Quote:Enjoy your southern strategy in your decaying wine skin then if thats how you feel.
Neither of your previous responses have any bearing on your original argument that what I said the progressive stance on money in politics is not true. If you think everyone is a liar then say that but don't try and say what progressives including myself say is not what we think. You clearly have no clue what is actualy being pushed.
Politicians are liars. Leftist politicians are the worst liars. Happy now?
Quote:Politicians are liars. Leftist politicians are the worst liars. Happy now?
The good old "My side lies less!!!!" Always insightful.
You can give up on the country and people all you want (that's what your responses sound like). That does not sound like a pleasant way to live to me, so I chose to see things in a different way.
Quote:Citations please? Or, is this purely conjecture on your part as a rebuttal to non-conjecture on mine? No need to respond, it's quite obvious.
Just because you or your leaders (obvious assumption is obvious) think this way does not mean everyone does. I chose to think that some do want to do good.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Progressives" typically are for redistribution of wealth. This in theory would be achieved by high taxes on the wealthy with little to no taxation on the lower classes. It would also institute a policy of a higher minimum wage thereby forcing business owners to pay more in salary than the job that they provide is worth. In other words, the Federal Government would seize property from certain people, then redistribute said property to others.
They are also for "free" medical care and "free" education.
They also believe in the collective rather than the individual.
If I wasn't so lazy at the moment, I would put links to examples of all of this ranging from quotes from politicians that are the darlings of "Progressives" to images at leftist protests.
These concepts have been tried in the past and have failed. For the most recent example take a look at North Korea.
Quote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Progressives" typically are for redistribution of wealth. This in theory would be achieved by high taxes on the wealthy with little to no taxation on the lower classes. It would also institute a policy of a higher minimum wage thereby forcing business owners to pay more in salary than the job that they provide is worth. In other words, the Federal Government would seize property from certain people, then redistribute said property to others.
They are also for "free" medical care and "free" education.
They also believe in the collective rather than the individual.
If I wasn't so lazy at the moment, I would put links to examples of all of this ranging from quotes from politicians that are the darlings of "Progressives" to images at leftist protests.
These concepts have been tried in the past and have failed. For the most recent example take a look at North Korea.
Other than you obvious dislike for leftists policies and a need to tell me you dislike them, I do not see what that has to do with the discussion he and I were having which was his accusations that I made up the idea that progressives desire the removal of money from politics.
North Korea is a not a republic but you somehow equate them to the progressive movement in America? Would that be similar to a claim that religious right wingers want a religious state as we see in middle east so we should ignore everything they say?
Quote:Other than you obvious dislike for leftists policies and a need to tell me you dislike them, I do not see what that has to do with the discussion he and I were having which was his accusations that I made up the idea that progressives desire the removal of money from politics.
North Korea is a not a republic but you somehow equate them to the progressive movement in America? Would that be similar to a claim that religious right wingers want a religious state as we see in middle east so we should ignore everything they say?
It has everything to do with it. I agree with his idea that someone under the "progressive" banner runs on "getting money out of politics" simply to reduce his/her opponent's ability to raise money. It's all about gaining the power to implement their particular agenda.
The reason I bring up North Korea is because the policies that they chose after the Korean War are exactly the same as those proposed by the "progressive" party. Land was seized from property owners and distributed to certain people based on their loyalty to "the party" (government). Promises were made to the people that their "education", health care and basic necessities would be provided by the government. Look at how that's worked out for them so far. Their economy has pretty much collapsed, people live in real poverty while the "leaders" of that country live pretty good. The "education" that they receive is nothing more than propaganda that supports their "leadership" (
see the video of public schools singing about Obama). The parallels of "leftists policies" are eerily similar to those of the North Korean's.
