. Personally, I don't vote a straight Republican ticket - I vote for the candidate who answers the issues the way that most closely mirrors the convictions that I hold. Having said that..... it's been a VERY LONG time since a Democrat came even close to holding those views.

C Hall.... I won't answer you point by point - I'm not articulate enough to get my point across - I hear what you are saying regarding "morals" - but I think a lot of the time the Republicans get the short end of the stick when it comes to reporting their moral failures. After all, we don't exactly have an unbiased media. (Regarding McCain's second marriage, that bothers me as well - but I'd rather have him with his second wife than either of the other candidates with their "first loves" - We KNOW Clinton's marriage isn't a great example of faithfulness - and the remarks of Obama's wife regarding our great country REALLY bothers me...)

[Ferd]

I don't know Ferd, a lot of young folks may think Iraq was a turning point. I know you don't think so, you have clearly stated, but there is a huge part of the population that thinks the war was a colossal blunder. Yet, I'm sure we will have to wait until Nov to see how big that group is.

Monk, the Republicans have made some serious mistakes and it has certainly cost us.

the Rs have let the Ds set the agenda and provide the spin on what is happening. GWs advisors have told him to be "presidential" and not address every attack. That is stupid. and it has cost him severly.

I agree with you that a lot of people really see Iraq as a bad mistake and in some respects there were mistakes that were made. Rummy wanted to fight a small war of attack and withdraw, thinking we could just kill the bad guys and eventually they would get tired of dying. He was wrong. We did the same thing in Vietnam. It didnt work there either.

There have been a number of Republicans in trouble of late. and it has cost Rs the moral high ground. and beyond that Rs have started acting like Dems on far too many issues.

I have said this many times. There is no reason for the Republicans to win the whitehouse. History is absolutly against it.

[Ferd]

I don't know about "young" Christians leaving the "use 'em, abuse 'em and throw them by the wayside when you're done with them" party, AKA the RNC, but I have left it and am now a registered independent. Think I'm bitter? You're right! I've been in the inner workings of politics for many years and believed that the RNC was the party of moral values. They're not. They're the party of politics first and foremost, THEN they are the party of "morality" only because they think it will get them votes.

I still support conservative candidates, be they R, D or I but I will no longer be owned by a party or be party to partisan politics. There is a reason why many people are leaving the RNC and it, IMO, is quite justified.

You live in Ohio correct? the republican party there has turned into a vertual mafia.

Our leadership got drunk with power. it isnt the concepts of the republican party, it is that we have elected people with no center. we have to change that.

[ManOfWord]

To C Hall and MOW - I agree that there are many things about the GOP that are out of whack - and I don't believe that all Republicans hold the same views regarding the sanctity of life and the gay agenda that we hold as Christians. So maybe being an Independent is the answer - but ultimately, I think you will be hard-pressed to find a Democrat candidate who holds these views. Personally, I don't vote a straight Republican ticket - I vote for the candidate who answers the issues the way that most closely mirrors the convictions that I hold. Having said that..... it's been a VERY LONG time since a Democrat came even close to holding those views.

C Hall.... I won't answer you point by point - I'm not articulate enough to get my point across - I hear what you are saying regarding "morals" - but I think a lot of the time the Republicans get the short end of the stick when it comes to reporting their moral failures. After all, we don't exactly have an unbiased media. (Regarding McCain's second marriage, that bothers me as well - but I'd rather have him with his second wife than either of the other candidates with their "first loves" - We KNOW Clinton's marriage isn't a great example of faithfulness - and the remarks of Obama's wife regarding our great country REALLY bothers me...)

There ARE Democrats who hold conservative values. Yes, they are few and far between, but they are out there. I have supported some of them. They are DINO's. Democrat In Name Only. There are also many RINO's as well and that is what has hurt the RNC. Instead of building the RNC's base upon values and principles, they opted for politics and votes. THAT has cost them dearly and the fallout, I don't think has really hit them yet. The only difference between the DNC and the RNC is that the RNC is not quite as bad as the DNC.................yet. :D

[ManOfWord]

You live in Ohio correct? the republican party there has turned into a vertual mafia.

Our leadership got drunk with power. it isnt the concepts of the republican party, it is that we have elected people with no center. we have to change that.

Correct!!! If you knew the disaster here in Ohio with Republican politics and how Focus on the Family really, totally messed it up, you'd be shocked. They played politics just the like the "big boys" except for the fact that they got sold a "pig in a polk." They need to stay with their expertise and stay out of politics. Dobson got used just like many others did. When you get in the room with all that power, strange things happen. I won't use the real analogy I would like to, but it won't happen again to me. :D

I really believe that they cost us the governor's mansion here in Ohio. They got real big headed when they began to believe that THEY (along with Phil Burress) were the reason Bush got elected. They also wrote a really bad marriage amendment here. That was their downfall here. IMO. :D

Read this:

http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=127

[TRFrance]

America has been in decline, and will continue to be,throughout our lifetimes.

I think it's a little naive and short sighted to put our trust in politicians and political parties. The Democrats and the Republicans are both going to run this great country into the ground.

The Democrats will just do it faster, thats all.

[Michael The Disciple]

Prax said:

Well here I go with the word subjectivity but I think a LOT of Christians and Americans do not objectively look at facts anymore. A young man told me not too long ago that if he could vote he would vote for Obama. I said "why" and his reply was that he thought it was about time we had a black candidate. Never mind what the man believed in. People today tend to think in sound bites. It's sad.

There is a Black man who would be a great President. His name is Alan Keyes!

[Ferd]

Correct!!! If you knew the disaster here in Ohio with Republican politics and how Focus on the Family really, totally messed it up, you'd be shocked. They played politics just the like the "big boys" except for the fact that they got sold a "pig in a polk." They need to stay with their expertise and stay out of politics. Dobson got used just like many others did. When you get in the room with all that power, strange things happen. I won't use the real analogy I would like to, but it won't happen again to me. :D

I really believe that they cost us the governor's mansion here in Ohio. They got real big headed when they began to believe that THEY (along with Phil Burress) were the reason Bush got elected. They also wrote a really bad marriage amendment here. That was their downfall here. IMO. :D

Read this:

http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=127

Ohio is the test case for what happens when power corrupts. you guys need to take back the party.

