billvon 2,476 #26 December 18, 2003 >As perhaps you may recall, he was impeached, just not convicted >and removed from office. Agreed. Which is like saying you were indicted for robbery but found not guilty. I suppose someone who _really_ wanted to smear you could go around saying "He was indicted for robbery, the evil thief!" but I think most people place more credence in the verdict than in the fact there was a trial. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #27 December 18, 2003 QuoteAs perhaps you may recall, he was impeached, just not convicted and removed from office. The impeachment did not fail, it still remains his legacy. And Kallend, I never mentioned Whitewater. That was your assumption. Like I can assume that you are a socialist who despises our country and wants to see it fail. But that would be just an assumption. Chris I am probably a more devout capitalist than you. Anti-Bush does not mean "Socialist", a fact that some who think the Sun shines from his rear end find it hard to accept.... 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
FallRate 0 #28 December 18, 2003 And one more fraction of an IQ point lost forever. FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #29 December 19, 2003 QuoteNaa... in a vacuum, he'd blow! Nah he is WAY too tight assed to blow. even in a SUPERB FIELD of ANAL RETENTIVE cohorts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #30 December 19, 2003 Quote Anti-Bush does not mean "Socialist", a fact that some who think the Sun shines from his rear end find it hard to accept. Well Duh! It was the same with the Clintonese People. The guy could do no wrong in the left's eyes. I support Bush, I do not think EVERYTHING he does is right, but I think that it is the best that anyone in his position can do with the restrictions that are put on him. It is so easy to sit back and be an armchair politician. When it comes down to it, the guy is doing a good job. He's doing the job better than any one of the potential Democratic choices for the up coming election could. And as far as the "socialist" part of the reply . . . Did I not read earlier that you were in favor of Socialized medicine? I think so, but not 100% on that one.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #31 December 19, 2003 QuoteQuote Anti-Bush does not mean "Socialist", a fact that some who think the Sun shines from his rear end find it hard to accept. Well Duh! It was the same with the Clintonese People. The guy could do no wrong in the left's eyes. I support Bush, I do not think EVERYTHING he does is right, but I think that it is the best that anyone in his position can do with the restrictions that are put on him. It is so easy to sit back and be an armchair politician. When it comes down to it, the guy is doing a good job. He's doing the job better than any one of the potential Democratic choices for the up coming election could. And as far as the "socialist" part of the reply . . . Did I not read earlier that you were in favor of Socialized medicine? I think so, but not 100% on that one. I did make the factual statement that the poorest people in Canada and the UK get better medical treatment than the poorest people in the USA. Does telling the truth make me a socialist? Do you believe in public schools and public colleges? How about public fire and police departments? Have you ever driven on a freeway? All of those are "socialist" in the literal sense.... 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
Kennedy 0 #32 December 19, 2003 QuoteThis is a victory for freedom. Now, if we can get the far right with the blinders on to get OFF of the Pledge of Alleigance and restore it to the original, pre-1954, version. One of the freedoms upon which this country was founded was the freedom not just OF religion, but also FROM religion. Remove the phrase "under God" from our Pledge. Show me where that one appears in the constitution, princess. Is there an amendment that contains the phrase separation of church and state? Funny, I thought the first amendment included the phrase Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Explain to me how prohibiting prayer in schools is not prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Quote Yes, I digressed a bit, but it's related to the whole Constitution and Bill of Rights debate. We must be vigilant forever to protect the contents from those who would disembowel it and sew it up to meet their own views. Tell that to the gun controllers in the crowd, princess.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #33 December 19, 2003 QuoteDo you believe in public schools and public colleges? How about public fire and police departments? Have you ever driven on a freeway? All of those are "socialist" in the literal sense. Anyone who "believes" in public education has probably gone through it and is thus incapable of realizing how terrible a failure it is. A dept of education is not a terrible idea, but American public education is. Yeah, we've all seen how the Interstate system is a great success. [wait for it, here somes someone saying it connects America] It connects me to the other side of the city, too. You want to know how long it took me to travel 20 miles in the DC area? How about NYC? LA? Public Ed and US roads are socialist, and they are, on the whole, failures. Police and Fire departments are not socialized. We don't have a federal police force. We have city, county and states police forces. But at the national level (at least until recently) we had investigators and accountants, not cops and swat teams.