On the other hand, the claim that "religious right wingers want a religious state as we see in the middle east" is false. The right wing simply wants to stop the constant rejection of certain religious customs and traditions that have been a part of this country since it's founding. As an example, displaying the Ten Commandments on government property. Why is it so "offensive" to display something like that whether you are a believer or not? What is so bad and "offensive" about them? Nobody is saying that you must believe and abide by them, they are simply saying that the display harms no one.
The same applies to prayer in schools. Nobody is saying that everyone has to participate, but outlawing it is the goal and violates The Constitution.
Only thing I disagree with is the prayer in school, I for one don't want the state who runs the schools telling my child how to pray and when to pray. The separation of church and state is for protection of both institutions and we are all better off keeping the two respectively separated.
I also have to admit I don't think the state has a role to play in education at all, I'm a staunch opponent to "public" education. But while it is public and ran by the state you have to keep all religious affiliations out of it. There is nothing more dangerous then the merger of the state and the church, that has ALWAYS led to persecution through out history.
Quote:Only thing I disagree with is the prayer in school, I for one don't want the state who runs the schools telling my child how to pray and when to pray. The separation of church and state is for protection of both institutions and we are all better off keeping the two respectively separated.
I also have to admit I don't think the state has a role to play in education at all, I'm a staunch opponent to "public" education. But while it is public and ran by the state you have to keep all religious affiliations out of it. There is nothing more dangerous then the merger of the state and the church, that has ALWAYS led to persecution through out history.
The state definitely has a role to play in education. Many private schools are currently free to only admit those who they want to admit. They can turn down people on any basis. Taking the state's role out of education would open the door to for-profit education establishments that aren't accountable to anything other than money. I cannot see you arguing that schools should be forced to accept all students -- especially given that you hold that businesses should be able to turn away people for any reason. And those schools that are held accountable to only money would easily use marketing to make themselves more appealing, and have less accountability. Much like for-profit colleges do today.
Without public education many wouldn't be able to get even a decent education. Especially those living in poor communities, or those who live in areas with poor private schooling.
Our public schools teach children no matter what their belief, race, gender, religion, or economic status. They teach students who have learning disabilities, and those who show great academic promise.
An uneducated society cannot survive. Thomas Jefferson certainly believed this. An uneducated populace leads to tyranny, and stripping of rights that we have.
As for school prayer -- it's not banned in schools. What's banned is school-led prayer. Which makes sense, as that would be a violation of the establishment clause.
Quote:Only thing I disagree with is the prayer in school, I for one don't want the state who runs the schools telling my child how to pray and when to pray. The separation of church and state is for protection of both institutions and we are all better off keeping the two respectively separated.
I also have to admit I don't think the state has a role to play in education at all, I'm a staunch opponent to "public" education. But while it is public and ran by the state you have to keep all religious affiliations out of it. There is nothing more dangerous then the merger of the state and the church, that has ALWAYS led to persecution through out history.
I'm not saying that prayer in school would be "telling children how to pray or when to pray". My reference is how prayer is "not allowed". For example, when I was a child in school, we always had a "prayer" in the locker room prior to playing a game. It wasn't from any certain denomination, it was pretty general. Think of it this way. Watch the start of any NASCAR race, and there is always an invocation prior to starting the race. Those that choose to do so may participate. Those that choose to do so may refrain.
At my high school graduation, one of the first things that took place was an invocation that was similar. It's non-denominational, but a practice that has taken place for decades. It's going away because a small percentage of the population is "offended" by it.
Heck, even in speeches at a graduation it is prohibited to acknowledge one's faith because someone might be "offended".
That's what I mean by "prayer in schools".
Quote:It has everything to do with it. I agree with his idea that someone under the "progressive" banner runs on "getting money out of politics" simply to reduce his/her opponent's ability to raise money. It's all about gaining the power to implement their particular agenda.