The Republicans are going to take a bath in this election cycle. Even if the Dems mess up and John McCain wins, the Dems are going to have a landslide in the congress.

instead of abandoning the party, you (and me here in Texas) need to "Throw the bums out" and get rid of ALL the incumbants! Its time to clean house.

[ChristopherHall]

Making special provisions to force small business owners to hire gays, giving them the benefits afforded to married couples, and giving them and their message a platform in our public schools is not the work of Republicans.

I wouldn’t agree with making anyone hire someone based on their sexuality. However, I do support the notion of discouraging discrimination toward a person based on their sexuality. All biblical Christians disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. But more Americans favor equal treatment of all citizens under the law (regardless of sexual preference). Gay people aren’t going anywhere and somehow we’re going to have to learn to live together some how. Issues relating to this in the public schools are something to be addressed on the state and local levels. For one, I think any Christian who sends their child to public schools is betraying their calling as Christian parents. We are called as Christians to raise our kids in the fear of the Lord. Christian education or home schooling is by far the best option for the Christian parent. However, if parents are going to send their kids to public schools we’re going to have to face it…this is something we’re going to have to talk to our kids about and explain why we as Christians do not believe in the gay lifestyle. If I had to send my child to public schools I’d have to be deeply involved in their education and offer a lot of “deprogramming” with tenderness and love to show that while gay people are precious human beings made in God’s image, who deserve to be treated with human dignity as all sinners, their lifestyle isn’t pleasing to God and they will stand before the Lord in the judgment. God have mercy on their souls.

So since murders tend to be in the lower income side of town maybe we should just decriminalize murder and that would reduce the murder rate? Saying we shouldn't regulate abortion because people will break the law makes as much sense as not posting a speed limit because people speed. Abortion is more than a preference it’s the taking of a human life, and you ought to have to show there is a very good reason for ending a human life.

That’s not what I said at all. My point was criminalization isn’t sufficient in and of itself in regards to the issue of abortion. The issue of abortion is directly tied to the mother’s mental, spiritual, emotional, and economic well being. Regardless as to abortion’s legality we as a society have to address the issues they face if we truly want to affect this issue. Republicans only focus on legality….like it or not that’s a loosing strategy. Also it’s a lost cause. Like it or not, no court in the land is going to support the notion of the state seizure of a pregnant woman’s body and forcing her to give birth if is absolutely against it. The history of abortion is very important to understand. It goes back further than the 1970’s. In early America abortion was legal. Our founders and most local government’s didn’t address it on a legal basis. It wasn’t until the 1800’s that we see local laws restricting abortion. Why? Because the un-sterile procedure was causing infections in women and laws were initially passed because it was risky for women… for the most part no court saw it as a measure to protect the unborn. Abortion saw it’s resurgence in the 1960’s and 70’s with more sterile medical procedures. Courts began to rule in favor of a woman’s right to the procedure where state laws regulated it. The courts don’t see this issue as homicide because the life, health, and rights of the mother are considered to trump that of the unborn child. The unborn is seen as being the possession of the mother and the right to an abortion a right that is strictly her own. Ideally a right not to be abused…but sadly it is. To restrict a woman’s rights over her own body would equate to a governmental seizure of a pregnant woman’s body in effort to force her to give birth. The courts have therefore handed the issue to individual women and left it at that. Now that’s where WE come in. We have to educate women as to the repercussions and the moral implications of the procedure. We have to pray and be advocates for them by providing them help when they need it and being a voice in support of any social assistance that they may need if they choose life.

Think about it this way…what would be the penalty for a woman who procured abortion? Right now the most viable legislation would only strip a licensed physician of their license…but this doesn’t address those who are abortionists specializing in abortion procedures who aren’t licensed doctors. The other legislative suggestion that’s gaining momentum is a fine for procuring an abortion. Well…guess what…its gaining support because the government would make money off of the fine. And for more wealthy people the fine would be easy to pay so it only appears to apply to poor women and these will find services under the radar anyway. This equals nothing more than a “sin tax” through issuance of fines. So frankly, there’s little that can be done on this issue.

We need to realize the choice will remain strictly in the hands of women. So what do we do?

- Educate women. Teach them how abortion will affect them physically, emotionally, and spiritually.
- Provide help for women in poverty.
- Be advocates for policies that will help mothers and expectant mothers in poverty.

All the Republicans really offer are “bans” and “restrictions” on this undesirable issues, they aren’t offering plans on how to address the issues themselves. While the Democrats aren’t offering bans and restrictions…they are offering plans for addressing this social issue that may very well bring the abortion rate down without the bans and restrictions the Republicans promise. To make matters worse…the plans and restrictions the Republicans have promised have never materialized. So it seems the Republicans are only offering lip service.

The fact that some Republicans have had multiple marriages (as have some Democrats) is irrelevant. Knowing right from wrong and doing it is not always the same thing.

The point is that if these officials are going to tell Americans who they can and cannot marry and what private behaviors are acceptable and unacceptable they’re going to have to model those values and they’re not. McCain cheated on his wife and abandoned his kids for the floozy he’s with now. I guess when it comes to values he’s message is, “Do as I say, not as I do.” BrO, that doesn’t impress us none. While many don’t like the Clinton’s policies, at least they’ve chosen to maintain their marriage through the storms of sin and unfaithfulness.

As for economics, I am a free market believer. I believe the socialist planes of the Democrats will sink our economy. You might think the Robin Hood form of government is a great idea, but I still think Robin Hood is a thief regardless of who he steals from.

Yada yada yada. Have you noticed that socialist economies are relatively stable right now and that their currencies are increasing in value against the dollar? The free market economy is like a highway system without traffic laws. I’m for FAIR TRADE. It allows for free market behavior, however, it establishes sound laws that all players have to abide by in relation to employee rights, benefits, and ethical contract standards. Free trade is unfair trade and as the American worker has discovered it’s unfair to employees not the corporations raking in record profits. It’s also immoral. For example, a corporation in America has to pay a living wage to employees and is expected to provide benefits. But with “free trade” they are free to cut the American worker loose like they don’t matter at all and then move to some foreign country where they can pay a substandard wage and offer no benefits to the foreign workers. It allows them to move from the US where they have to meet hire standards of waste disposal (for example mercury) and they move factories to a country where they can dump waste with higher mercury levels into the local water system. This allows them to save the money they’d use for pre-treatment requirements in the US. Sadly, this contributes to the high levels of water pollution in these foreign countries. It’s immoral. Fair trade is far more moral than free trade.