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #34 December 19, 2003 QuoteQuoteDo you believe in public schools and public colleges? How about public fire and police departments? Have you ever driven on a freeway? All of those are "socialist" in the literal sense. Anyone who "believes" in public education has probably gone through it and is thus incapable of realizing how terrible a failure it is. A dept of education is not a terrible idea, but American public education is. Let me take this a step further. Why is it I have to pay for other people's kid's educations? I don't have any kids. When and if I do...what if I decide to send my kids to a private school? Will I not still be taxed for other people's kid's educations?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #35 December 19, 2003 Maybe you are forgetting the little fact that he lied under oath. A president's oath is to protect the constitution and the laws of the country. Or do they raise the hand and say to "protect my own interests above all"?"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #36 December 19, 2003 Quote Let me take this a step further. Why is it I have to pay for other people's kid's educations? I don't have any kids. When and if I do...what if I decide to send my kids to a private school? Will I not still be taxed for other people's kid's educations? Quit being so unAmerican! Heh, i was just speaking to my Aunt the other day. She is a teacher in a small town in Colorado.(public school) 3rd 4th and 5th grade. I was interested to see just how much was being spent for the childrens education. She said thier budget was somewhere around 650 thousand Dollars this year. Which would be a surplus. and in order to keep that budget for the next year, and get the annual increase, they would have to spend at least that if not a bit more. Ok, so i asked her this: What is the school like? She said it was great. I asked her why she wouldn't elaborate. She said that she didn't feel comfortable. Why? She told me that EVERY kid in that school was getting a brand new LAPTOP from Dell. I was amazed. I said that must take up all the surplus she was worried about. She said no, that was what we ordered last year before the budget increase. OK, so I'm a little amazed at this point. How many students do you have? I was thinking somewhere around 200 which would give the school about 3250 dollars per student for teaching them. At 20 per class that is 65000 thousand dollars per class. The teacher and the staff take up a substantial part of that, up keep and so on. Not like its a HUGE school. with only 200 kids in it. (My daughter goes to a school with about 275 I think. The teacher has a computer and there is a computer lab with 15 or twenty computers.) She said 26. Now why are my tax dollars going to that? What Federal Funding does that school really need?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #37 December 19, 2003 Quote>As perhaps you may recall, he was impeached, just not convicted >and removed from office. Agreed. Which is like saying you were indicted for robbery but found not guilty. I suppose someone who _really_ wanted to smear you could go around saying "He was indicted for robbery, the evil thief!" but I think most people place more credence in the verdict than in the fact there was a trial. Like in OJ's case.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salamander 0 #38 December 19, 2003 QuoteWhy is it I have to pay for other people's kid's educations? I don't have any kids. Have you ever needed the service of a doctor, lawyer, engineer... etc??? I only ask because without any public funding I highly doubt you would ever have an educated class numerous enough to provide needed services. Do you really think that enough people can afford the price tag of a GOOD COMPLETE education on their own? Perhaps you wouldn't mind having to recruit thousands upon thousands of the professionals from around the world to fill your deficit. Quotejuanesky wrote: Yep, just as fair as it is in Canada to pay 50% of your income, and live in the prospect of having your nation torn apart by the french and anglo speaking people, while accepting widespread terrorist immigration. Are you trying to insult Canada here? Implying a more socialist country has failed the people that pay the taxes. An implication using a painfully ignorant statement regarding terrorist ranks in Canada holds no ground. Also, using a seperatist argument here is extremely rude. When you understand the complexities surrounding that issue it will make sense to you how that was inexcusably arrogant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salamander 0 #39 December 19, 2003 QuoteQuotePolice and Fire departments are not socialized. We don't have a federal police force. We have city, county and states police forces. But at the national level (at least until recently) we had investigators and accountants, not cops and swat teams. Police and fire departments funded and administered by the municipal or state governments are by definition socialist. Federal governments do not need to be involved for something to be social. I may be wrong... but by definition (ie. out of a dictionary), socialism is