The reason I bring up North Korea is because the policies that they chose after the Korean War are exactly the same as those proposed by the "progressive" party. Land was seized from property owners and distributed to certain people based on their loyalty to "the party" (government). Promises were made to the people that their "education", health care and basic necessities would be provided by the government. Look at how that's worked out for them so far. Their economy has pretty much collapsed, people live in real poverty while the "leaders" of that country live pretty good. The "education" that they receive is nothing more than propaganda that supports their "leadership" (see the video of public schools singing about Obama). The parallels of "leftists policies" are eerily similar to those of the North Korean's.
On the other hand, the claim that "religious right wingers want a religious state as we see in the middle east" is false. The right wing simply wants to stop the constant rejection of certain religious customs and traditions that have been a part of this country since it's founding. As an example, displaying the Ten Commandments on government property. Why is it so "offensive" to display something like that whether you are a believer or not? What is so bad and "offensive" about them? Nobody is saying that you must believe and abide by them, they are simply saying that the display harms no one.
The same applies to prayer in schools. Nobody is saying that everyone has to participate, but outlawing it is the goal and violates The Constitution.
Again, not a republic but a brutal dictatorship. I am sure this is exactly what you think progressive policies are:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...t=20150513
Really it's not different then comparing Obama to the anti-christ or a nazi. It's the same type of over the top rhetoric.
No progressive has suggested taking land away. Not a single one. The idea that you can provide healthcare and education should not be a crazy idea, I'm not sure why conservatives hate it so much. This idea that people just should not have access to healthcare or education unless they have the money for it makes no sense to me as both are in the best interest for the future of the country.
Explain to me how limiting or removing money in politics across effects only conservatives abilities to get elected.
In other news, singing about the president bad but having religious displays on government property good. Why? Because bias, plain and simple.
Quote:Again, not a republic but a brutal dictatorship. I am sure this is exactly what you think progressive policies are:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...t=20150513
Really it's not different then comparing Obama to the anti-christ or a nazi. It's the same type of over the top rhetoric.
No progressive has suggested taking land away. Not a single one. The idea that you can provide healthcare and education should not be a crazy idea, I'm not sure why conservatives hate it so much. This idea that people just should not have access to healthcare or education unless they have the money for it makes no sense to me as both are in the best interest for the future of the country.
Explain to me how limiting or removing money in politics across effects only conservatives abilities to get elected.
In other news, singing about the president bad but having religious displays on government property good. Why? Because bias, plain and simple.
Conservatives hate the idea of paying for other people. Though that doesn't explain why we don't outlaw insurance altogether, since that's what insurance is. But then again many of them seem to be perfectly okay with businesses doing things that they don't want governments doing. Which has never made sense to me. And is a part of why I no longer identify conservative.
Quote:I'm not saying that prayer in school would be "telling children how to pray or when to pray". My reference is how prayer is "not allowed". For example, when I was a child in school, we always had a "prayer" in the locker room prior to playing a game. It wasn't from any certain denomination, it was pretty general. Think of it this way. Watch the start of any NASCAR race, and there is always an invocation prior to starting the race. Those that choose to do so may participate. Those that choose to do so may refrain.
At my high school graduation, one of the first things that took place was an invocation that was similar. It's non-denominational, but a practice that has taken place for decades. It's going away because a small percentage of the population is "offended" by it.
Heck, even in speeches at a graduation it is prohibited to acknowledge one's faith because someone might be "offended".
That's what I mean by "prayer in schools".
It's not a small percentage of people which is why this is even an issue. Kids should not be forced to leave classrooms to avoid prayer time regardless of denomination. If kids and teachers want to have a room for prayer or whatever I don't think that should be an issue but it should not be led by faculty when in the charge of other kids. I think that is plenty reasonable and, unless I am wrong, seems to be what some schools are actually doing.
Quote:The state definitely has a role to play in education. Many private schools are currently free to only admit those who they want to admit. They can turn down people on any basis. Taking the state's role out of education would open the door to for-profit education establishments that aren't accountable to anything other than money. I cannot see you arguing that schools should be forced to accept all students -- especially given that you hold that businesses should be able to turn away people for any reason. And those schools that are held accountable to only money would easily use marketing to make themselves more appealing, and have less accountability. Much like for-profit colleges do today.
