I already explained my position on most of this, so I will not repeat myself.

As I noted above, I think that fully 99% of abortions are for the convenience of the mother, and not due to rape or health concerns. I am not worried about your slippery slope. We already went down it.

Dean will not be nominated. That is why it is not necessary to debate the issue. Your points are well taken. Yet, the man has issues. Nevertheless, the point is moot, he will not win the nomination.

Yes, Clinton could have veto'd the spending bills. The number of partisans in the majority was not significant, but the number of conservative Democrats combined with them, who read the anger in the electorate correctly, was overwhelming. Clinton was forced to do it. That is pretty difficult to argue away.

With respect to the other Republican administrations which did not balance the budget, I have no comment other than all of them, except this one and only barely this one, had an opposing congress. Further Keynesian economics always calls for deficit spending in a recession, as was the case at the start of each of those administrations. (shhh! Don't tell anyone but Keynes was a liberal!)(and that was the basis of FDR's New Deal...)

The above paragraph is why many conservatives are a little miffed at the spending of this adminstration and congress. That doesn't mean we want the welfare wagon back, it means we want the Republicans to hold the line much better. Does it mean we want to give up in Iraq? Who loses in that scenario?

TS

 

Don,

In this very thread you have advocated thinking for one's self. I am conservative, but in this very thread I have distanced myself from Goldwater and Wallace, certainly you could understand that somehow I have gotten past the "conservative" label on Mr. Thurmond as well, and should not be required to defend Mr. Thurmond, just because he happens to be conservative, can't you?

Sheesh. I will defend what I say all night long unless I discover an error in my logic or a change in judgement (as I am sure you would). But I should not have to be called on to defend someone I never voted for, never could vote for, and in fact consider to be someone I really do not respect. You are the one who doesn't like labels. This thread started because you wanted to call a truce. Edit:My bad! It was Arrrbilly that wanted to call the truce...

Isn't that mud slinging, to lump me with some southern white trash (who happened to end up as the longest serving Senator in history) who couldn't keep his hands off his maid?

You should consider what I say more thoroughly. You are ranting about topics, infering my support for things I cannot support. When you start being more logical, I will take your positions more seriously.

TS

PS. It is late. I will visit again tomorrow.

 

The most important thing anyone should walk away with is this very simple FACT:

Overspending causes deficits NOT tax cuts…

You want to balance the budget fine, start picking which social programs you want to go or drastically cut. You can not pick the military or the security of the home land since the Constitution address those as a RESPONSIBILITY of the federal government and for the federal government to collect taxes to pay for those necessities…

No where is there anything in the Constitution about the NEW DEAL or any other failed socialist liberal program…

So getting back to the actual FACTS, there would be absolutely NO deficit if we cut or complete rid any expenditure that is for socialist liberal programs.

And the really cool thing is if you did the above we could really have some HUGE tax cuts, balance the budget and have one hell of a military.

You want to blame someone for federal deficits then write to all the socialist liberals you know for they are the REASON we have federal deficits…

 

And yes the economics are that SIMPLE…

 

Because she was also a servant in his household. That was her only job and if she got fired she would be out on the street. Monica Lewinsky was not exactly in the same situation (seeing as her family was wealthy and well connected).

We grew up in very different areas of the country. As I already said, this question came up in my circle of friends when it happened and none of us thought of oral sex as sex. If you had asked that question of me, I would have given the same answer as Clinton. Not because I was trying to deceive anyone, but simply because that was not the case where I grew up.

Selected for a good school? Isn't your school system based on geographic regions?

If you want to improve the schools, then stop bussing students around. How involved will parents be if their kid goes to a school across town because of some idiotic bussing law?

Even the best schools would lose students to religious schools because that is simply what some parents want. I for one do not want my tax dollars going to a religious school. I don't see it as any different than the madrassas in an Islamic country.

Moreover, how can a student going to a school that spends 1 hour every day on religion get the same education as a student going to a secular institution?