any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration. No reference to federal government. In the spirit of curiosity (not trying to take the thread in a new direction)... What is this general feeling of fear I seem to find surrounding the word socialism? Is it the definition, the historical references, the underlying ideology???? Any insight would be nice. Maybe I am just imagining things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites downwardspiral 0 #40 December 19, 2003 QuoteQuoteWhy is it I have to pay for other people's kid's educations? I don't have any kids. Have you ever needed the service of a doctor, lawyer, engineer... etc??? I only ask because without any public funding I highly doubt you would ever have an educated class numerous enough to provide needed services. Do you really think that enough people can afford the price tag of a GOOD COMPLETE education on their own? Perhaps you wouldn't mind having to recruit thousands upon thousands of the professionals from around the world to fill your deficit Are saying that if the government doesn't educate us than we won't be educated? I'm sorry but capitalism doesn't work that way. Government is not necessary to make things happen.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites downwardspiral 0 #41 December 19, 2003 QuoteIn the spirit of curiosity (not trying to take the thread in a new direction)... What is this general feeling of fear I seem to find surrounding the word socialism? Is it the definition, the historical references, the underlying ideology???? Any insight would be nice. Maybe I am just imagining things. I am libertarian. We believe the smaller the government the better. Why? Because the government does a mediocre job at best. At least the American government does. I can't speak for any other countries since I have only ever lived in the U.S. Besides, those of us that are anti-socialists tend to lean more to the right. The leftists are for socialization.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Salamander 0 #42 December 19, 2003 Quote Are saying that if the government doesn't educate us than we won't be educated? I'm sorry but capitalism doesn't work that way. Government is not necessary to make things happen. No, not at all. I am just saying that any developed nation requires a large pool of professionals that require a vast amount of education. This education is definitely not cheap. How many people would not be able to pay for a complete education without government intervention? Will an entity ensure the shortfall is controlled? Will educational instituations provide reasonably priced education? Will that education be to the quality the world demands? Are any of those losses acceptable? If so, my argument fails. Also, lets examine the benefit to society of any individual. Those whose contributions to society are far greater than the menial paycheck they receive are benefiting your society (yes, it is more complicated than that). You must admit that you need these people. Why then, should you not be responsible for ensuring that they are provided the resources they need now, so that they will be able to meet your needs in the future? After all... don't you benefit in the end? I would say the benefit/cost analysis is pretty straight forward - even without throwing buzz phrases like sustainable development (yes it is not just environmental) into the equation. Although - I would be of the youth... of the class that could have never paid the full 100% of my B.Sc and therefore, might very well be biased. Sorry about that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Salamander 0 #43 December 19, 2003 Quote I am libertarian. We believe the smaller the government the better. Why? Because the government does a mediocre job at best. At least the American government does. I can't speak for any other countries since I have only ever lived in the U.S. Besides, those of us that are anti-socialists tend to lean more to the right. The leftists are for socialization. I am aware of the political spectrum and all the various theories you mention here. Where my issue lies is at the heart of the rigidity of one's stance on that spectrum. To stand to the right is fine, I don't really care what side of the spectrum you would rather associate yourself. However, not accepting that a social approach to a problem may provide a very concrete solution is dangerous. I am not trying to make an argument that socialism is better or worse. I just don't understand, or perhaps condone, the need to discredit a possible solution because of the political theory associated with it. It seems to border on negligence to me. This topic is taking away from the initial intent of the thread. If you would like to continue... I am be happy to entertain any PM's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jaaska 0 #44 December 19, 2003 Quote Anyone who "believes" in public education has probably gone through it and is thus incapable of realizing how terrible a failure it is. A dept of education is not a terrible idea, but American public education is. Yeah, we've all seen how the Interstate system is a great success. [wait for it, here somes someone saying it connects America] It connects me to the other side of the city, too. You want to know how long it took me to travel 20 miles in the DC area? How about NYC? LA? Public Ed and US roads are