Without public education many wouldn't be able to get even a decent education. Especially those living in poor communities, or those who live in areas with poor private schooling.
Our public schools teach children no matter what their belief, race, gender, religion, or economic status. They teach students who have learning disabilities, and those who show great academic promise.
An uneducated society cannot survive. Thomas Jefferson certainly believed this. An uneducated populace leads to tyranny, and stripping of rights that we have.
As for school prayer -- it's not banned in schools. What's banned is school-led prayer. Which makes sense, as that would be a violation of the establishment clause.
I must disagree. In a free country parents should have the right to determine what level of education their children receive. A child can probably learn more skills and knowledge without ever setting foot in a "state run school".
As far as "for-profit" schools, the free market will determine whether or not they survive. Are graduates of those schools successful in today's society, or do they lack? Regarding the selection of students, in a free country it should be a private enterprise's right to determine who can enter or who can not. Would a Catholic school allow a child from a non-Catholic family? Probably not, but then the question arises. Why would a non-Catholic family want to enroll their children into a Catholic school?
As far as being "held accountable", to whom? The "State" (Federal Government or State Government)? Who is the ultimate judge as far as determining how well these children are educated?
I don't have any faith in the 'free market'. I look at how scammers survive in the free market. Places like pay day loans, and for profit colleges. I don't believe, as conservatives do, that how much money you make is an indicator of success. Nor do I believe only those who's parents make enough money should be the ones to succeed. Nor do I believe 'work skills' are the only things kids should be learning.
Private Schools don't just put limitations on faith, they put limitations on academic success. Something that public schools don't do. Public schools don't turn anyone down.
I for one am grateful for my public education. And grateful that my kids have an opportunity to learn something other than skills that will transfer to a job. I don't believe that a person's value is limited to products and services they provide.
Quote:I don't have any faith in the 'free market'. I look at how scammers survive in the free market. Places like pay day loans, and for profit colleges. I don't believe, as conservatives do, that how much money you make is an indicator of success. Nor do I believe only those who's parents make enough money should be the ones to succeed. Nor do I believe 'work skills' are the only things kids should be learning.
Private Schools don't just put limitations on faith, they put limitations on academic success. Something that public schools don't do. Public schools don't turn anyone down.
I for one am grateful for my public education. And grateful that my kids have an opportunity to learn something other than skills that will transfer to a job. I don't believe that a person's value is limited to products and services they provide.
Anecdotal as it is, my public education was far superior to my private one from K-8. I am sure some are fantastic whoever and I honestly have no problem with private schools at all. There is a place, I think for privately ran institutions for a myriad of reasons. What I do have a problem with is the for profit colleges that are not even accredited. Multiples have had to shut down after being sued by the government for predatory lending practices and flat out lying to students to get them to take out massive loans. They prey on the poor and on the military and those practices should be outlawed because it sure is not the free market regulating itself in this case.
Quote:Anecdotal as it is, my public education was far superior to my private one from K-8. I am sure some are fantastic whoever and I honestly have no problem with private schools at all. There is a place, I think for privately ran institutions for a myriad of reasons. What I do have a problem with is the for profit colleges that are not even accredited. Multiples have had to shut down after being sued by the government for predatory lending practices and flat out lying to students to get them to take out massive loans. They prey on the poor and on the military and those practices should be outlawed because it sure is not the free market regulating itself in this case.
I have no problem with there being private schools either. I just don't get the shift toward wanting to privatize education. My grandfather was as conservative as they come, and he was pro-public education. People like him were why I was conservative in my youth. Then again, I suppose he wouldn't have much in common at all with today's conservatives. The Republican party certainly isn't what it was back in the 1940's.
Quote:Again, not a republic but a brutal dictatorship. I am sure this is exactly what you think progressive policies are:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...t=20150513
Really it's not different then comparing Obama to the anti-christ or a nazi. It's the same type of over the top rhetoric.
