billvon 3,111 #76 July 21, 2006 >BECAUSE THE COURTS HAVE RULED IN WAYS THAT LEAVE THEM NO CHOICE BILL!!! What are you talking about? Are you saying conservatives have no choice but to sue? If so, you're contradicting the previous poster; you might want to take it up with him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #77 July 21, 2006 Quote>However, I do have a problem with state sponsored teaching of gay > and lesbian life styles and providing ecological indoctronation such > as Captian Planet to forward causes. Teaching ecology is an essential part of teaching biology. Call it Mother Nature if you prefer. Teaching that gay people exist is required if students are to understand political issues like the gay marriage amendment debate (which is a very hot political topic.) Otherwise they will remain ignorant of modern politics. Censoring schools so they conform to a certain set of politics is a dangerous precedent to set. They should teach what's happening in the real world, not what a certain political party would prefer them to believe. >Reading, writing and arithmatic. That is the job of the schools. And science, history and civics. Schools also have a responsibility to turn out students who can get into college (thus the science) and can vote (thus the history and civics.) No problem with whay you have posted here. But that is not what is happening Oh yah, and school censorship is already happening. They just happen to be teaching only the side you agree with"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #78 July 21, 2006 Quote>BECAUSE THE COURTS HAVE RULED IN WAYS THAT LEAVE THEM NO CHOICE BILL!!! What are you talking about? Are you saying conservatives have no choice but to sue? If so, you're contradicting the previous poster; you might want to take it up with him. No, I take issue with your post"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #79 July 21, 2006 QuoteYou are a well educated attorney. Yes I am. Call me "doctor." QuoteDo NOT think that your life experience applies to a ward of the state who has spent his/her entire life in foster homes and is cut loose at the age of 18. I do not think this. Doing family law has actually opened my eyes to how bad this problem is. And yet, when we look at situations like "ward of the state" and realize how common it is, we need to ask, "Why is this such a problem?" Then ask, "Why will this person be unprepared if the state is doing a good job of educating?" QuoteDo NOT think your life experience applies to unmarried ghetto mothers who dropped out of school in 8th grade. My mother graduated high school and was the product of abusive and alcoholic parents. It was my dad who dropped out of the 9th grade in a bad neighborhood. No, my experiences DO NOT match these people. So my childhood had serious issues. Big deal. As children my parents had no choice. As a child, I had no choice. As an adult I had choices. It wasn't until I was 20 that I CHOSE to do things differently. That I CHOSE to get educated. That I CHOSE to find a way to pay for it. QuoteWhile they may be undeserving of your sympathy, their children DO need help from others. I know. Hence the 73 hours of pro bono I've done so far this year. QuoteFailing to educate underprivileged kids is a sure way to perpetuate the problems of our underclass. You cannot educate these kids. I cannot educate these kids. We can advise these kids. We can help these kids. Nightingale said it, "you can lead a mind to knowledge, but you can't make it think!" There is a CHOICE to be educated. Sadly, underprivileged kids don't have the same choices as others. Even more sadly, plenty of kids WITH these privileges do not exercise it. Now, to go back to your original post - how many of these kids that we are talking about now will be expected to vote Red? I have this strange suspicion that most of these "underprivileged" that we are talking about are pretty solidly in the "Blue" voting category. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #80 July 21, 2006 > I agree. I always like to offer help. Typically, it'sin the form of, "Well, here are some possible solutions." On the other hand, there is the ideology out there that says, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It is an inescapable cycle. No matter how you try, they will keep you down. For those of you who are people of color, the system is racist and will discriminate against you and you won't get ahead, (shut up, Asians), so you are out of luck. Especially if you are not a native speaker of English (Asians, I'm warning you). For those of you who grew up poor, you will be kept there by the forces that put you there. You are all disadvantaged. "You blacks, hispanics, etc? You cannot get ahead. Maybe some of the poorer whites can, but not you. You cannot rise to the top of the Joint Chiefs (Powell isn't a REAL black man), or be a Supreme Court Justice (None of you are Thurgood Marshall, and Clarence Thomas is a sell-out)." That is poverty-pimping of the kind I despise. It is patronizing and insulting, arrogant and condescending. The left wing seems to say, "You can't make it, no matter what. I know, because I'm up here." When discussing my background with a lefty, the usual response is, "So you think you are better than them because you've come this far?" My response is, "No. I'm no smarter than them, just more skeptical. My thought is that if I can do it, so can they. I think this because I do not believe that I am any better." This is, I think, the crux of the ideological divide. I don'tthink I'm any better than the kid in the hood, because I WAS a kid in the hood - no better than any of them. I was just more skeptical of what I was told. Even though I was told that all the doors were closed, once I got past the people telling me that, I found out there were no doors to begin with. You ever thought of writing an OP ED for Newsweek / New York Times. I'm sure their circulation would see an increase in readership. I would stop by and drop a few quarters to read your column. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goofyjumper 0 #81 July 21, 2006 Quote However, I do have a problem with state sponsored teaching of gay and lesbian life styles and providing ecological indoctronation such as Captian Planet to forward causes. As long as the money goes to Washington first that will happen. I also would not want this to happen in support of conservative causes. Reading, writing and arithmatic. That is the job of the schools. It is the job of the parents to take care of the rest. I think that this comment is the perfect example of what Kallend was talking about in the beginning of this thread. It is called an ignorant block Like a school is really going to teach gay lifestyles! They teach about life and what it is out there in the real world. You cannot ignore what is going on in the world by not teaching something just because someone else has a problem with it. And I am sorry, but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life, because they are going to teach it their way, hence a continued ignorant cycle.----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #82 July 21, 2006 And I am sorry, but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life, because they are going to teach it their way, hence a continued ignorant cycle.Quote I am sorry but that is one of the scarriest statements and attitudes I have almost ever seen! No insult intended but you want this to be done by a (any) government?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goofyjumper 0 #83 July 21, 2006 QuoteAnd I am sorry, but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life, because they are going to teach it their way, hence a continued ignorant cycle.Quote I am sorry but that is one of the scarriest statements and attitudes I have almost ever seen! No insult intended but you want this to be done by a (any) government? It is scary but it is true! And yes, the government should fund such education programs to teach about both sides of issues. Parents don't always do that due to being biased. And yes I have biase's also, that is why it is important to teach both views and let the children decide.----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #84 July 21, 2006 > but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life . . . True. But depending on schools to do that is far worse. >because they are going to teach it their way . . . That's the definition of being a parent - choosing how to raise your child, then following through. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #85 July 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteAnd I am sorry, but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life, because they are going to teach it their way, hence a continued ignorant cycle.Quote I am sorry but that is one of the scarriest statements and attitudes I have almost ever seen! No insult intended but you want this to be done by a (any) government? It is scary but it is true! And yes, the government should fund such education programs to teach about both sides of issues. Parents don't always do that due to being biased. And yes I have biase's also, that is why it is important to teach both views and let the children decide. I am sorry but I could not disagree more."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #86 July 21, 2006 Quote> but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life . . . True. But depending on schools to do that is far worse. >because they are going to teach it their way . . . That's the definition of being a parent - choosing how to raise your child, then following through. There is no doubt about what parents SHOULD do. The question for society is what to do about the cases where parents don't or can't do it. Do we just abandon the kids to their fate or try to intervene (even if intervention may not be 100% successful)?