The Free Trade vs. Socialism is a concocted comparison. The real issue is Free Trade vs. Fair Trade. More Christians are beginning to favor fair trade over free trade as they discover the impact of free trade policies.

[Baron1710]

Ohio is the test case for what happens when power corrupts. you guys need to take back the party.

The Republicans are going to take a bath in this election cycle. Even if the Dems mess up and John McCain wins, the Dems are going to have a landslide in the congress.

instead of abandoning the party, you (and me here in Texas) need to "Throw the bums out" and get rid of ALL the incumbants! Its time to clean house.

We could all go RINO hunting and see how many we could bag.

[Ferd]

America has been in decline, and will continue to be,throughout our lifetimes.

I think it's a little naive and short sighted to put our trust in politicians and political parties. The Democrats and the Republicans are both going to run this great country into the ground.

The Democrats will just do it faster, thats all.

if they had internet in 1855, the above post would have been an accurate relfection of American sentiment....or 1910, or 1932 or 1956, or 1962, or 1973......

[ChristopherHall]

To C Hall and MOW - I agree that there are many things about the GOP that are out of whack - and I don't believe that all Republicans hold the same views regarding the sanctity of life and the gay agenda that we hold as Christians. So maybe being an Independent is the answer - but ultimately, I think you will be hard-pressed to find a Democrat candidate who holds these views. Personally, I don't vote a straight Republican ticket - I vote for the candidate who answers the issues the way that most closely mirrors the convictions that I hold. Having said that..... it's been a VERY LONG time since a Democrat came even close to holding those views.

I’ve only voted for a Democrat twice. I voted for Kerry over Bush and I voted for Democrat Ted Strickland for Governor of Ohio. Republican Taft was an abysmal failure.

C Hall.... I won't answer you point by point - I'm not articulate enough to get my point across - I hear what you are saying regarding "morals" - but I think a lot of the time the Republicans get the short end of the stick when it comes to reporting their moral failures. After all, we don't exactly have an unbiased media. (Regarding McCain's second marriage, that bothers me as well - but I'd rather have him with his second wife than either of the other candidates with their "first loves" - We KNOW Clinton's marriage isn't a great example of faithfulness - and the remarks of Obama's wife regarding our great country REALLY bothers me...)

Faithfulness is not only exemplified in it’s success…but faithfulness is tested in the fires of trial. When a person says, “for better or for worse” and an affair takes place…if that marriage survives it’s a testimony to forgiveness and faithfulness to one’s vows in the wake of failure. But I’m a bit lucky I guess, in Ohio even the Democrats are relatively conservative.

When it comes to Republicans they should be held to a higher moral standard. Why? They bill themselves as being the moral party. Dominos advertises that they will deliver in 30 minutes or less. If they’re late I complain. Joe’s Pizza doesn’t have that standard so if they deliver in 40 minutes instead of 30 I don’t really care as long as the pizza’s still hot. So as long as Republicans run on moral values…they need to be held to higher moral standards than the Democrats.

[Ferd]

We could all go RINO hunting and see how many we could bag.

Baron, as much as I hate to say it, but it aint just the RINOs that need a baseball bat to the back of their political skulls...

there are some solid conservitives that need to get kicked out of congress too!

I have a governer that will complete his second term soon. His re-election was a shame and a disgrace.

all accross the board we have a massive need for a house cleaning.

[Baron1710]

Baron, as much as I hate to say it, but it aint just the RINOs that need a baseball bat to the back of their political skulls...

there are some solid conservitives that need to get kicked out of congress too!

I have a governer that will complete his second term soon. His re-election was a shame and a disgrace.

all accross the board we have a massive need for a house cleaning.

Agreed. That's why I have always been a fan of term limits. It's funny to me that the Supreme Court struck it down for Senators and Congressmen but it is fine for the President. The problem with the idea that term limits are imposed by voters is a joke since it is well established that it is incredible difficult to win against an incumbent.

[DividedThigh]

well i dont put any stock in huffington , and besides i see new repubs every year at our chruch as they turn 18 we take them away and indoctrinate them, then we set them free to be activated later, like on election day, lol,dt:bliss

[Baron1710]

I wouldn’t agree with making anyone hire someone based on their sexuality. However, I do support the notion of discouraging discrimination toward a person based on their sexuality. All biblical Christians disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. But more Americans favor equal treatment of all citizens under the law (regardless of sexual preference). ..For one, I think any Christian who sends their child to public schools is betraying their calling as Christian parents.

Tell me how gays are discriminated against? Why should they have a protected status?

For a socialist you seem to quickly forget that not all parents can afford to send their kids to private schools. It is not a betrayal of their calling as Christian parents, that is grossly overstated.

BTW Did you have problems in school reducing your word count to the maximum allowable for essays?

[DividedThigh]

Tell me how gays are discriminated against? Why should they have a protected status?

For a socialist you seem to quickly forget that not all parents can afford to send their kids to private schools. It is not a betrayal of their calling as Christian parents, that is grossly overstated.

BTW Did you have problems in school reducing your word count to the maximum allowable for essays?

baron my friend you are funny, i like that, dt:happydance

[Ferd]

Agreed. That's why I have always been a fan of term limits. It's funny to me that the Supreme Court struck it down for Senators and Congressmen but it is fine for the President. The problem with the idea that term limits are imposed by voters is a joke since it is well established that it is incredible difficult to win against an incumbent.

the twenty second amendment to the constitution limits Presidential terms.

i think the SC was right in stricking down a law, as this is clearly spelled out in the contstitution.... but I DO favor a constitutional amendment to term limit congress!

[Baron1710]

the twenty second amendment to the constitution limits Presidential terms.

i think the SC was right in stricking down a law, as this is clearly spelled out in the contstitution.... but I DO favor a constitutional amendment to term limit congress!