We are also not talking about a business here. If a business fails, the employees go to work elsewhere. Are you just going to keep shuttling students around as schools fail?

In order to remain competetive companies cut costs and cut corners. Do you really want that happening with schools? Do you want your kids education being decided by an accountant and not a teacher?

What will you do when public schools fail and private school teachers unionize? Will you abolish unions?

Our schools have real problems and parents that just don't care. Sending them to private schools will only delay the onset of the problem.

Why aren't you doing something about the lousy middle schools? You live in a community. If you don't like the schools, change them. Throw out the principal. Force the bad teachers out. You may not be able to fire them, but you can sure get them to leave.

-Don

 

If public schools were really run like a business there would be a massive business failure among many schools.

No business stays in business that blows money and has nothing to show for. Any one recall the fall of the internet stocks recently.

Public schools need to be completely overhauled and school vouchers are the ticket. Sorry but if I don’t get a choice as to what is taught in public schools ”Jane has two mommies, Bobby has two daddies” then neither do you have a choice as to if your tax money is spent sending a child to a religious school or what ever school the PARENT decides to send their child…

Take about liberals and wanting to control everybody’s life but yet want no one to have a say about what might happen in their life is just unreal, hard for these people to keep their stories straight…

”Don’t tell me what I can and can not do with my body…”
”NO! You can NOT send your kid to a particular school unless I approve”

Sorry but that is completely illogical, so which is it? We can tell others what they can and can not do with their bodies or we can’t?

 

I seem to recall something about a friend of hers quoting her as saying she was going to "blow her way to the top" when she got hired as an intern.

 

I did not ask you to debate the issue. I was curious about your opinions of the man.

If Kerry is caught in an affair then he very well could win the nomination. Moreover I am curious as to what issues you believe the man has?

I can and will argue it. I have seen no spending cuts under the Bush administration. What I have seen are huge spending increases for the military, for prescription drugs and so on.

Pump-priming is just what it sounds like. It is meant to prime the economy for a comeback. Our economy is already on the comeback and yet the Bush budgets show deficits as far out as we can see.

Furthermore, economies do not have the same sort of drastic swings as when Keynes was writing. The federal reserve plays a more active role in stabiliznig the economy and in this case that would have been sufficient on its own to restore the economy. Our economic recovery has been hindered by the war in Iraq and by investor uncertainty as a result of our huge deficits.

I want them to hold the line infinitely better than they are. The prescription drug benefit is a farce that is costing the tax payers millions upon millions of dollars and it was passed by a Republican president and a Republican congress.

-Don

 

Will you feel the same when when your tax dollars are used by Islamic parents to send their kids to a madrassa?

We can't. You are free to send your kid to any school you chose. I'm trying to point out that the problem is not the schools but rather a lack of parental involvement. You are not willing to see that.

-Don

 

She clearly meant she was going to be like a Tornado and sweep through the WhiteHouse. She couldn't possibly have meant oral sex... could she?

-Don

 

Any more than I should have to defend myself because someone chose to label me and Clinton liberals.

I have considered everything you have said and will continue to do so. My comments about Thurmond were not directed at you but made as a general rule that we should stop judging candidates because of something a previous candidate did.

This is exactly the sort of argument being made by a number of the people on this board. They argue that such and such a candidate is unworthy because look at what Clinton did. Or that what Bush did is ok or not so bad because Clinton did it.

My argument has been to forget about the past and debate the issues now.

-Don

 

I'll start here and work down.

My kid's school system is based an a greographic area consisting of the entire county. It is one of those federal gov't things about discrimination, but instead of telling parents where their kids will go to school, the county gives parents a chance to tell them where they want the kids to go. If there is space at the school then they can go there if not then they go to another school.

I have no doubt that some of the students at the better schools would leave, but if you look at the economic ability of the parents of these students most could already afford to send their kids to a private school if they wanted. As far as how a religious school can give a better educaton than a public school. That is an easy question, if they don't provide a good education then they lose students and revenue.