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #87 July 21, 2006 > Do we just abandon the kids to their fate or try to intervene . . . Teach em english, science, math, history etc and let them form their own opinions on those things (and on life in general.) If that's abandoning them, so be it. You can only do so much. Consider the converse - an educational system that teaches respect for one's parents, respect for traditional families and the government, and warns children against aberrant lifestyles, opposition to the government and useless occupations like artist or english major. Would you be OK with such a social program? Government should set up educational systems to teach children what they need to know to become useful members of society. That's generally objective education rather than values education (beyond "don't hit Jimmy with a bat, that's not allowed" sorts of values.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goofyjumper 0 #88 July 21, 2006 Quote. True. But depending on schools to do that is far worse. That's the definition of being a parent - choosing how to raise your child, then following through. I was not saying depend on the schools to do it. I was saying that we all need outside sources to teach both sides of all issues.----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #89 July 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd I am sorry, but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life, because they are going to teach it their way, hence a continued ignorant cycle.Quote I am sorry but that is one of the scarriest statements and attitudes I have almost ever seen! No insult intended but you want this to be done by a (any) government? It is scary but it is true! And yes, the government should fund such education programs to teach about both sides of issues. Parents don't always do that due to being biased. And yes I have biase's also, that is why it is important to teach both views and let the children decide. I am sorry but I could not disagree more. What do you think is the state's responsibility to orphaned kids who grow up in state run homes? Are there things the state should NOT teach them about?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #90 July 21, 2006 Quote> Teach em english, science, math, history etc and let them form their own opinions on those things (and on life in general.) If that's abandoning them, so be it. You can only do so much. That's the right answer. Good comment. All the value based stuff (and the list from both sides, not just the right wing list you posted) can come from the families. Or not. That's up to the parents when they are younger and will gradually become the individual's responsibility as they grow older. What I see is a bunch of left and right wing busybodies that don't like the parents' behaviors or politics or whatever, and want to "fix" the kids in their own images. It's arrogant. That's wrong. What the parents are doing is typically rather subjective and the kids would be better off without the meddling. (I'm sure someone will OVER escalate this comment to imply criminal behavior - that's just how it works around here.) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #91 July 21, 2006 QuoteQuote> Teach em english, science, math, history etc and let them form their own opinions on those things (and on life in general.) If that's abandoning them, so be it. You can only do so much. That's the right answer. Good comment. All the value based stuff (and the list from both sides, not just the right wing list you posted) can come from the families. Or not. That's up to the parents when they are younger and will gradually become the individual's responsibility as they grow older. What I see is a bunch of left and right wing busybodies that don't like the parents' behaviors or politics or whatever, and want to "fix" the kids in their own images. It's arrogant. That's wrong. What the parents are doing is typically rather subjective and the kids would be better off without the meddling. (I'm sure someone will OVER escalate this comment to imply criminal behavior - that's just how it works around here.) What if there are no parents, or the parents are incapable (heroin addicts.....)? What then?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #92 July 21, 2006 Quote Now, to go back to your original post - how many of these kids that we are talking about now will be expected to vote Red? I have this strange suspicion that most of these "underprivileged" that we are talking about are pretty solidly in the "Blue" voting category. I'm pretty sure they show up in the idiot category - 'I don't vote and I'm proud of it.' Never understands why government doesn't serve their interests. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #93 July 21, 2006 QuoteWhat if there are no parents, or the parents are incapable (heroin addicts.....)? What then? Then you are now moved to short comments based on 'what if' type of scenarios. Smaller segments and special cases.... That's a good place to agree on certain levels of minimum help as long as it's not extensive enough to be damaging to a developing character. I see a great role for volunteer and local organization not so prone to corruption as the larger scale governments. Real simple - person assistance and help is normally positive - like my friend offering to help me up if I fall on the walk to the airplane. Large anonymous aid with huge political and social structure support needed is bad. You aren't giving money and resources, you have to also provide the example. The government won't do that, nor will they facilitate that either. The goal is in direct conflict with what would really help. You volunteer, I respect that sincerity. Some politician wants to set up a blanket program that spans millions of people? I doubt the results and goals and the sincerity of that set up. And seriously question the long term negative impacts on an entire group being 'helped'. JC has already done a good job in the discussion. Even with his extremely privileged background apparently that you assumed. I'll go stand in my corn field now and let all the great ones debate the deep topics that 99% of us can't comprehend. I hope they come up with something good. Like a way to get stuff hot just using cornstalks a match and wood. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #94 July 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd I am sorry, but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life, because they are going to teach it their way, hence a continued ignorant cycle.Quote I am sorry but that is one of the scarriest statements and attitudes I have almost ever seen! No insult intended but you want this to be done by a (any) government? It is scary but it is true! And yes, the government should fund such education programs to teach about both sides of issues. Parents don't always do that due to being biased. And yes I have biase's also, that is why it is important to teach both views and let the children decide. I am sorry but I could not disagree more. What do you think is the state's responsibility to orphaned kids who grow up in state run homes? Are there things the state should NOT teach them about? Yes, there topics that are none of the states business."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #95 July 21, 2006 >What if there are no parents, or the parents are incapable (heroin > addicts.....)? What then? Foster homes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #96 July 21, 2006 QuoteYou volunteer, I respect that sincerity. Some politician wants to set up a blanket program that spans millions of people? I doubt the results and goals and the sincerity of that set up. I think that this is extremely profound. What's the difference in the sincerity between John volunteering his time and a politician trying to help the masses? The difference is overwhelming. John is volunteering HIS time to help people HE chooses to help. The reasons for doing so are HIS reasons, and the benefits that HE receives are HIS OWN, and nobody else's. That is what makes John sincere in his activities - he does them himself. And he does what he can in the best way possible because he takes pride in his abilities and himself. He invests his time for others with the purposes of helping them, which helps him. A politician, on the other hand, volunteers OTHER people's resources to do what THEY think is good for yet another group of people. What is sincere about, "Let's put 120 million into this program." It's not the politican's money - it's the people's money. And when you spend other people's money on other people, what is the sincere interest of the politician? To get votes. Really, to get votes. That is all. The easiest way to keep votes? Sustain poverty. Politicians LOVE poverty. Demagogues LOVE poverty. Poverty gives them a reason to be something, which is why I call them "poverty pimps." People living in poverty are usually less educated. Less educated people are far easier to demagogue than the likes of me, kallend, billvon, etc. Examples? Chairman Mao's revolution was not of the bourgeoisie. Nor was Lenin's, Pol Pot's, etc. Uneducated and poverty stricken people are more likely to call you "Great Leader" or "Dear Leader" and fall into a cult of personality. You won't find wannabe demagogues trolling the halls of business for followers. You can find plenty, ironically, at universities, where people are seeking to open their mind to new thoughts. Typically, however, these demagogues do not last as long, for as the university student continues the education they will see through it. No, typically you find wannabe demagogues trolling the poor and uneducated. The inner cities and ghettos are great places to demagogue (Jesse Jackson). In other rural and uneducated areas, you'll find the ascension of the Tom Meztger's and David Dukes of the world. You'll also find religious demagoguery that focuses on the poor and uneducated, regardless