Why don't you think states have the right to limit the terms of a Senator? What do you mean when you say its clearly spelled out in the Constituion?

[Baron1710]

the twenty second amendment to the constitution limits Presidential terms.

i think the SC was right in stricking down a law, as this is clearly spelled out in the contstitution.... but I DO favor a constitutional amendment to term limit congress!

I see the Constitution as saying the state does have the right, there is nothing that precludes them from term limits and Article I Sec. IV says...

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

[Ferd]

Why don't you think states have the right to limit the terms of a Senator? What do you mean when you say its clearly spelled out in the Constituion?

the constitution outlines the branches of the government, who can serve and how long the terms are.

a constitutionalist can easily argue that the founders intended no limit be set. In fact there is a very long standing theory that we are best served by having congressmen/senators who have been in congress for a very long time due to the experience they gain.

some stuff the Supreme Court should butt out of and simply not rule, leaving it to congress or the states, but the service of a congressman is clearly within the area that requires Constitutional amendment IMHO.

[Ferd]

I see the Constitution as saying the state does have the right, there is nothing that precludes them from term limits and Article I Sec. IV says...

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

that is a stretch. sec. 4 simply says the states decide the manner in which the election will be held.

beyond that, you build inequity when one state sets a term limit and another doesnt.

it ends up with one state having senior members and thus greater power than the states who set terms.

IMHO this is very much something the SC should govern tightly.

[Baron1710]

the constitution outlines the branches of the government, who can serve and how long the terms are.

a constitutionalist can easily argue that the founders intended no limit be set. In fact there is a very long standing theory that we are best served by having congressmen/senators who have been in congress for a very long time due to the experience they gain.

some stuff the Supreme Court should butt out of and simply not rule, leaving it to congress or the states, but the service of a congressman is clearly within the area that requires Constitutional amendment IMHO.

Four of the Justices on the Supreme Court felt that the States did have the right to limit the number of terms of the Congressman (those who are originalst voted to allow term limits). So we were only vote shy of having the individual states choose to enforce term limits. If that power is reserved to the States, I say the Court was wrong in striking down a states right to limit the terms of its Congressmen.

You certainly have the power to spend more money the longer you have been in Congress.

[Baron1710]

that is a stretch. sec. 4 simply says the states decide the manner in which the election will be held.

beyond that, you build inequity when one state sets a term limit and another doesnt.

it ends up with one state having senior members and thus greater power than the states who set terms.

IMHO this is very much something the SC should govern tightly.

I am shocked!! Doesn't anyone remember the 10th Amendment anymore? I thought ignoring the Tenth Amendment was left to the Liberals. Any thing that the Constitution doesn't give the right to the Federal Government the State has the right to regulate. Since those Congressmen represent that state, why should the federal government say they have no right to regulate the terms of their Congressmen?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Ferd]

Four of the Justices on the Supreme Court felt that the States did have the right to limit the number of terms of the Congressman (those who are originalst voted to allow term limits). So we were only vote shy of having the individual states choose to enforce term limits. If that power is reserved to the States, I say the Court was wrong in striking down a states right to limit the terms of its Congressmen.

You certainly have the power to spend more money the longer you have been in Congress.


well, I am NOT against term limits. and I would sure like to see some limited out. (like John Mertha)...

Just not so sure I agree that this is the perview of the states.

[Ferd]

I am shocked!! Doesn't anyone remember the 10th Amendment anymore? I thought ignoring the Tenth Amendment was left to the Liberals. Any thing that the Constitution doesn't give the right to the Federal Government the State has the right to regulate. Since those Congressmen represent that state, why should the federal government say they have no right to regulate the terms of their Congressmen?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I considered that in my answer! my point is, that what qualifies a congressman is clearly spelled out in the constitution! Therefore a change to that qualification, ought to be done by changing (amending) the constitution.

[Baron1710]

I considered that in my answer! my point is, that what qualifies a congressman is clearly spelled out in the constitution! Therefore a change to that qualification, ought to be done by changing (amending) the constitution.

I understand where you are coming from I was just much more persuaded by the dissent than the majority in this case.

I will leave you with the words of Justice Thomas in his dissent...

It is ironic that the Court bases today's decision on the right of the people to "choose whom they please to govern them." See ante, at 2, 13, 14, 15, 41. Under our Constitution, there is only one State whose people have the right to "choose whom they please" to represent Arkansas in Congress. The Court holds, however, that neither the elected legislature of that State nor the people themselves (acting by ballot initiative) may prescribe any qualifications for those representatives. The majority therefore defends the right of the people of Arkansas to "choose whom they please to govern them" by invalidating a provision that won nearly 60% of the votes cast in a direct election and that carried every congressional district in the State.

I dissent. Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent [ U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. v. THORNTON, ___ U.S. ___ (1995) , 2] them in Congress. The Constitution is simply silent on this question. And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.

[Ferd]

I understand where you are coming from I was just much more persuaded by the dissent than the majority in this case.

I will leave you with the words of Justice Thomas in his dissent...

It is ironic that the Court bases today's decision on the right of the people to "choose whom they please to govern them." See ante, at 2, 13, 14, 15, 41. Under our Constitution, there is only one State whose people have the right to "choose whom they please" to represent Arkansas in Congress. The Court holds, however, that neither the elected legislature of that State nor the people themselves (acting by ballot initiative) may prescribe any qualifications for those representatives. The majority therefore defends the right of the people of Arkansas to "choose whom they please to govern them" by invalidating a provision that won nearly 60% of the votes cast in a direct election and that carried every congressional district in the State.

I dissent. Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent [ U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. v. THORNTON, ___ U.S. ___ (1995) , 2] them in Congress. The Constitution is simply silent on this question. And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.

i almost never disagree with Thomas. this time I do.

by his argument, Arkansas can require that they only be represented by lefthanded midgets.

the constitution spells out the qualifications. what is left out, must be seen as left out on purpose by the framers. If the framers left something like that out of the clearly spelled out qualifications, then to make a change should be done by the process the framers put in place... that is all I am saying....

see, Justice Thomas is human after all. He was wrong one single time!