As far as causing the failure of the public schools the only schools that will close will be the ones not doing their jobs. Do you really think the county elected officals will allow the public schools to fail. Once they no longer have the students to keep all of the publis schools open they will make serious changes.

I fyou think our kids education is not decided by an accountant maybe you need to look at the system a little closer. The schools are funded by the governement, if they received all the money they wanted the teacher should not complain. I hear a lot of complaining from the teachers nationwide. I would deduce that somewhere an accountant is telling the school districts that they only have so much money and that is all they have.

Let the teachers unionize. If they form a union in a private school, it is only that school not all of them. If the teachers do the job they are hired to do, I don't care if they are unionized or not. Are you impling they union is the reason for the poor performance of the nations schools? If so then maybe they should not be allowed to unionize at all.

As far as chaning the middle schools. It boils down to one thing you go in say I don't like the middle schools. The board says what grade is you child in. You say first grade. They say what concern is it of yours, come back and talk to us when your child is in middle school. By that time it is way too late.

 

How about I pick the single biggest spending increase passed by the federal government in recent memory: The prescription drug benefit. This was passed by a Republican President and a Republican Congress. You have no one to blame but them.

Tell the people that the TVA was a failure. It wasn't but who cares.

TexasSteve brought up Keynes and economic theory. I will have an economic debate with him any day. I've long since given up on you

How many SSBN's do we really need? How many air superiority fighters do we need to fight against non-existant air forces?

I respect the military and I understand the necessity of military spending. I also realize, however, that 80 billion dollars in Iraq was not money well spent. But that's a moot point now so who really cares?

Like the socialist liberals who passed the prescription drug benefit?

-Don

 

You do realize the most recent air supiority fight we have was built the the 70's with old technology. It is time for an update hence the the FY-22. YOu also realize the projections for the B-52 are that it will be in use until the middle of the century. If you figure it out that'll be about 100 years.

 

Seems like this is the first place to start changes. Tell your elected officials to get rid of these idiotic laws.

I've known plenty of students who went to Catholic schools. They got a lesser education than their friends in public schools but that did not stop their parents from sending them there.

You can already vote out officials that are not willing to change the schools. The question is have you?

So is the solution to spend more money on education?

That isn't how unions work and you know that.

I've already said that we as parents are the one who are ultimately responsible.

Then you need to get rid of that school board.

How are school vouchers going to solve any of the problems in our education system?

If one school earns a reputation for being good then everyone will want to go there. There will not be enough room and people will bitch about how their kid can't go to the "good" school.

The same issue will exist with teachers. Good teachers will fllock to one school and those students who can get in there will get a great education. Those teachers who are good but not necessarily great will all end up in another school and those kids will get a good education but they will be left behind the first school. You have just made the problem worse instead of better.

How will you determine who goes to what school? Will siblings be able to go to the same school or will you have to drop one kid off at one school and another kid off across town at a second school?

Private schools work because the parents care enough about their child's education to be involved in their lives. What will happen when school vouchers allow anyone to attend? Parental involvement as a percentage of school kids will drop and the school will have the same problems as a public school.

Most private schools pay worse than their public school counterparts. What is the incentive to go into teaching if you can not support yourself?

Moreover, as new schools open there will be a shortage of teachers (we already have severe teacher shortages in NYC). Why would you go into teaching if you can't be sure that the school you teach at will be there next year?

If a school starts failing then students will jump ship instead of fixing the problem. Teachers will switch to a better school rather than wait around to lose their job. Instead of fixing a potentially minor problem in this one school, we have introduced serious instability into the system.

You need a way to evaluate the progress of the schools and to set a standard curriculum. This means you still have a beuracracy to deal with.

Everyone acts as if school vouchers solve all the problems and introduce none of their own. The issue just isn't that simple. School vouchers work when you try it out with a few hundred students. Try that in a major school district and there will be a meltdown.

So I ask again, how do school vouchers solve anything? Do we really want Enron like collapses in our education system?

-Don