socialist, and they are, on the whole, failures. Police and Fire departments are not socialized. We don't have a federal police force. We have city, county and states police forces. But at the national level (at least until recently) we had investigators and accountants, not cops and swat teams. Finland is not capitalistic nor far-socialistic country (government does not own everything here). There are no private schools in the same sense that over there or in some central-European countries. Still the public school system of Finland is pretty efficient. According to a European survey, the best in EU. All education is free (all the way to Ph.D level - in fact the government pays "students fees" for the full-day students). Also, the level of teaching is very good from the primary school levels to higher education. I found statistics that USA spends around 14,5 per cent in education. Finland uses actually a bit less! (14.1 or so). USA spends around 15 per cent in the health care. According to World Bank (pretty capitalistic source ), the health care in US is one of the most inefficient in all industrialized countries. Finland spends around 8 per cent and yes, Finland has a public health insurance sceme - and it covers everything (so one does not have to worry about not getting treatment, because it's excluded from the insurance). Of course all this means that taxes are (too) high, but it does not mean Finland is not doing well in the global market: "United States in Second Place Behind Finland in Global Competitiveness Report" http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/United+States+in+Second+Place+Behind+Finland+in+Global+Competitiveness+Report If "public something" something does not work, the reason is not necessarely that "it can not work" - it might mean also that it is just "not too well set up" and/or "badly run". Then again, I'm comparing two nations, the other one having 5 million people, the other one over 50 times that. One could argue that I'm talking about apples and oranges... Oh, there are a lot of things to fix here in Finland (IMHO), so I'm not trying to say Finland is a heaven - far from it. There are numerous things that are done better e.g. over there in US. The point of this post was about capitalistic/socialistic ideas and about the fact that things are just not so black/white (as they never are). The ghosts of "socialistic republics" of former soviet blocks still color the word socialism etc. with very bad after taste. PS. I'm not that active person in political sense, although I consider myself as a supporter of "The National Coalition Party" (Kind of like the Finnish version of Republican party) - this does not, however mean that I support all their ideas and values. I agree in many parts the way they see the economics should be run - on the other hand I'm pretty far from the "conservatism" in the sense of "telling people about moral values", "how people should live their lives", "the concept of 'true' family" etc. Here I read time after time about "with us, against us" and "capitalism/commie" lines that just don't make sense to me. Could one of you that uses these "arguments" ellaborate me? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,683 #45 December 19, 2003 QuoteQuoteDo you believe in public schools and public colleges? How about public fire and police departments? Have you ever driven on a freeway? All of those are "socialist" in the literal sense. Anyone who "believes" in public education has probably gone through it and is thus incapable of realizing how terrible a failure it is. A dept of education is not a terrible idea, but American public education is. . The American higher education system is generally considered to be one of the best, if not the best, in the world, and most of it is public. Public universities like Wisconsin, Illinois, California, Michigan are routinely ranked in the top 10 out of over 3000 colleges in the country. I teach in a private university, so I have no axe to grind here. I've also taught freshmen engineering students for over 30 years. We have done exhaustive studies on what correlates with student success, and public/private high school has no correlation at all. We find that the statistically significant attributes of a successful college engineering student are: white or asian, high math SAT or ACT, female, not living in a frat house if male, living in a sorority if female. All else has no observable effect.... 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 kallend 1,683 #46 December 19, 2003 QuoteQuoteDo you believe in public schools and public colleges? How about public fire and police departments? Have you ever driven on a freeway? All of those are "socialist" in the literal sense. Police and Fire departments are not socialized. We don't have a federal police force. We have city, county and states police forces. But at the national level (at least until recently) we had investigators and accountants, not cops and swat teams. If it's run by the government (at any level including state or local) it is, ipso facto socialist.... 