[Baron1710]

i almost never disagree with Thomas. this time I do.

by his argument, Arkansas can require that they only be represented by lefthanded midgets.

the constitution spells out the qualifications. what is left out, must be seen as left out on purpose by the framers. If the framers left something like that out of the clearly spelled out qualifications, then to make a change should be done by the process the framers put in place... that is all I am saying....

see, Justice Thomas is human after all. He was wrong one single time!

Thomas AND Scalia AND Rehnquist...wrong at the same time? They Even got O'Connor to go with them.

I think for Thomas his commitment to the 10th is clear. The Constitution only limits the age and the length of their terms, Because the Constitution says nothing about how many terms should be served that is left in the hands of the individual states.

[ChristopherHall]

Tell me how gays are discriminated against? Why should they have a protected status?

I personally don’t think gays are discriminated as often as they claim, but it does happen. In fact it goes both ways. I know of some gay business owners who hire “members” over “breeders”. So adding sexual origination to equal opportunity policies may not be that bad of an idea. Of course any religious institution or religious charity shouldn’t be bound by such laws.

For most gay people their biggest issue is what they perceive as “equal rights”. They just want the right to live their private lives as they choose. Religious gays and gay churches are pushing for the right for them to have equal rights in the realm of marriage. Part of the problem was government getting involved in marriage to begin with. If you remember marriage licenses weren’t granted by the government until the 1920’s. Prior to this marriage was a private social contract. In the 1920’s states began regulating marriage to prevent whites from marrying blacks, in essence marriage licensing is a throw back to institutionalized racism. Frankly, it might resolve the issue of government just got out of people’s personal social contracts and associations. The government’s role would then be reduced to merely making sure that such contracts are honored for all and the courts would address disputes in separations. Some have called this a “golden standard of marriage” view. Meaning it doesn’t matter if your marriage is “sinful” or not…if you’re going to have “relations” you should be bound by social contract (civil union or traditional marriage). Remember a vast number of straight marriages are sinful by biblical standards but we expect it if people are going to live together.

For a socialist you seem to quickly forget that not all parents can afford to send their kids to private schools. It is not a betrayal of their calling as Christian parents, that is grossly overstated.

First, please stick to the issue and resist the temptation to issue personal insults. While you may be a bit to the right of me politically, it would be wrong for me to call you a “fascist”. Likewise, while I may be a bit to the left of you politically, it is wrong to call me a “socialist”. I’m more of a “centrist” and I lean far more toward a fair and mixed economy, which is far from a socialist vision. So please don’t call me a “socialist”.

Second, I understand that many parents cannot afford private schools…however the Bible specifically places the education of the child in the hands of the parent. There’s a stronger case for social assistance laws with biblical gleaning standards and the poor tithe than public education. While public schools may not be biblical philosophically, I don’t believe it’s a sin. Christian parents should strive to have their children educated in private schools or home school if they want their kids not to be exposed to non-Christian influences. If parents are willing to expose their children to non-Christian influences and moderate what their children learn in the public system I wish them well.

BTW Did you have problems in school reducing your word count to the maximum allowable for essays?

Ahhh…personal jab #2.

To answer your question “no”. I did just fine in school. But I’m well within the posting limits of each post. If you have an issue with the length of various posts please direct those to the administrator. If you’re going to discuss the issue with me you’re going to have to realize I do enjoy getting down into the nitty gritty details of issues. That requires a degree of explanation and commentary. If processing the material I present is problematic for you, you may want to find a discussion based on short snippets or bumper sticker platitudes.

[Baron1710]

I personally don’t think gays are discriminated as often as they claim, but it does happen. In fact it goes both ways. I know of some gay business owners who hire “members” over “breeders”. So adding sexual origination to equal opportunity policies may not be that bad of an idea. Of course any religious institution or religious charity shouldn’t be bound by such laws.

For most gay people their biggest issue is what they perceive as “equal rights”. They just want the right to live their private lives as they choose. Religious gays and gay churches are pushing for the right for them to have equal rights in the realm of marriage. Part of the problem was government getting involved in marriage to begin with. If you remember marriage licenses weren’t granted by the government until the 1920’s. Prior to this marriage was a private social contract. In the 1920’s states began regulating marriage to prevent whites from marrying blacks, in essence marriage licensing is a throw back to institutionalized racism. Frankly, it might resolve the issue of government just got out of people’s personal social contracts and associations. The government’s role would then be reduced to merely making sure that such contracts are honored for all and the courts would address disputes in separations. Some have called this a “golden standard of marriage” view. Meaning it doesn’t matter if your marriage is “sinful” or not…if you’re going to have “relations” you should be bound by social contract (civil union or traditional marriage). Remember a vast number of straight marriages are sinful by biblical standards but we expect it if people are going to live together.



First, please stick to the issue and resist the temptation to issue personal insults. While you may be a bit to the right of me politically, it would be wrong for me to call you a “fascist”. Likewise, while I may be a bit to the left of you politically, it is wrong to call me a “socialist”. I’m more of a “centrist” and I lean far more toward a fair and mixed economy, which is far from a socialist vision. So please don’t call me a “socialist”.

Second, I understand that many parents cannot afford private schools…however the Bible specifically places the education of the child in the hands of the parent. There’s a stronger case for social assistance laws with biblical gleaning standards and the poor tithe than public education. While public schools may not be biblical philosophically, I don’t believe it’s a sin. Christian parents should strive to have their children educated in private schools or home school if they want their kids not to be exposed to non-Christian influences. If parents are willing to expose their children to non-Christian influences and moderate what their children learn in the public system I wish them well.



Ahhh…personal jab #2.

To answer your question “no”. I did just fine in school. But I’m well within the posting limits of each post. If you have an issue with the length of various posts please direct those to the administrator. If you’re going to discuss the issue with me you’re going to have to realize I do enjoy getting down into the nitty gritty details of issues. That requires a degree of explanation and commentary. If processing the material I present is problematic for you, you may want to find a discussion based on short snippets or bumper sticker platitudes.

Ignoring for a moment your substantive arguments, and going directly to the insults...

As to the first insult your views seem to me to be very socialistic, so referring to you as a socialist was not intended as an insult. I thought you had embraced the term for what it is.