of ethnicity, throughout the country and world. You'll find union bosses doing well in spite of layoffs plaguing their members. You'll even find demagogues like Jim Jones rising in political power and stature in progressive places like San Francisco - that guy could REALLY bring out the vote. Heck, look at the business L. Ron Hubbard has done ever AFTER he took a dirt nap! "You are [poor/disenfranchised/uneducated/victims of "X"/], and will stay poor unless we rise up and demand that something be done about the [poverty/disenfranchisement/racism/oppression/etc." The charismatic leader gains money, power, etc. He does this by taking the immense individual power these people had and putting it into the group dynamic - he alone shall be the controller of this power. Thus, the individual power is pooled into one person, leaving the individuals believing that they are powerless alone. This is a trend you notice in all demagogues, regardless of their ideological labels, is that they ALL gain in power and money - every one of them. Those people to whom they demagogue lose power. This is true across the board. Politicians are expert in this. Throughout the past 40 years, we've have poverty program after poverty program sinking trillions of dollars into the elimination of poverty. And for what? These programs FAILED. Now, those who had power without privilege are left without power and privilege. They believe they are past the point of no return and cannot turn back. Like followers of any demagogue, the followers of the politican, now addicted to programs he empowers, care not that their status has not improved one bit. Instead, they keep on voting for the politicians who keep putting these failed programs in place. The demagogue/politician, having used little to no resources of his own, has a job that never ends - cure poverty,racism,etc. It won't be cured because he won't let it. An ideal scam. Thus, the sincerity of these politicians is NOT the same as the sincerity of John. You know, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet put their money where their mouths are. Not other people's money. Their own. They are sincere. While I am not one who subscribes to conspiracy theories, there must be an understanding among them that the way to maintaining power is to keep the poor and uneducated poor and uneducated. Nothing can fail that badly and still win support unless the populace is uneducated and kept that way. This is true for both sides - one side pimps to the "moral v. immoral" and the other side panders to the "poor and minorities." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #97 July 21, 2006 and it's so easy just a few buzz words just trip a few people's envies and insecurities turn that confused anger into a self righteous snit, and you suddenly have 50% of the populace for it, 50% against it, all of them outraged,.... and 100% of the politicians have something to talk about and gain power with they always make up conflicts to keep the 'rabble' occupied and dependent, but the two you bring up poverty and morality are the big guns used since the beginning and the gullible are not defined by their IQs, only the type of involvement they take on the issues - everybody gets to play, everybody gets to pay (edit: And I'm not completely convinced of the sincerity of many individuals involved in charity - some work in charity for the same reason they watch reality tv, it makes them feel superior...., but I still trust the individuals more than I would of any organization - even with the wrong motivations, the results may actually be good) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Channman 2 #98 July 21, 2006 Damn, this has been a good thread, with some really good comments from all sides. Must add, Lawrocket you need to seriously consider syndication, maybe even a book. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #99 July 21, 2006 and it's so easy just a few buzz words just trip a few people's envies and insecurities turn that confused anger into a self righteous snit, and you suddenly have 50% of the populace for it, 50% against it, all of them outraged,.... and 100% of the politicians have something to talk about and gain power with Quote Wow, I have never seen a better description of a liberal in my life!!Of couse I chose from you post selectively!! Sorry, I could not help myself"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #100 July 21, 2006 >Wow, I have never seen a better description of a liberal in my life!! Now that was funny! And they say people have no sense of humor here . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
goofyjumper 0 #83 July 21, 2006 QuoteAnd I am sorry, but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life, because they are going to teach it their way, hence a continued ignorant cycle.Quote I am sorry but that is one of the scarriest statements and attitudes I have almost ever seen! No insult intended but you want this to be done by a (any) government? It is scary but it is true! And yes, the government should fund such education programs to teach about both sides of issues. Parents don't always do that due to being biased. And yes I have biase's also, that is why it is important to teach both views and let the children decide.----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #84 July 21, 2006 > but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life . . . True. But depending on schools to do that is far worse. >because they are going to teach it their way . . . That's the definition of being a parent - choosing how to raise your child, then following through. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #85 July 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteAnd I am sorry, but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life, because they are going to teach it their way, hence a continued ignorant cycle.Quote I am sorry but that is one of the scarriest statements and attitudes I have almost ever seen! No insult intended but you want this to be done by a (any) government? It is scary but it is true! And yes, the government should fund such education programs to teach about both sides of issues. Parents don't always do that due to being biased. And yes I have biase's also, that is why it is important to teach both views and let the children decide. I am sorry but I could not disagree more."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #86 July 21, 2006 Quote> but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life . . . True. But depending on schools to do that is far worse. >because they are going to teach it their way . . . That's the definition of being a parent - choosing how to raise your child, then following through. There is no doubt about what parents SHOULD do. The question for society is what to do about the cases where parents don't or can't do it. Do we just abandon the kids to their fate or try to intervene (even if intervention may not be 100% successful)?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #87 July 21, 2006 > Do we just abandon the kids to their fate or try to intervene . . . Teach em english, science, math, history etc and let them form their own opinions on those things (and on life in general.) If that's abandoning them, so be it. You can only do so much. Consider the converse - an educational system that teaches respect for one's parents, respect for traditional families and the government, and warns children against aberrant lifestyles, opposition to the government and useless occupations like artist or english major. Would you be OK with such a social program? Government should set up educational systems to teach children what they need to know to become useful members of society. That's generally objective education rather than values education (beyond "don't hit Jimmy with a bat, that's not allowed" sorts of values.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goofyjumper 0 #88 July 21, 2006 Quote. True. But depending on schools to do that is far worse. That's the definition of being a parent - choosing how to raise your child, then following through. I was not saying depend on the schools to do it. I was saying that we all need outside sources to teach both sides of all issues.----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #89 July 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd I am sorry, but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life, because they are going to teach it their way, hence a continued ignorant cycle.Quote I am sorry but that is one of the scarriest statements and attitudes I have almost ever seen! No insult intended but you want this to be done by a (any) government? It is scary but it is true! And yes, the government should fund such education programs to teach about both sides of issues. Parents don't always do that due to being biased. And yes I have biase's also, that is why it is important to teach both views and let the children decide. I am sorry but I could not disagree more. What do you think is the state's responsibility to orphaned kids who grow up in state run homes? Are there things the state should NOT teach them about?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #90 July 21, 2006 Quote> Teach em english, science, math, history etc and let them form their own opinions on those things (and on life in general.) If that's abandoning them, so be it. You can only do so much. That's the right answer. Good comment. All the value based stuff (and the list from both sides, not just the right wing list you posted) can come from the families. Or not. That's up to the parents when they are younger and will gradually become the individual's responsibility as they grow older. What I see is a bunch of left and right wing busybodies that don't like the parents' behaviors or politics or whatever, and want to "fix" the kids in their own images. It's arrogant. That's wrong. What the parents are doing is typically rather subjective and the kids would be better off without the meddling. (I'm sure someone will OVER escalate this comment to imply criminal behavior - that's just how it works around here.) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #91 July 21, 2006 QuoteQuote> Teach em english, science, math, history etc and let them form their own opinions on those things (and on life in general.) If that's abandoning them, so be it. You can only do so much. That's the right answer. Good comment. All the value based stuff (and the list from both sides, not just the right wing list you posted) can come from the families. Or not. That's up to the parents when they are younger and will gradually become the individual's responsibility as they grow older. What I see is a bunch of left and right wing busybodies that don't like the parents' behaviors or politics or whatever, and want to "fix" the kids in their own images. It's arrogant. That's wrong. What the parents are doing is typically rather subjective and the kids would be better off without the meddling. (I'm sure someone will OVER escalate this comment to imply criminal behavior - that's just how it works around here.) What if there are no parents, or the parents are incapable (heroin addicts.....)? What then?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #92 July 21, 2006 Quote Now, to go back to your original post - how many of these kids that we are talking about now will be expected to vote Red? I have this strange suspicion that most of these "underprivileged" that we are talking about are pretty solidly in the "Blue" voting category. I'm pretty sure they show up in the idiot category - 'I don't vote and I'm proud of it.' Never understands why government doesn't serve their interests. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #93 July 21, 2006 QuoteWhat if there are no parents, or the parents are incapable (heroin addicts.....)? What then? Then you are now moved to short comments based on 'what if' type of scenarios. Smaller segments and special cases.... That's a good place to agree on certain levels of minimum help as long as it's not extensive enough to be damaging to a developing character. I see a great role for volunteer and local organization not so prone to corruption as the larger scale governments. Real simple - person assistance and help is normally positive - like my friend offering to help me up if I fall on the walk to the airplane. Large anonymous aid with huge political and social structure support needed is bad. You aren't giving money and resources, you have to also provide the example. The government won't do that, nor will they facilitate that either. The goal is in direct conflict with what would really help. You volunteer, I respect that sincerity. Some politician wants to set up a blanket program that spans millions of people? I doubt the results and goals and the sincerity of that set up. And seriously question the long term negative impacts on an entire group being 'helped'. JC has already done a good job in the discussion. Even with his extremely privileged background apparently that you assumed. I'll go stand in my corn field now and let all the great ones debate the deep topics that 99% of us can't comprehend. I hope they come up with something good. Like a way to get stuff hot just using cornstalks a match and wood. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #94 July 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd I am sorry, but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life, because they are going to teach it their way, hence a continued ignorant cycle.Quote I am sorry but that is one of the scarriest statements and attitudes I have almost ever seen! No insult intended but you want this to be done by a (any) government? It is scary but it is true! And yes, the government should fund such education programs to teach about both sides of issues. Parents don't always do that due to being biased. And yes I have biase's also, that is why it is important to teach both views and let the children decide. I am sorry but I could not disagree more. What do you think is the state's responsibility to orphaned kids who grow up in state run homes? Are there things the state should NOT teach them about? Yes, there topics that are none of the states business."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #95 July 21, 2006 >What if there are no parents, or the parents are incapable (heroin > addicts.....)? What then? Foster homes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #96 July 21, 2006 QuoteYou volunteer, I respect that sincerity. Some politician wants to set up a blanket program that spans millions of people? I doubt the results and goals and the sincerity of that set up. I think that this is extremely profound. What's the difference in the sincerity between John volunteering his time and a politician trying to help the masses? The difference is overwhelming. John is volunteering HIS time to help people HE chooses to help. The reasons for doing so are HIS reasons, and the benefits that HE receives are HIS OWN, and nobody else's. That is what makes John sincere in his activities - he does them himself. And he does what he can in the best way possible because he takes pride in his abilities and himself. He invests his time for others with the purposes of helping them, which helps him. A politician, on the other hand, volunteers OTHER people's resources to do what THEY think is good for yet another group of people. What is sincere about, "Let's put 120 million into this program." It's not the politican's money - it's the people's money. And when you spend other people's money on other people, what is the sincere interest of the politician? To get votes. Really, to get votes. That is all. The easiest way to keep votes? Sustain poverty. Politicians LOVE poverty. Demagogues LOVE poverty. Poverty gives them a reason to be something, which is why I call them "poverty pimps." People living in poverty are usually less educated. Less educated people are far easier to demagogue than the likes of me, kallend, billvon, etc. Examples? Chairman Mao's revolution was not of the bourgeoisie. Nor was Lenin's, Pol Pot's, etc. Uneducated and poverty stricken people are more likely to call you "Great Leader" or "Dear Leader" and fall into a cult of personality. You won't find wannabe demagogues trolling the halls of business for followers. You can find plenty, ironically, at universities, where people are seeking to open their mind to new thoughts. Typically, however, these demagogues do not last as long, for as the university student continues the education they will see through it. No, typically you find wannabe demagogues trolling the poor and uneducated. The inner cities and ghettos are great places to demagogue (Jesse Jackson). In other rural and uneducated areas, you'll find the ascension of the Tom Meztger's and David Dukes of the world. You'll also find religious demagoguery that focuses on the poor and uneducated, regardless of ethnicity, throughout the country and world. You'll find union bosses doing well in spite of layoffs plaguing their members. You'll even find demagogues like Jim Jones rising in political power and stature in progressive places like San Francisco - that guy could REALLY bring out the vote. Heck, look at the business L. Ron Hubbard has done ever AFTER he took a dirt nap! "You are [poor/disenfranchised/uneducated/victims of "X"/], and will stay poor unless we rise up and demand that something be done about the [poverty/disenfranchisement/racism/oppression/etc." The charismatic leader gains money, power, etc. He does this by taking the immense individual power these people had and putting it into the group dynamic - he alone shall be the controller of this power. Thus, the individual power is pooled into one person, leaving the individuals believing that they are powerless alone. This is a trend you notice in all demagogues, regardless of their ideological labels, is that they ALL gain in power and money - every one of them. Those people to whom they demagogue lose power. This is true across the board. Politicians are expert in this. Throughout the past 40 years, we've have poverty program after poverty program sinking trillions of dollars into the elimination of poverty. And for what? These programs FAILED. Now, those who had power without privilege are left without power and privilege. They believe they are past the point of no return and cannot turn back. Like followers of any demagogue, the followers of the politican, now addicted to programs he empowers, care not that their status has not improved one bit. Instead, they keep on voting for the politicians who keep putting these failed programs in place. The demagogue/politician, having used little to no resources of his own, has a job that never ends - cure poverty,racism,etc. It won't be cured because he won't let it. An ideal scam. Thus, the sincerity of these politicians is NOT the same as the sincerity of John. You know, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet put their money where their mouths are. Not other people's money. Their own. They are sincere. While I am not one who subscribes to conspiracy theories, there must be an understanding among them that the way to maintaining power is to keep the poor and uneducated poor and uneducated. Nothing can fail that badly and still win support unless the populace is uneducated and kept that way. This is true for both sides - one side pimps to the "moral v. immoral" and the other side panders to the "poor and minorities." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #97 July 21, 2006 and it's so easy just a few buzz words just trip a few people's envies and insecurities turn that confused anger into a self righteous snit, and you suddenly have 50% of the populace for it, 50% against it, all of them outraged,.... and 100% of the politicians have something to talk about and gain power with they always make up conflicts to keep the 'rabble' occupied and dependent, but the two you bring up poverty and morality are the big guns used since the beginning and the gullible are not defined by their IQs, only the type of involvement they take on the issues - everybody gets to play, everybody gets to pay (edit: And I'm not completely convinced of the sincerity of many individuals involved in charity - some work in charity for the same reason they watch reality tv, it makes them feel superior...., but I still trust the individuals more than I would of any organization - even with the wrong motivations, the results may actually be good) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Channman 2 #98 July 21, 2006 Damn, this has been a good thread, with some really good comments from all sides. Must add, Lawrocket you need to seriously consider syndication, maybe even a book. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #99 July 21, 2006 and it's so easy just a few buzz words just trip a few people's envies and insecurities turn that confused anger into a self righteous snit, and you suddenly have 50% of the populace for it, 50% against it, all of them outraged,.... and 100% of the politicians have something to talk about and gain power with Quote Wow, I have never seen a better description of a liberal in my life!!Of couse I chose from you post selectively!! Sorry, I could not help myself"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #100 July 21, 2006 >Wow, I have never seen a better description of a liberal in my life!! Now that was funny! And they say people have no sense of humor here . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,111 #84 July 21, 2006 > but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life . . . True. But depending on schools to do that is far worse. >because they are going to teach it their way . . . That's the definition of being a parent - choosing how to raise your child, then following through. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #85 July 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteAnd I am sorry, but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life, because they are going to teach it their way, hence a continued ignorant cycle.Quote I am sorry but that is one of the scarriest statements and attitudes I have almost ever seen! No insult intended but you want this to be done by a (any) government? It is scary but it is true! And yes, the government should fund such education programs to teach about both sides of issues. Parents don't always do that due to being biased. And yes I have biase's also, that is why it is important to teach both views and let the children decide. I am sorry but I could not disagree more."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #86 July 21, 2006 Quote> but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life . . . True. But depending on schools to do that is far worse. >because they are going to teach it their way . . . That's the definition of being a parent - choosing how to raise your child, then following through. There is no doubt about what parents SHOULD do. The question for society is what to do about the cases where parents don't or can't do it. Do we just abandon the kids to their fate or try to intervene (even if intervention may not be 100% successful)?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #87 July 21, 2006 > Do we just abandon the kids to their fate or try to intervene . . . Teach em english, science, math, history etc and let them form their own opinions on those things (and on life in general.) If that's abandoning them, so be it. You can only do so much. Consider the converse - an educational system that teaches respect for one's parents, respect for traditional families and the government, and warns children against aberrant lifestyles, opposition to the government and useless occupations like artist or english major. Would you be OK with such a social program? Government should set up educational systems to teach children what they need to know to become useful members of society. That's generally objective education rather than values education (beyond "don't hit Jimmy with a bat, that's not allowed" sorts of values.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goofyjumper 0 #88 July 21, 2006 Quote. True. But depending on schools to do that is far worse. That's the definition of being a parent - choosing how to raise your child, then following through. I was not saying depend on the schools to do it. I was saying that we all need outside sources to teach both sides of all issues.----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #86 July 21, 2006 Quote> but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life . . . True. But depending on schools to do that is far worse. >because they are going to teach it their way . . . That's the definition of being a parent - choosing how to raise your child, then following through. There is no doubt about what parents SHOULD do. The question for society is what to do about the cases where parents don't or can't do it. Do we just abandon the kids to their fate or try to intervene (even if intervention may not be 100% successful)?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #87 July 21, 2006 > Do we just abandon the kids to their fate or try to intervene . . . Teach em english, science, math, history etc and let them form their own opinions on those things (and on life in general.) If that's abandoning them, so be it. You can only do so much. Consider the converse - an educational system that teaches respect for one's parents, respect for traditional families and the government, and warns children against aberrant lifestyles, opposition to the government and useless occupations like artist or english major. Would you be OK with such a social program? Government should set up educational systems to teach children what they need to know to become useful members of society. That's generally objective education rather than values education (beyond "don't hit Jimmy with a bat, that's not allowed" sorts of values.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goofyjumper 0 #88 July 21, 2006 Quote. True. But depending on schools to do that is far worse. That's the definition of being a parent - choosing how to raise your child, then following through. I was not saying depend on the schools to do it. I was saying that we all need outside sources to teach both sides of all issues.----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #89 July 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd I am sorry, but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life, because they are going to teach it their way, hence a continued ignorant cycle.Quote I am sorry but that is one of the scarriest statements and attitudes I have almost ever seen! No insult intended but you want this to be done by a (any) government? It is scary but it is true! And yes, the government should fund such education programs to teach about both sides of issues. Parents don't always do that due to being biased. And yes I have biase's also, that is why it is important to teach both views and let the children decide. I am sorry but I could not disagree more. What do you think is the state's responsibility to orphaned kids who grow up in state run homes? Are there things the state should NOT teach them about?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #90 July 21, 2006 Quote> Teach em english, science, math, history etc and let them form their own opinions on those things (and on life in general.) If that's abandoning them, so be it. You can only do so much. That's the right answer. Good comment. All the value based stuff (and the list from both sides, not just the right wing list you posted) can come from the families. Or not. That's up to the parents when they are younger and will gradually become the individual's responsibility as they grow older. What I see is a bunch of left and right wing busybodies that don't like the parents' behaviors or politics or whatever, and want to "fix" the kids in their own images. It's arrogant. That's wrong. What the parents are doing is typically rather subjective and the kids would be better off without the meddling. (I'm sure someone will OVER escalate this comment to imply criminal behavior - that's just how it works around here.) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #91 July 21, 2006 QuoteQuote> Teach em english, science, math, history etc and let them form their own opinions on those things (and on life in general.) If that's abandoning them, so be it. You can only do so much. That's the right answer. Good comment. All the value based stuff (and the list from both sides, not just the right wing list you posted) can come from the families. Or not. That's up to the parents when they are younger and will gradually become the individual's responsibility as they grow older. What I see is a bunch of left and right wing busybodies that don't like the parents' behaviors or politics or whatever, and want to "fix" the kids in their own images. It's arrogant. That's wrong. What the parents are doing is typically rather subjective and the kids would be better off without the meddling. (I'm sure someone will OVER escalate this comment to imply criminal behavior - that's just how it works around here.) What if there are no parents, or the parents are incapable (heroin addicts.....)? What then?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #92 July 21, 2006 Quote Now, to go back to your original post - how many of these kids that we are talking about now will be expected to vote Red? I have this strange suspicion that most of these "underprivileged" that we are talking about are pretty solidly in the "Blue" voting category. I'm pretty sure they show up in the idiot category - 'I don't vote and I'm proud of it.' Never understands why government doesn't serve their interests. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #93 July 21, 2006 QuoteWhat if there are no parents, or the parents are incapable (heroin addicts.....)? What then? Then you are now moved to short comments based on 'what if' type of scenarios. Smaller segments and special cases.... That's a good place to agree on certain levels of minimum help as long as it's not extensive enough to be damaging to a developing character. I see a great role for volunteer and local organization not so prone to corruption as the larger scale governments. Real simple - person assistance and help is normally positive - like my friend offering to help me up if I fall on the walk to the airplane. Large anonymous aid with huge political and social structure support needed is bad. You aren't giving money and resources, you have to also provide the example. The government won't do that, nor will they facilitate that either. The goal is in direct conflict with what would really help. You volunteer, I respect that sincerity. Some politician wants to set up a blanket program that spans millions of people? I doubt the results and goals and the sincerity of that set up. And seriously question the long term negative impacts on an entire group being 'helped'. JC has already done a good job in the discussion. Even with his extremely privileged background apparently that you assumed. I'll go stand in my corn field now and let all the great ones debate the deep topics that 99% of us can't comprehend. I hope they come up with something good. Like a way to get stuff hot just using cornstalks a match and wood. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #94 July 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd I am sorry, but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life, because they are going to teach it their way, hence a continued ignorant cycle.Quote I am sorry but that is one of the scarriest statements and attitudes I have almost ever seen! No insult intended but you want this to be done by a (any) government? It is scary but it is true! And yes, the government should fund such education programs to teach about both sides of issues. Parents don't always do that due to being biased. And yes I have biase's also, that is why it is important to teach both views and let the children decide. I am sorry but I could not disagree more. What do you think is the state's responsibility to orphaned kids who grow up in state run homes? Are there things the state should NOT teach them about? Yes, there topics that are none of the states business."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #95 July 21, 2006 >What if there are no parents, or the parents are incapable (heroin > addicts.....)? What then? Foster homes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #96 July 21, 2006 QuoteYou volunteer, I respect that sincerity. Some politician wants to set up a blanket program that spans millions of people? I doubt the results and goals and the sincerity of that set up. I think that this is extremely profound. What's the difference in the sincerity between John volunteering his time and a politician trying to help the masses? The difference is overwhelming. John is volunteering HIS time to help people HE chooses to help. The reasons for doing so are HIS reasons, and the benefits that HE receives are HIS OWN, and nobody else's. That is what makes John sincere in his activities - he does them himself. And he does what he can in the best way possible because he takes pride in his abilities and himself. He invests his time for others with the purposes of helping them, which helps him. A politician, on the other hand, volunteers OTHER people's resources to do what THEY think is good for yet another group of people. What is sincere about, "Let's put 120 million into this program." It's not the politican's money - it's the people's money. And when you spend other people's money on other people, what is the sincere interest of the politician? To get votes. Really, to get votes. That is all. The easiest way to keep votes? Sustain poverty. Politicians LOVE poverty. Demagogues LOVE poverty. Poverty gives them a reason to be something, which is why I call them "poverty pimps." People living in poverty are usually less educated. Less educated people are far easier to demagogue than the likes of me, kallend, billvon, etc. Examples? Chairman Mao's revolution was not of the bourgeoisie. Nor was Lenin's, Pol Pot's, etc. Uneducated and poverty stricken people are more likely to call you "Great Leader" or "Dear Leader" and fall into a cult of personality. You won't find wannabe demagogues trolling the halls of business for followers. You can find plenty, ironically, at universities, where people are seeking to open their mind to new thoughts. Typically, however, these demagogues do not last as long, for as the university student continues the education they will see through it. No, typically you find wannabe demagogues trolling the poor and uneducated. The inner cities and ghettos are great places to demagogue (Jesse Jackson). In other rural and uneducated areas, you'll find the ascension of the Tom Meztger's and David Dukes of the world. You'll also find religious demagoguery that focuses on the poor and uneducated, regardless of ethnicity, throughout the country and world. You'll find union bosses doing well in spite of layoffs plaguing their members. You'll even find demagogues like Jim Jones rising in political power and stature in progressive places like San Francisco - that guy could REALLY bring out the vote. Heck, look at the business L. Ron Hubbard has done ever AFTER he took a dirt nap! "You are [poor/disenfranchised/uneducated/victims of "X"/], and will stay poor unless we rise up and demand that something be done about the [poverty/disenfranchisement/racism/oppression/etc." The charismatic leader gains money, power, etc. He does this by taking the immense individual power these people had and putting it into the group dynamic - he alone shall be the controller of this power. Thus, the individual power is pooled into one person, leaving the individuals believing that they are powerless alone. This is a trend you notice in all demagogues, regardless of their ideological labels, is that they ALL gain in power and money - every one of them. Those people to whom they demagogue lose power. This is true across the board. Politicians are expert in this. Throughout the past 40 years, we've have poverty program after poverty program sinking trillions of dollars into the elimination of poverty. And for what? These programs FAILED. Now, those who had power without privilege are left without power and privilege. They believe they are past the point of no return and cannot turn back. Like followers of any demagogue, the followers of the politican, now addicted to programs he empowers, care not that their status has not improved one bit. Instead, they keep on voting for the politicians who keep putting these failed programs in place. The demagogue/politician, having used little to no resources of his own, has a job that never ends - cure poverty,racism,etc. It won't be cured because he won't let it. An ideal scam. Thus, the sincerity of these politicians is NOT the same as the sincerity of John. You know, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet put their money where their mouths are. Not other people's money. Their own. They are sincere. While I am not one who subscribes to conspiracy theories, there must be an understanding among them that the way to maintaining power is to keep the poor and uneducated poor and uneducated. Nothing can fail that badly and still win support unless the populace is uneducated and kept that way. This is true for both sides - one side pimps to the "moral v. immoral" and the other side panders to the "poor and minorities." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #97 July 21, 2006 and it's so easy just a few buzz words just trip a few people's envies and insecurities turn that confused anger into a self righteous snit, and you suddenly have 50% of the populace for it, 50% against it, all of them outraged,.... and 100% of the politicians have something to talk about and gain power with they always make up conflicts to keep the 'rabble' occupied and dependent, but the two you bring up poverty and morality are the big guns used since the beginning and the gullible are not defined by their IQs, only the type of involvement they take on the issues - everybody gets to play, everybody gets to pay (edit: And I'm not completely convinced of the sincerity of many individuals involved in charity - some work in charity for the same reason they watch reality tv, it makes them feel superior...., but I still trust the individuals more than I would of any organization - even with the wrong motivations, the results may actually be good) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Channman 2 #98 July 21, 2006 Damn, this has been a good thread, with some really good comments from all sides. Must add, Lawrocket you need to seriously consider syndication, maybe even a book. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #99 July 21, 2006 and it's so easy just a few buzz words just trip a few people's envies and insecurities turn that confused anger into a self righteous snit, and you suddenly have 50% of the populace for it, 50% against it, all of them outraged,.... and 100% of the politicians have something to talk about and gain power with Quote Wow, I have never seen a better description of a liberal in my life!!Of couse I chose from you post selectively!! Sorry, I could not help myself"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #100 July 21, 2006 >Wow, I have never seen a better description of a liberal in my life!! Now that was funny! And they say people have no sense of humor here . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rehmwa 2 #90 July 21, 2006 Quote> Teach em english, science, math, history etc and let them form their own opinions on those things (and on life in general.) If that's abandoning them, so be it. You can only do so much. That's the right answer. Good comment. All the value based stuff (and the list from both sides, not just the right wing list you posted) can come from the families. Or not. That's up to the parents when they are younger and will gradually become the individual's responsibility as they grow older. What I see is a bunch of left and right wing busybodies that don't like the parents' behaviors or politics or whatever, and want to "fix" the kids in their own images. It's arrogant. That's wrong. What the parents are doing is typically rather subjective and the kids would be better off without the meddling. (I'm sure someone will OVER escalate this comment to imply criminal behavior - that's just how it works around here.) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #91 July 21, 2006 QuoteQuote> Teach em english, science, math, history etc and let them form their own opinions on those things (and on life in general.) If that's abandoning them, so be it. You can only do so much. That's the right answer. Good comment. All the value based stuff (and the list from both sides, not just the right wing list you posted) can come from the families. Or not. That's up to the parents when they are younger and will gradually become the individual's responsibility as they grow older. What I see is a bunch of left and right wing busybodies that don't like the parents' behaviors or politics or whatever, and want to "fix" the kids in their own images. It's arrogant. That's wrong. What the parents are doing is typically rather subjective and the kids would be better off without the meddling. (I'm sure someone will OVER escalate this comment to imply criminal behavior - that's just how it works around here.) What if there are no parents, or the parents are incapable (heroin addicts.....)? What then?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #92 July 21, 2006 Quote Now, to go back to your original post - how many of these kids that we are talking about now will be expected to vote Red? I have this strange suspicion that most of these "underprivileged" that we are talking about are pretty solidly in the "Blue" voting category. I'm pretty sure they show up in the idiot category - 'I don't vote and I'm proud of it.' Never understands why government doesn't serve their interests. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #93 July 21, 2006 QuoteWhat if there are no parents, or the parents are incapable (heroin addicts.....)? What then? Then you are now moved to short comments based on 'what if' type of scenarios. Smaller segments and special cases.... That's a good place to agree on certain levels of minimum help as long as it's not extensive enough to be damaging to a developing character. I see a great role for volunteer and local organization not so prone to corruption as the larger scale governments. Real simple - person assistance and help is normally positive - like my friend offering to help me up if I fall on the walk to the airplane. Large anonymous aid with huge political and social structure support needed is bad. You aren't giving money and resources, you have to also provide the example. The government won't do that, nor will they facilitate that either. The goal is in direct conflict with what would really help. You volunteer, I respect that sincerity. Some politician wants to set up a blanket program that spans millions of people? I doubt the results and goals and the sincerity of that set up. And seriously question the long term negative impacts on an entire group being 'helped'. JC has already done a good job in the discussion. Even with his extremely privileged background apparently that you assumed. I'll go stand in my corn field now and let all the great ones debate the deep topics that 99% of us can't comprehend. I hope they come up with something good. Like a way to get stuff hot just using cornstalks a match and wood. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #94 July 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd I am sorry, but you cannot depend on parents alone to teach children about life, because they are going to teach it their way, hence a continued ignorant cycle.Quote I am sorry but that is one of the scarriest statements and attitudes I have almost ever seen! No insult intended but you want this to be done by a (any) government? It is scary but it is true! And yes, the government should fund such education programs to teach about both sides of issues. Parents don't always do that due to being biased. And yes I have biase's also, that is why it is important to teach both views and let the children decide. I am sorry but I could not disagree more. What do you think is the state's responsibility to orphaned kids who grow up in state run homes? Are there things the state should NOT teach them about? Yes, there topics that are none of the states business."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #95 July 21, 2006 >What if there are no parents, or the parents are incapable (heroin > addicts.....)? What then? Foster homes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #96 July 21, 2006 QuoteYou volunteer, I respect that sincerity. Some politician wants to set up a blanket program that spans millions of people? I doubt the results and goals and the sincerity of that set up. I think that this is extremely profound. What's the difference in the sincerity between John volunteering his time and a politician trying to help the masses? The difference is overwhelming. John is volunteering HIS time to help people HE chooses to help. The reasons for doing so are HIS reasons, and the benefits that HE receives are HIS OWN, and nobody else's. That is what makes John sincere in his activities - he does them himself. And he does what he can in the best way possible because he takes pride in his abilities and himself. He invests his time for others with the purposes of helping them, which helps him. A politician, on the other hand, volunteers OTHER people's resources to do what THEY think is good for yet another group of people. What is sincere about, "Let's put 120 million into this program." It's not the politican's money - it's the people's money. And when you spend other people's money on other people, what is the sincere interest of the politician? To get votes. Really, to get votes. That is all. The easiest way to keep votes? Sustain poverty. Politicians LOVE poverty. Demagogues LOVE poverty. Poverty gives them a reason to be something, which is why I call them "poverty pimps." People living in poverty are usually less educated. Less educated people are far easier to demagogue than the likes of me, kallend, billvon, etc. Examples? Chairman Mao's revolution was not of the bourgeoisie. Nor was Lenin's, Pol Pot's, etc. Uneducated and poverty stricken people are more likely to call you "Great Leader" or "Dear Leader" and fall into a cult of personality. You won't find wannabe demagogues trolling the halls of business for followers. You can find plenty, ironically, at universities, where people are seeking to open their mind to new thoughts. Typically, however, these demagogues do not last as long, for as the university student continues the education they will see through it. No, typically you find wannabe demagogues trolling the poor and uneducated. The inner cities and ghettos are great places to demagogue (Jesse Jackson). In other rural and uneducated areas, you'll find the ascension of the Tom Meztger's and David Dukes of the world. You'll also find religious demagoguery that focuses on the poor and uneducated, regardless of ethnicity, throughout the country and world. You'll find union bosses doing well in spite of layoffs plaguing their members. You'll even find demagogues like Jim Jones rising in political power and stature in progressive places like San Francisco - that guy could REALLY bring out the vote. Heck, look at the business L. Ron Hubbard has done ever AFTER he took a dirt nap! "You are [poor/disenfranchised/uneducated/victims of "X"/], and will stay poor unless we rise up and demand that something be done about the [poverty/disenfranchisement/racism/oppression/etc." The charismatic leader gains money, power, etc. He does this by taking the immense individual power these people had and putting it into the group dynamic - he alone shall be the controller of this power. Thus, the individual power is pooled into one person, leaving the individuals believing that they are powerless alone. This is a trend you notice in all demagogues, regardless of their ideological labels, is that they ALL gain in power and money - every one of them. Those people to whom they demagogue lose power. This is true across the board. Politicians are expert in this. Throughout the past 40 years, we've have poverty program after poverty program sinking trillions of dollars into the elimination of poverty. And for what? These programs FAILED. Now, those who had power without privilege are left without power and privilege. They believe they are past the point of no return and cannot turn back. Like followers of any demagogue, the followers of the politican, now addicted to programs he empowers, care not that their status has not improved one bit. Instead, they keep on voting for the politicians who keep putting these failed programs in place. The demagogue/politician, having used little to no resources of his own, has a job that never ends - cure poverty,racism,etc. It won't be cured because he won't let it. An ideal scam. Thus, the sincerity of these politicians is NOT the same as the sincerity of John. You know, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet put their money where their mouths are. Not other people's money. Their own. They are sincere. While I am not one who subscribes to conspiracy theories, there must be an understanding among them that the way to maintaining power is to keep the poor and uneducated poor and uneducated. Nothing can fail that badly and still win support unless the populace is uneducated and kept that way. This is true for both sides - one side pimps to the "moral v. immoral" and the other side panders to the "poor and minorities." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #97 July 21, 2006 and it's so easy just a few buzz words just trip a few people's envies and insecurities turn that confused anger into a self righteous snit, and you suddenly have 50% of the populace for it, 50% against it, all of them outraged,.... and 100% of the politicians have something to talk about and gain power with they always make up conflicts to keep the 'rabble' occupied and dependent, but the two you bring up poverty and morality are the big guns used since the beginning and the gullible are not defined by their IQs, only the type of involvement they take on the issues - everybody gets to play, everybody gets to pay (edit: And I'm not completely convinced of the sincerity of many individuals involved in charity - some work in charity for the same reason they watch reality tv, it makes them feel superior...., but I still trust the individuals more than I would of any organization - even with the wrong motivations, the results may actually be good) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Channman 2 #98 July 21, 2006 Damn, this has been a good thread, with some really good comments from all sides. Must add, Lawrocket you need to seriously consider syndication, maybe even a book. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #99 July 21, 2006 and it's so easy just a few buzz words just trip a few people's envies and insecurities turn that confused anger into a self righteous snit, and you suddenly have 50% of the populace for it, 50% against it, all of them outraged,.... and 100% of the politicians have something to talk about and gain power with Quote Wow, I have never seen a better description of a liberal in my life!!Of couse I chose from you post selectively!! Sorry, I could not help myself"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #100 July 21, 2006 >Wow, I have never seen a better description of a liberal in my life!! Now that was funny! And they say people have no sense of humor here . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,111 #95 July 21, 2006 >What if there are no parents, or the parents are incapable (heroin > addicts.....)? What then? Foster homes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #96 July 21, 2006 QuoteYou volunteer, I respect that sincerity. Some politician wants to set up a blanket program that spans millions of people? I doubt the results and goals and the sincerity of that set up. I think that this is extremely profound. What's the difference in the sincerity between John volunteering his time and a politician trying to help the masses? The difference is overwhelming. John is volunteering HIS time to help people HE chooses to help. The reasons for doing so are HIS reasons, and the benefits that HE receives are HIS OWN, and nobody else's. That is what makes John sincere in his activities - he does them himself. And he does what he can in the best way possible because he takes pride in his abilities and himself. He invests his time for others with the purposes of helping them, which helps him. A politician, on the other hand, volunteers OTHER people's resources to do what THEY think is good for yet another group of people. What is sincere about, "Let's put 120 million into this program." It's not the politican's money - it's the people's money. And when you spend other people's money on other people, what is the sincere interest of the politician? To get votes. Really, to get votes. That is all. The easiest way to keep votes? Sustain poverty. Politicians LOVE poverty. Demagogues LOVE poverty. Poverty gives them a reason to be something, which is why I call them "poverty pimps." People living in poverty are usually less educated. Less educated people are far easier to demagogue than the likes of me, kallend, billvon, etc. Examples? Chairman Mao's revolution was not of the bourgeoisie. Nor was Lenin's, Pol Pot's, etc. Uneducated and poverty stricken people are more likely to call you "Great Leader" or "Dear Leader" and fall into a cult of personality. You won't find wannabe demagogues trolling the halls of business for followers. You can find plenty, ironically, at universities, where people are seeking to open their mind to new thoughts. Typically, however, these demagogues do not last as long, for as the university student continues the education they will see through it. No, typically you find wannabe demagogues trolling the poor and uneducated. The inner cities and ghettos are great places to demagogue (Jesse Jackson). In other rural and uneducated areas, you'll find the ascension of the Tom Meztger's and David Dukes of the world. You'll also find religious demagoguery that focuses on the poor and uneducated, regardless of ethnicity, throughout the country and world. You'll find union bosses doing well in spite of layoffs plaguing their members. You'll even find demagogues like Jim Jones rising in political power and stature in progressive places like San Francisco - that guy could REALLY bring out the vote. Heck, look at the business L. Ron Hubbard has done ever AFTER he took a dirt nap! "You are [poor/disenfranchised/uneducated/victims of "X"/], and will stay poor unless we rise up and demand that something be done about the [poverty/disenfranchisement/racism/oppression/etc." The charismatic leader gains money, power, etc. He does this by taking the immense individual power these people had and putting it into the group dynamic - he alone shall be the controller of this power. Thus, the individual power is pooled into one person, leaving the individuals believing that they are powerless alone. This is a trend you notice in all demagogues, regardless of their ideological labels, is that they ALL gain in power and money - every one of them. Those people to whom they demagogue lose power. This is true across the board. Politicians are expert in this. Throughout the past 40 years, we've have poverty program after poverty program sinking trillions of dollars into the elimination of poverty. And for what? These programs FAILED. Now, those who had power without privilege are left without power and privilege. They believe they are past the point of no return and cannot turn back. Like followers of any demagogue, the followers of the politican, now addicted to programs he empowers, care not that their status has not improved one bit. Instead, they keep on voting for the politicians who keep putting these failed programs in place. The demagogue/politician, having used little to no resources of his own, has a job that never ends - cure poverty,racism,etc. It won't be cured because he won't let it. An ideal scam. Thus, the sincerity of these politicians is NOT the same as the sincerity of John. You know, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet put their money where their mouths are. Not other people's money. Their own. They are sincere. While I am not one who subscribes to conspiracy theories, there must be an understanding among them that the way to maintaining power is to keep the poor and uneducated poor and uneducated. Nothing can fail that badly and still win support unless the populace is uneducated and kept that way. This is true for both sides - one side pimps to the "moral v. immoral" and the other side panders to the "poor and minorities." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #97 July 21, 2006 and it's so easy just a few buzz words just trip a few people's envies and insecurities turn that confused anger into a self righteous snit, and you suddenly have 50% of the populace for it, 50% against it, all of them outraged,.... and 100% of the politicians have something to talk about and gain power with they always make up conflicts to keep the 'rabble' occupied and dependent, but the two you bring up poverty and morality are the big guns used since the beginning and the gullible are not defined by their IQs, only the type of involvement they take on the issues - everybody gets to play, everybody gets to pay (edit: And I'm not completely convinced of the sincerity of many individuals involved in charity - some work in charity for the same reason they watch reality tv, it makes them feel superior...., but I still trust the individuals more than I would of any organization - even with the wrong motivations, the results may actually be good) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #98 July 21, 2006 Damn, this has been a good thread, with some really good comments from all sides. Must add, Lawrocket you need to seriously consider syndication, maybe even a book. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #99 July 21, 2006 and it's so easy just a few buzz words just trip a few people's envies and insecurities turn that confused anger into a self righteous snit, and you suddenly have 50% of the populace for it, 50% against it, all of them outraged,.... and 100% of the politicians have something to talk about and gain power with Quote Wow, I have never seen a better description of a liberal in my life!!Of couse I chose from you post selectively!! Sorry, I could not help myself"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #100 July 21, 2006 >Wow, I have never seen a better description of a liberal in my life!! Now that was funny! And they say people have no sense of humor here . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 3,111 #100 July 21, 2006 >Wow, I have never seen a better description of a liberal in my life!! Now that was funny! And they say people have no sense of humor here . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