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 PhillyKev 0 #47 December 19, 2003 QuoteIf it's run by the government (at any level including state or local) it is, ipso facto socialist. I was going to use ipso facto yesterday in a post....but thought it sounded pretentious Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,683 #48 December 19, 2003 QuoteQuoteIf it's run by the government (at any level including state or local) it is, ipso facto socialist. I was going to use ipso facto yesterday in a post....but thought it sounded pretentious And you would be correct. It would be pretentious if you used it.... 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 HRHSkyPrincess 0 #49 December 19, 2003 No one should be forced to pray to anything or anyone in a public school. (Public school is not a house of worship.) That's what it means. It 's pretty simple. You want prayer in school? Go to a private school. Pay for it with your dollars, not mine. And what do I do? I vote. Yes, I too would rather be judged by 12 of my peers...***************** Attitude is everything! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dbattman 0 #50 December 19, 2003 Prayer is not prohibited in public schools. Any group of students can get together and say prayers if they are so inclined. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 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
downwardspiral 0 #40 December 19, 2003 QuoteQuoteWhy is it I have to pay for other people's kid's educations? I don't have any kids. Have you ever needed the service of a doctor, lawyer, engineer... etc??? I only ask because without any public funding I highly doubt you would ever have an educated class numerous enough to provide needed services. Do you really think that enough people can afford the price tag of a GOOD COMPLETE education on their own? Perhaps you wouldn't mind having to recruit thousands upon thousands of the professionals from around the world to fill your deficit Are saying that if the government doesn't educate us than we won't be educated? I'm sorry but capitalism doesn't work that way. Government is not necessary to make things happen.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #41 December 19, 2003 QuoteIn the spirit of curiosity (not trying to take the thread in a new direction)... What is this general feeling of fear I seem to find surrounding the word socialism? Is it the definition, the historical references, the underlying ideology???? Any insight would be nice. Maybe I am just imagining things. I am libertarian. We believe the smaller the government the better. Why? Because the government does a mediocre job at best. At least the American government does. I can't speak for any other countries since I have only ever lived in the U.S. Besides, those of us that are anti-socialists tend to lean more to the right. The leftists are for socialization.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salamander 0 #42 December 19, 2003 Quote Are saying that if the government doesn't educate us than we won't be educated? I'm sorry but capitalism doesn't work that way. Government is not necessary to make things happen. No, not at all. I am just saying that any developed nation requires a large pool of professionals that require a vast amount of education. This education is definitely not cheap. How many people would not be able to pay for a complete education without government intervention? Will an entity ensure the shortfall is controlled? Will educational instituations provide reasonably priced education? Will that education be to the quality the world demands? Are any of those losses acceptable? If so, my argument fails. Also, lets examine the benefit to society of any individual. Those whose contributions to society are far greater than the menial paycheck they receive are benefiting your society (yes, it is more complicated than that). You must admit that you need these people. Why then, should you not be responsible for ensuring that they are provided the resources they need now, so that they will be able to meet your needs in the future? After all... don't you benefit in the end? I would say the benefit/cost analysis is pretty straight forward - even without throwing buzz phrases like sustainable development (yes it is not just environmental) into the equation. Although - I would be of the youth... of the class that could have never paid the full 100% of my B.Sc and therefore, might very well be biased. Sorry about that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salamander 0 #43 December 19, 2003 Quote I am libertarian. We believe the smaller the government the better. Why? Because the government does a mediocre job at best. At least the American government does. I can't speak for any other countries since I have only ever lived in the U.S. Besides, those of us that are anti-socialists tend to lean more to the right. The leftists are for socialization. I am aware of the political spectrum and all the various theories you mention here. Where my issue lies is at the heart of the rigidity of one's stance on that spectrum. To stand to the right is fine, I don't really care what side of the spectrum you would rather associate yourself. However, not accepting that a social approach to a problem may provide a very concrete solution is dangerous. I am not trying to make an argument that socialism is better or worse. I just don't understand, or perhaps condone, the need to discredit a possible solution because of the political theory associated with it. It seems to border on negligence to me. This topic is taking away from the initial intent of the thread. If you would like to continue... I am be happy to