Posted on 08/30/2006 8:39:02 PM PDT by Dane
"If you're going to sanction all gays cuz of AIDS, or all teens cuz of pregnancy, then the next step is smokers, and fat people, and anyone doing anything unhealthy."
Er, the Democrats already *have* gone after smokers... havent you noticed?
Our liberal Austin city council is now making bar owners criminals if their patrons light up in their joint.
At least the conservative viewpoint at least relates to individual responsibility, even when it is about 'social issues'.
I do not believe we can have individual freedom without individual responsibility. If you are 'live and let live' but understand that, then Republican party and conservativism can be your home. If you dont agree with individual responsibility and think people should do what they want and *not* bear logical consequences of actions, well, then, that's a different philosophy.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by that.
I'm saying that govt shouldn't "sponsor" any social behavior, good or ill.
May I ask for more clarification?
"However, to claim that the activist homo agenda isn't part of the problem is just delusional.
There, we have to radically disagree.
With vouchers, you can send your kid to a school that promotes, or ignores, the "gay agenda". It's up to the parents. The activists have nothing to do with it. "
WE DONT HAVE VOUCHERS.
The same liberals that are indoctrinating my daughter today, with liberal PC literature, and in many areas (eg Massachusetts and Cali.) direct homosexual agenda agit-prop, are the same forces preventing real school choice and opposing use of taxpayers money for anything except a PC, secularist, liberal education for kids.
"The problem is a political one -- not a social one. The problem is govt managment of schools."
True, but does not refute his point. the "activist homo agenda" is a part of what the NEA touts. The agenda is bad because it is wrapped up in the liberal world-view that has determined that normative and traditional values are wrong and need to be overturned. This is the leftwing cultural-marxist and Gramscian agenda that is part and parcel of the educrats desire to control education.
You can decide to be a non-combatant in the culture war, but you should recognize it is going on.
Which is why I vote R 85% of the time. But the Rs don't like me, and don't want me - as evidenced by my reception here. The Rs are 'politically liberal, socially conservative'. Just about the only thing I still support Prez Bush on is the war. If there were a 'smaller govt' candidate available, I would vote that way instead.
Our liberal Austin city council is now making bar owners criminals if their patrons light up in their joint.
Yeah, exactly. I live in Welles Branch, actually. And my wife is a smoker. The argument the fellow gave was a politically liberal one. That's what I'm trying to say.
P.S. -- go horns!
It sounds as if he is the Republican who lost his mind.
government sponsor immoral behavour all of the time, they do this deliberately through "somehting for nothing" social programs, school curriculums that teach nothing, and by example of unaacountability in there own employees.
for instnace what would happen if tomorrow the fedgov announced that they would stop funding any school that hires NEA union members that have proven not to be able to teach?
Or if fedgov employees were prosecuted for cronyism?
Or there were no direct handouts?
Are you kidding? It has wide popular support. The primary opponents are the Teachers' unions.
It isn't "scrapping" the public school system. It's just changing it to a 'for-profit' basis. The simplest plan in the world -- take the $$$ you would pay per student in an area, and give the parents the voucher to go to any school they want. That school just needs to be accredited.
And the 'publicly funded, privately managed' approach can work for anything we decide should be a public mandate. Even healthcare -- if it is the will of the public to do so. I'm unsure about how I feel about such an idea.
Personally, I don't vote for liberals and won't vote for a liberal GOP.
Um -- if you define politically liberal as 'for a bigger, more intrusive govt' then you HAVE a liberal GOP now.
You mean 'socially' liberal tho, i assume? Are you ok with the current GOP? Which is politically liberal? As long as they're social conservatives?
A once well-paid, now retired racist.
It kinda sounds like we're on the same page, then.
Or do I misunderstand?
more or less, however i do see voluntary religous instruction as a cost effective way to not only teach basic civics but literacy as well.
Something like 70% of african american pregnancies happen out of wedlock for instance and the general literacy rates among high school students is appaling.
So, you approve of NAMBLA? That is a cultural issue... and it is no different than others presented heretofore...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Protecting *what* with govt funding? Please, what do you mean?
Hey, you want legalized drugs, but when some doped up idiot rapes my kid or runs them over with a car, you want to use the law to protect them from me...
The trouble with you liberaltarian CULTURAL MARXISTS is that you want anarchy, but when I am all too willing to give it to you, you pee all over yourselves and run to big nanny government.
If government should stay out of cultural issues, then government should stay completely out, including policing the better ones from killing off the filth... police departments cost too much damned money and I am sick of paying for it...
Not to mention it is contrary to the axiomatic state of mammalian reproductive biology and generates disease...
I suspect the truth is that he switched when he realized that black Alabamans wouldn't vote for a Republican just because he's black. From liberal Dean Esmay's blog regarding the 2004 election:
Now that Barkley's doing more than just talking about running in Alabama, he's gotta cast aside Bush, Rush, and all the other right-of-center things he's said in the past two decades. Bottom line is that Charles is a Schwarzenegger who can dunk. But then again, he's more honest than
As I've mentioned before, George W. Bush spent more time and more money campaigning in black communities and advertising on black radio than any Republican in history--and got compared to a lyncher and the lowest percentage of black voters in decades. You can say all you want about this, that or the other thing in the last few decades that seemed racist, the truth is you can find things just as bad done by Democrats. Fact is Republicans have learned through hard experience that no matter what they say, no matter how much money they spend, black people will not vote for them. So why try?
I've always wanted to tell Charles Barkley to go to hell. Nice to know that unless he repents, he's headed that way.
Didn't Rush pal around with this guy once? I actually remember him back in the day when he played his college BB at Auburn.
Government should stay out of cultural issues? Here is one for you...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1693431/posts
Nambla? Protecting rapists? Anarchy? Libertarian?
Did you hear a word I said?
Political conservative. Social Liberal.
Govt should only make laws keeping from people from hurting each other.
Child sex isn't voluntary. Rapists go to prison (or die, preferably). Rule of law, not anarchy. And not a libertarian by a long shot -- I'm a big advocate of strong laws.
You somehow seem to have completely misunderstood every single thing I stand for.
You're a Republican?
Slavery to you is a social issue???
Somehow, I was under the misunderstanding that slavery was a human rights issue . . .
Silly me!
Go back to Barkley, California, Barkley!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.