As to personal jab # 2...

It’s just funny to me that your posts are always so long, regardless of the issue. If you think I would report anything to admin you seriously misjudge me. I don't think your posts should be regulated (Free Market remember). So i will take your personal jab about not being able to comprehend your long posts in the same way I would have hoped you took mine, all in fun. As a side note I didn't insinuate you did poorly in school I only inquired as to how difficult it was for you to cut your essays down to size

On to more substantive issues...

Gays may at times be discriminated against, but I do not believe this warrants special protection.

I agree with you about marriages to a degree, but there are issues that would need to be ironed out such as laws of inheritance. This would simply require people to be more diligent in their wills. there are other issues such as taxes but ultimately I agree the government should get out of the marriage business.

I think you are still being a bit unrealistic in terms of homes schooling/private schooling v. public. Which is why I am a huge advocate of universal vouchers. If you read the conditions of the parents who were forced through compulsory education laws to send their kids to hell holes called public schools you will see that these parents could not have chosen private or home schooling as an option.

[ChristopherHall]

Ignoring for a moment your substantive arguments, and going directly to the insults...

As to the first insult your views seem to me to be very socialistic, so referring to you as a socialist was not intended as an insult. I thought you had embraced the term for what it is.

As to personal jab # 2...

It’s just funny to me that your posts are always so long, regardless of the issue. If you think I would report anything to admin you seriously misjudge me. I don't think your posts should be regulated (Free Market remember). So i will take your personal jab about not being able to comprehend your long posts in the same way I would have hoped you took mine, all in fun. As a side note I didn't insinuate you did poorly in school I only inquired as to how difficult it was for you to cut your essays down to size

On to more substantive issues...

Gays may at times be discriminated against, but I do not believe this warrants special protection.

I agree with you about marriages to a degree, but there are issues that would need to be ironed out such as laws of inheritance. This would simply require people to be more diligent in their wills. there are other issues such as taxes but ultimately I agree the government should get out of the marriage business.



LOL I think the problem is that politics in America has become deeply divisive and that puts everyone on the defensive. For example at the church I used to attend I was almost physically assaulted by a brother for criticizing Bush during breakfast after men’s prayer. Unless you’re a Christian with Democratic leanings you’ll never know the intense pressure and harassment that can come your way for not voting, “R for Revival”. You almost have to keep your politics a secret or be libeled as being “pro abortion”, Socialist, or gay marriage. The majority of my family are blue collar workers and public employees. I work for the city too. Get this; I’ve even had to pretend to be fully in line with the Republicans for fear of being jettisoned from the minister’s team where I used to attend. So it’s a soft spot with me.

I say just give everyone equal rights under the law and tell everyone to shut up and live like neighbors. LOL

Your view on marriage falls more in line with those who support “civil unions” for the sake of full legal equality and rights to private association. Some call it “liberal” others call it “libertarian”, either way it means get government out of regulating people’s relationships and marriages.

I think you are still being a bit unrealistic in terms of homes schooling/private schooling v. public. Which is why I am a huge advocate of universal vouchers. If you read the conditions of the parents who were forced through compulsory education laws to send their kids to hell holes called public schools you will see that these parents could not have chosen private or home schooling as an option.

Here’ the deal…our public educational system is going to reflect the morality (or lack thereof) of the public square. I know liberals who pay taxes and want their kids to be taught things we don’t want our children being taught. We want our children taught things they don’t want their children taught. We are the minority meaning…they win. The system will reflect popular values even if they contradict Christian values. If a parent wishes to send their kids to public schools they’re accepting this influence. If they don’t want it their choices are private schools and home schooling. Else they just have to learn to put what their kids learn in the public schools in context. As America becomes more and more diversified our chances of ever getting the school systems to strictly reflect our values become less and less. For the Christian who doesn’t want their kids getting these influences the only answers are private schools and home schooling. If they love their kids…they’ll find a way to pay for it.

Now as far as vouchers go…I’m not sure I’m for them. The public schools are already under funded. Vouchers only siphon off desperately needed funding. I say I might support health tax credits if you send your kid to public schools or home school, but not vouchers.

[Baron1710]

LOL Your view on marriage falls more in line with those who support “civil unions” for the sake of full legal equality and rights to private association. Some call it “liberal” others call it “libertarian”, either way it means get government out of regulating people’s relationships and marriages.

I do tend toward Libertarianism, however I am also realistic and find the closest I can usually get to what I want is in the Republican party. I know compromise is a bad word for Oneness folks, but I am willing to compromise to get as close to my ideal as possible.

Now as far as vouchers go…I’m not sure I’m for them. The public schools are already under funded. Vouchers only siphon off desperately needed funding. I say I might support health tax credits if you send your kid to public schools or home school, but not vouchers.

Sweden has a universal voucher system that has worked very well for them, since 1993 I believe. There is no correlation between increased spending and quality of education, some of the areas that receive the highest number of dollars per student do the poorest while areas that are near the bottom often excel. Why do you want to continually fund a failing system?

[TRFrance]

Now as far as vouchers go…I’m not sure I’m for them. The public schools are already under funded. Vouchers only siphon off desperately needed funding. I say I might support health tax credits if you send your kid to public schools or home school, but not vouchers.
All they have to do is calculate the average cost of teaching each Public School student per year. If a voucher (or tax credit) was given to the parents for that amount, (or even half that amount) to use toward the school of their own choice...yes, there'd be less money going to that local public school, but that would be offset by the fact that there'd be less students in the system using the available resources. So it would balance itself out financially, and create more educational competition, to the benefit of the kids, who are the ones who are really being failed by the present system.

Sweden has a universal voucher system that has worked very well for them, since 1993 I believe. There is no correlation between increased spending and quality of education, some of the areas that receive the highest number of dollars per student do the poorest while areas that are near the bottom often excel. Why do you want to continually fund a failing system?
Indeed, even in many urban areas areas of this country, Catholic schools turn out better-educated students, even with lower budgets and lower-paid teachers than their Public School counterparts.

[DividedThigh]

I do tend toward Libertarianism, however I am also realistic and find the closest I can usually get to what I want is in the Republican party. I know compromise is a bad word for Oneness folks, but I am willing to compromise to get as close to my ideal as possible.



