Subject:
|
Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Apr 2000 20:42:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
445 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> Chris, (from Scott, who should really be working rather than staying on off
> topic) Anyway,
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net>
> To: <lugnet.off-topic.debate@lugnet.com>
> Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2000 10:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close
>
>
> > Hi Scott
>
> Greetings, from left-liberal Ann Arbor,
>
> > > Well, telling which schools to send your kids too is very limiting to
> > > parents,
> >
> > Right, but it's the norm for those who don't want to spend double duty on • their
> > children's education. I'm all in favor of school vouchers (or complete
> > privatization, for that matter). But what are you getting at here?
>
> Hmm.... I am just in support of vouchers, or privatization, that is all.
>
> > Well, it seems like teachers might, and schools, districts, state boards • of
> > education, etc might mandate some things but I doubt you can really make a • case
> > for a clear teaching of some abnormal morality.
>
> Not officially, but knowing what I do know of the education system, My
> fiancess's mom is part of the MEA and the NEA, so I do read their letters
> and the like... and I try really hard not to get mad and throw them away,
> much like the UFCW letter I get because I have to be a part of it, I work in
> Michigan and Meijer.
>
> > regardless if it is
> > > Christian or not. I know many parents at my church who have to deprogram • the
> > > kids from the rot of all the various agendas in the school, self-esteem,
> > > environmentalist wacko programming, etc.
> >
> > Cool, like what and how?
>
> Well, like the debate on what kind of bags, how cars kill the enivronment,
> etc. It is out there, and in some schools.
>
> > I mean, I know that kids end up believing all kinds
> > of things that are wrong about all kinds of issues. Some of those are • going to
> > be political in nature, eco-environmental, etc. Do you have specific • things in
> > mind? I like the long-term substitute biology teacher who told the • students
> > both that turtles shed their shells annually and that things (as in all • thing
> > that can) burn because they contain sugar.
>
> Hmm... see above, but it is out there. And I have encountered many people in
> my various kinds of work that do have to do these kinds of things. I just
> say parents should have a choice. This is one of those reasons.
>
> > > Left-liberals want the government to control many things, such as if I • can
> > > own a gun or not, what cars I can / can't drive, what games I can play • (I.E.
> > > Joesph Liberman, D - Conn?)
> >
> > You know Scott, that when I claim further down that Republicans favor • school
> > prayer, you make a point of saying that those are only some of them. But • here,
> > you claim that liberals (you seem to mean all of them, or liberals in • general)
> > favor game play control based on one man's stance. That's not quite fair • is
> > it?
>
> Well, look at the Democratic party, and look at the positions that they
> offer. I have rarely seen anyleft-liberal come out in favor of any
> conservative position. If there ever is a case for one mind party, they are
> it. Others that don't agree with them, they get kicked out. Most liberals do
> support the majority of this. They look at government as the solution for
> everything. While some conservatives, and the Republican party, do have a
> lot of varied views on things.
>
> Look at the debate Al Gore and Bill Bradley have had on health care. All the
> dividing line was how socialistic they wanted it. Same solution, different
> amounts of money.
>
> > Some schools allow religious student orgs. Also, some ban Christian • groups
> > meeting because they'd be forced to allow (for instance) Satanist student
> > groups too, and they don't even want to go there.
>
> Well, like I said, there should be school chioce, so we can avoid things
> like this.
>
> > > also adovate giving out free condoms and drug needles. Clearly, the
>
> > Excuse me? I would like a reference to your source of information. Can • you
> > actually point to a single public school that gives out free needles to • the
> > student body? Even if you can produce such, does that really suggest to • you
> > that this is a general attitude of public schools? It isn't.
>
> Sorry, I was thinking of something else. Condom distribution is prevelant
> (Beecher high school, Durand high school, Davidson high school (All in Flint
> MI)) The drug needle thing was the government. Ah, same difference. Anyway,
>
> > > government endorses some behavior and condemns others. I don't think
> > > mandatory school prayer is lawful, but a moment of silence (Not every day • in
> > > a class, but as in a assembly) would be OK.
> >
> > Well, I think it would be 'OK' I guess too. But why bother? Why not just • get
> > on to school work?
>
> I was referring to things like assemblies and stuff, but it really doesn't
> matter. The ACLU gets into fits about anything like this, however.
>
> > > > That limits my ability (right?) to send my children to public schools • devoid of
> > > > religious content. So clearly,
> > > > conservatives are, in some measure, anti-freedom.
> > >
> > > That is funny. Conservatives, in general, want the government to get out • of
> > > our lives.
> >
> > Which conservative leaders would you point to for support of that claim? • Why
> > then didn't the federal government shrink ten-fold and get rid of tons of
> > invasive laws when there was a conservative congress?
>
> Well, most do, inacting it is another story. The Republican Congress tried,
> Clinton vetoed most of it, and then the whole government shutdown thing
> (Which, I celebrated it, BTW). They are gun shy, and politically dead. Most
> of it had to deal with Clinton, the Dems in congress, etc. I don't think
> much can be done. I figure the less they do, the better off we are. Can you
> imagine what might of happened if Clinton got a Democratic Congress all
> these years. Stagnation in Washington is good, if it is destructive to the
> people. I figure the only way things will really change id there is a
> massive upheavel or a collapse of some kind.
>
> This is one of the issues I do have with the Libertarian party, I guess. If
> the Republicans got blasted for the miniscule changes they wanted (Remember
> the Medicare 3% increase a year getting to the point of where Republicans
> were being accuse of trying to kill old people?) How on earth can any
> Libertarian run, and not expect to be blasted? There are too many people on
> the government doles that would never vote for a Libertarian, or a
> Republican for that matter.
>
>
> > That's not what I said. I said that conservatives want to impinge on my
> > freedom in different ways. But for the record, I have the leeway to favor • the
> > conservative side of things in our current political climate.
>
> What freedom?
>
> > Well, a quick trip the RNC web site, to correct my misunderstanding and • learn
> > about the 'real' conservative agenda yielded...squat.
>
> Well, I don't know if you know this or not, Chris, but the conservative
> plateform is not exclusively Republican. There is an actual Conservative
> party in some parts. But there is some stuff on there, it should be better
> organized, however.
>
> > They don't say what
> > they're in favor of. All they do is bash Al Gore. Maybe I'll go look for
> > congressional bill records and see what kind of legislation Republican • Senators
> > and Representatives have introduced.
>
> Some have good records, some don't. I think some Republicans should join the
> Democrats and vice versa. But some things are the way they are.
>
> > > As a side issue, Larry, how does the
> > > Libertarian (Should it be capitolized?) party view age laws, such as
> > > drinking, smoking,. etc? How about child pornography? I am curious on • these
> > > issues.
> >
> > Me too. I think the problem is determining when people are old enough to • have
> > full rights of man. And it's kind of impossible to set fair guidlines. • _I_
> > basically think that when someone demonstrates that they understand those
> > rights, by demanding them, they should get them. Some people would do it • at
> > twelve and others would never really do it.
>
> Yes, indeed. My hope would be to have people act in a responsible matter on
> things, and hopefully, things would be better.
>
> > > It depends on what you are looking at, what levels, etc. It is a little • more
> > > complicated than simple science, folks!
> >
> > Well, that's basically what my comment was meant to say to the original
> poster.
>
> Yes.
>
> Scott S.
>
> Scott E. Sanburn
> Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
> LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
> Coming Soon: The Sanburn Systems Company
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
58 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