No progressive has suggested taking land away. Not a single one. The idea that you can provide healthcare and education should not be a crazy idea, I'm not sure why conservatives hate it so much. This idea that people just should not have access to healthcare or education unless they have the money for it makes no sense to me as both are in the best interest for the future of the country.
Explain to me how limiting or removing money in politics across effects only conservatives abilities to get elected.
In other news, singing about the president bad but having religious displays on government property good. Why? Because bias, plain and simple.
No "progressive" or anyone has suggested taking land away, but they have suggested taking assets away. You don't seem to see the correlation of what happened in the past and what is proposed today. To "nationalize" or take away the business of oil companies was in fact,
a goal of one certain "progressive" congresswoman. It came from her own mouth. That's outright stealing through government over reach. Think about how if something like that really happened, how much more the governement would grow and what it would do to the industry.
Then look at the disaster that is ObamaCare. Poor people or "less wealthy" don't get their "free" healthcare, rather they have to pay more into the system and get less. This affects the "middle class" even more.
Regarding the "singing about the President", do some research about what kids are/were taught in North Korean schools. Can you say propaganda? How many songs were sung when George Bush was President?
Quote:No "progressive" or anyone has suggested taking land away, but they have suggested taking assets away. You don't seem to see the correlation of what happened in the past and what is proposed today. To "nationalize" or take away the business of oil companies was in fact, a goal of one certain "progressive" congresswoman. It came from her own mouth. That's outright stealing through government over reach. Think about how if something like that really happened, how much more the governement would grow and what it would do to the industry.
Then look at the disaster that is ObamaCare. Poor people or "less wealthy" don't get their "free" healthcare, rather they have to pay more into the system and get less. This affects the "middle class" even more.
Regarding the "singing about the President", do some research about what kids are/were taught in North Korean schools. Can you say propaganda? How many songs were sung when George Bush was President?
Propaganda? I think that's stretching it a bit but it's understandable to think that way when you already dislike the guy. It is however, the best case ever made for not allowing prayer in school and I didn't even have to say it myself.
I think an argument could be made that natural resources belong to the country by extension of the citizens and ought not belong to private industry to exploit and be the single recipient of the profits from them. Now I don't know that I would agree with that, I just think it's a bad example to use. In addition you specifically used taking land as your example of progressive policies being equal to brutal North Korea.
This idea that it's a disaster is very divisive because republicans say it is and democrats say it is not. Both have different points that are both true and false. I personally know several people that have benefited in immense ways due to the ACA and I have not been impacted in a negative way at all. I also know people who's premiums went up are lost their plans that they liked that I would term garbage. I'm fairly negative on it since it did nothing to reign in the insurance companies and that's something I feel they are the real issue with the medical system in general.
I still would like to hear the explanation for the conspiracy theory of how limiting or removing money from politics is targeting the GOP's ability to win elections in a way that does not effect all parties.
Not gonna read the whole thread. But id just like to say anyone who thinks we need to spend more on military than the next 48 countries combined is a moron. That is all.
Quote:No "progressive" or anyone has suggested taking land away, but they have suggested taking assets away. You don't seem to see the correlation of what happened in the past and what is proposed today. To "nationalize" or take away the business of oil companies was in fact, <a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/waters.asp'>a goal of one certain "progressive" congresswoman.</a> It came from her own mouth. That's outright stealing through government over reach. Think about how if something like that really happened, how much more the governement would grow and what it would do to the industry.
Yes, progressives DO want to take land. The believe that land is a national resource that should belong to all people. "Land Reform" is a central tenet of the party since the Georgism the 19th century. If it's not outright confiscation then its a Land Value Tax where you either develop your land the way they want or you get forced by taxation to sell. It's also why they've taken millions of acres out of the private sector the last hundred years, because they don't think land should be a private property. Of course Boudreau well be along to tell us it just ain't so, so YMMV.