Sweden has a universal voucher system that has worked very well for them, since 1993 I believe. There is no correlation between increased spending and quality of education, some of the areas that receive the highest number of dollars per student do the poorest while areas that are near the bottom often excel. Why do you want to continually fund a failing system?

does the word socialist democrat come to mind baron, lol,dt

[ChristopherHall]

I do tend toward Libertarianism, however I am also realistic and find the closest I can usually get to what I want is in the Republican party. I know compromise is a bad word for Oneness folks, but I am willing to compromise to get as close to my ideal as possible.

Republicans aren’t libertarians anymore…they’re corporatists. The Republican policies in play favor corporations and leave middle class workers and small business owners behind.

Sweden has a universal voucher system that has worked very well for them, since 1993 I believe. There is no correlation between increased spending and quality of education, some of the areas that receive the highest number of dollars per student do the poorest while areas that are near the bottom often excel. Why do you want to continually fund a failing system?

I’ve never heard that about Sweden. I’ll refrain from commenting too much until I look into a little more. Sweden being a European nation, I’d wager that the vouchers they offer are VERY generous and essentially equate to a government subsidization of parental choice education. You sure you’re not socialist? lol

While the current public system has definite issues…the way the voucher system is designed in the US the vouchers aren’t enough to really help poorer families send their kids to private schools, while they siphon funds away from what schooling poorer kids have in the public system. Maybe Sweden is on to something. I’ll have to look into it.

[Ferd]

Vouchers in the US are designed to take money away from failing schools as the parents of these students opt out of those schools.

the goal is to force the failing schools to compete and become better.

that is a good thing even though the word compete is a four letter word to our socalist friends.

[Baron1710]

I’ve never heard that about Sweden. I’ll refrain from commenting too much until I look into a little more. Sweden being a European nation, I’d wager that the vouchers they offer are VERY generous and essentially equate to a government subsidization of parental choice education. You sure you’re not socialist? lol

While the current public system has definite issues…the way the voucher system is designed in the US the vouchers aren’t enough to really help poorer families send their kids to private schools, while they siphon funds away from what schooling poorer kids have in the public system. Maybe Sweden is on to something. I’ll have to look into it.

Remember I said I would compromise?
If the Funds for education are going to be spent anyway and there is nothing I can do about it, then giving parents control of where those tax dollars go is the next best option. I agree that the current options available to most in areas where vouchers are available don't allow them to send a kid to private school just on what they get from the voucher. It does provide options for some parents that cannot afford the entire bill though. I would much rather see a system that allowed education dollars to follow the student to whatever school the parents send them to.

[DividedThigh]

Vouchers in the US are designed to take money away from failing schools as the parents of these students opt out of those schools.

the goal is to force the failing schools to compete and become better.

that is a good thing even though the word compete is a four letter word to our socalist friends.

compete, oh ferd, somebodys feeling might get hurt, i mean come on we cant even keep score at little league games and play ball at recess to primalistic for the lacy people running the systems now, not enough sissies around, lol

[Ferd]

Remember I said I would compromise?
If the Funds for education are going to be spent anyway and there is nothing I can do about it, then giving parents control of where those tax dollars go is the next best option. I agree that the current options available to most in areas where vouchers are available don't allow them to send a kid to private school just on what they get from the voucher. It does provide options for some parents that cannot afford the entire bill though. I would much rather see a system that allowed education dollars to follow the student to whatever school the parents send them to.

I agree!

Texas has one of the dumbest systems anywhere around. every little town and hamlet has its own Independant School District. every district has its own bureaucracy. How stupid can you get? there are counties in Texas with a population of less than 25K people that have 3 or more ISDs. that few students and 3 high dollar district superintendants, and dozens of adminstrators that duplicate each other.

[Ferd]

compete, oh ferd, somebodys feeling might get hurt, i mean come on we cant even keep score at little league games and play ball at recess to primalistic for the lacy people running the systems now, not enough sissies around, lol

oh, I know! in some circles I have said enough to get a lifetime ban!

some folk would rather hear a child issuing a Patonesk profanity filled tyrade than find out that child competed in some compitition!

LIBERALS ARE MISERABLE PEOPLE

[DividedThigh]

oh, I know! in some circles I have said enough to get a lifetime ban!

some folk would rather hear a child issuing a Patonesk profanity filled tyrade than find out that child competed in some compitition!

LIBERALS ARE MISERABLE PEOPLE

i have to say that kind of sums it up, we have softball tonight , our church has two teams, oh yeah we keep score, i am the pitcher, we win usually, never know though, lol

[Ferd]

i have to say that kind of sums it up, we have softball tonight , our church has two teams, oh yeah we keep score, i am the pitcher, we win usually, never know though, lol

kids need to learn how to win and loose. its important.

I think some of these libs never learned how to win so they fear loosing so much, they dont want to compete at all.

it is sad.

[DividedThigh]

kids need to learn how to win and loose. its important.

I think some of these libs never learned how to win so they fear loosing so much, they dont want to compete at all.

it is sad.

i agree, we dont need any more limp wrists in this world, good grief, lol,dt

[Baron1710]

kids need to learn how to win and loose. its important.

I think some of these libs never learned how to win so they fear loosing so much, they dont want to compete at all.

it is sad.

When my son was in 5th grade he was struggling in one of his classes and the teacher asked what would help him. When I suggested she show him the grades of other students in the class and encourage him to beat their grades, (knowing this would be a great motivator for him) I was told how bad an idea it would be and they would never allow him to compete against other students grades.

The reality is when everyone wins, nobody wins. If everyone wins a race who pushes to finish first? Why take a chance on stealing a base if the score doesn't matter? Eliminating the risk of losing teaches kids mediocrity.

[StillStanding]

kids need to learn how to win and loose. its important.

I think some of these libs never learned how to win so they fear loosing so much, they dont want to compete at all.

it is sad.
Being a life-long Cubs fan, I've learned to cope with losing! :) It will make finally winning (some day) all that much more rewarding!

[DividedThigh]

Being a life-long Cubs fan, I've learned to cope with losing! :) It will make finally winning (some day) all that much more rewarding!

thats the spirit, piano man, dont wait too long so we cant enjoy the game and get around brother, dt:happydance

[Ferd]

Being a life-long Cubs fan, I've learned to cope with losing! :) It will make finally winning (some day) all that much more rewarding!

alas, I am afraid that maliday will only cause you greater suffering... said the Rangers fan to the cubs fan....

[DividedThigh]

alas, I am afraid that maliday will only cause you greater suffering... said the Rangers fan to the cubs fan....

poor babies, almost moves me to tears, well not really, lol, dt:bliss

[Ferd]

poor babies, almost moves me to tears, well not really, lol, dt:bliss

Its alright. the thing that really bites about it is, i have not always been a rangers fan. It just came to me due to proximity.

I grew up a Yankees fan. but when we moved to Dallas, I watched the rangers, heard about them on the news and radio, and eventually came to support them... almost against my own will!

this team is terrible!

[TRFrance]

kids need to learn how to win and loose. its important.

I think some of these libs never learned how to win so they fear loosing so much, they dont want to compete at all.

it is sad.

On a related note, did you know that Democrats have lost 7 out of the last 10 Presidential elections?
Blew my mind when I found that out.

No wonder some of these liberals are so bitter!

[ChristopherHall]

Remember I said I would compromise?
If the Funds for education are going to be spent anyway and there is nothing I can do about it, then giving parents control of where those tax dollars go is the next best option. I agree that the current options available to most in areas where vouchers are available don't allow them to send a kid to private school just on what they get from the voucher. It does provide options for some parents that cannot afford the entire bill though. I would much rather see a system that allowed education dollars to follow the student to whatever school the parents send them to.

It might be a great idea. Certainly what we have now isn't working.

[ChristopherHall]

On a related note, did you know that Democrats have lost 7 out of the last 10 Presidential elections?
Blew my mind when I found that out.

No wonder some of these liberals are so bitter!

You're right, Democrats have lost 7 out of the last 10 Presidential elections. And the Republicans have nearly wrecked this country. And the only Democrats who get any press are the wackos on the fringe.

[Ferd]

On a related note, did you know that Democrats have lost 7 out of the last 10 Presidential elections?
Blew my mind when I found that out.

No wonder some of these liberals are so bitter!

well, yea. and Bill is the only Dem to win 2 elections going back to FDR!

[DividedThigh]

Its alright. the thing that really bites about it is, i have not always been a rangers fan. It just came to me due to proximity.

I grew up a Yankees fan. but when we moved to Dallas, I watched the rangers, heard about them on the news and radio, and eventually came to support them... almost against my own will!

this team is terrible!

i will pray for you brother, the cards have openings for new fans, lol,dt:happydance

[Ferd]

You're right, Democrats have lost 7 out of the last 10 Presidential elections. And the Republicans have nearly wrecked this country. And the only Democrats who get any press are the wackos on the fringe.

"Nearly wrecked this country"

Dude, DO YOU REMEMBER 1979????????????

[Ferd]

i will pray for you brother, the cards have openings for new fans, lol,dt:happydance

That is not out of the question!

[DividedThigh]

so tell me how you justify saying the republicans have wrecked this country, when it takes the house and the senate and the president to make the govt work, along with the supreme court, little lean on the facts there, dt:bliss

[DividedThigh]

"Nearly wrecked this country"

Dude, DO YOU REMEMBER 1979????????????

obviously not, the child does not remember jimma carta, good grief, he will go down in history as the worst, lol, you can be a cards fan, i will send you a hat, lol,dt

[Ferd]

so tell me how you justify saying the republicans have wrecked this country, when it takes the house and the senate and the president to make the govt work, along with the supreme court, little lean on the facts there, dt:bliss

Lets not forget that since 1980, we have experienced the greatest expansion in our economy in our history. There has never been a period as long as this one without a very serious recession in our history.

[DividedThigh]

Lets not forget that since 1980, we have experienced the greatest expansion in our economy in our history. There has never been a period as long as this one without a very serious recession in our history.

exactly, inspite of billy clinton, lol,dt:happydance

[TRFrance]

You're right, Democrats have lost 7 out of the last 10 Presidential elections. And the Republicans have nearly wrecked this country.
Republican presidents have had to fight Democrat-controlled Houses and Senates for decades. Much of the "wrecking" of our country has been caused by reckless spending over the years, and Democrats and Republicans are both responsible for that.

And the only Democrats who get any press are the wackos on the fringe.
Nonsense. Liberals control the mainstream media, so there's no reason that would be true.

Maybe the fact is that "the wackos" in the Democrat party are NOT on the fringe, but are actually in the party's mainstream!!

[ChristopherHall]

"Nearly wrecked this country"

Dude, DO YOU REMEMBER 1979????????????

Yeah! I was fully potty trained and had my first three wheeler! :toofunny

[ChristopherHall]

Republican presidents have had to fight Democrat-controlled Houses and Senates for decades. Much of the "wrecking" of our country has been caused by reckless spending over the years, and Democrats and Republicans are both responsible for that.

I'll admit that both are responsible, because they both have certainly been idiots.

[Ferd]

Yeah! I was fully potty trained and had my first three wheeler! :toofunny

then along with the GWB and JM are trying to murder military people, your comments are about as false as can be and you ought to know better...

and I still have not gotten a reason from you for your insistance on producing such falsehood.

[ChristopherHall]

then along with the GWB and JM are trying to murder military people, your comments are about as false as can be and you ought to know better...

and I still have not gotten a reason from you for your insistance on producing such falsehood.

Bro....all I can comment on is my personal experience under Republican Administrations, especially the past 8 years. The Republicans are corporate hacks.

Now here's the deal...you brought up "1979"....bro...that was 29 years ago. The parties have changed quite a bit since then. The Democrats offer more subsidies but they're not so focused on big government "nationalization" where in things are ran by government offices and government employees. It's more like a subsidization of essential private sector functions. (Think of the voucher example in this thread.) It's the vision of the DLC and the New Democratic Coalition. The Republicans are where the Democrats were 30 years ago.

Frankly...there aren't any "Republicans", as you'd remember them, running in today.

It's 2008 and y'all want to run the country like it's the 1880's or something.