entertain any PM's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaaska 0 #44 December 19, 2003 Quote Anyone who "believes" in public education has probably gone through it and is thus incapable of realizing how terrible a failure it is. A dept of education is not a terrible idea, but American public education is. Yeah, we've all seen how the Interstate system is a great success. [wait for it, here somes someone saying it connects America] It connects me to the other side of the city, too. You want to know how long it took me to travel 20 miles in the DC area? How about NYC? LA? Public Ed and US roads are socialist, and they are, on the whole, failures. Police and Fire departments are not socialized. We don't have a federal police force. We have city, county and states police forces. But at the national level (at least until recently) we had investigators and accountants, not cops and swat teams. Finland is not capitalistic nor far-socialistic country (government does not own everything here). There are no private schools in the same sense that over there or in some central-European countries. Still the public school system of Finland is pretty efficient. According to a European survey, the best in EU. All education is free (all the way to Ph.D level - in fact the government pays "students fees" for the full-day students). Also, the level of teaching is very good from the primary school levels to higher education. I found statistics that USA spends around 14,5 per cent in education. Finland uses actually a bit less! (14.1 or so). USA spends around 15 per cent in the health care. According to World Bank (pretty capitalistic source ), the health care in US is one of the most inefficient in all industrialized countries. Finland spends around 8 per cent and yes, Finland has a public health insurance sceme - and it covers everything (so one does not have to worry about not getting treatment, because it's excluded from the insurance). Of course all this means that taxes are (too) high, but it does not mean Finland is not doing well in the global market: "United States in Second Place Behind Finland in Global Competitiveness Report" http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/United+States+in+Second+Place+Behind+Finland+in+Global+Competitiveness+Report If "public something" something does not work, the reason is not necessarely that "it can not work" - it might mean also that it is just "not too well set up" and/or "badly run". Then again, I'm comparing two nations, the other one having 5 million people, the other one over 50 times that. One could argue that I'm talking about apples and oranges... Oh, there are a lot of things to fix here in Finland (IMHO), so I'm not trying to say Finland is a heaven - far from it. There are numerous things that are done better e.g. over there in US. The point of this post was about capitalistic/socialistic ideas and about the fact that things are just not so black/white (as they never are). The ghosts of "socialistic republics" of former soviet blocks still color the word socialism etc. with very bad after taste. PS. I'm not that active person in political sense, although I consider myself as a supporter of "The National Coalition Party" (Kind of like the Finnish version of Republican party) - this does not, however mean that I support all their ideas and values. I agree in many parts the way they see the economics should be run - on the other hand I'm pretty far from the "conservatism" in the sense of "telling people about moral values", "how people should live their lives", "the concept of 'true' family" etc. Here I read time after time about "with us, against us" and "capitalism/commie" lines that just don't make sense to me. Could one of you that uses these "arguments" ellaborate me? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #45 December 19, 2003 QuoteQuoteDo you believe in public schools and public colleges? How about public fire and police departments? Have you ever driven on a freeway? All of those are "socialist" in the literal sense. Anyone who "believes" in public education has probably gone through it and is thus incapable of realizing how terrible a failure it is. A dept of education is not a terrible idea, but American public education is. . The American higher education system is generally considered to be one of the best, if not the best, in the world, and most of it is public. Public universities like Wisconsin, Illinois, California, Michigan are routinely ranked in the top 10 out of over 3000 colleges in the country. I teach in a private university, so I have no axe to grind here. I've also taught freshmen engineering students for over 30 years. We have done exhaustive studies on what correlates with student success, and public/private high school has no correlation at all. We find that the statistically significant attributes of a successful college engineering student are: white or asian, high math SAT or ACT, female, not living in a frat house if male, living in a sorority if female. All else has no observable effect.... 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
kallend 1,683 #46 December 19, 2003 QuoteQuoteDo you believe in public schools and public colleges? How about public fire and police departments? Have you ever driven on a freeway? All of those are "socialist" in the literal sense. Police and Fire departments are not socialized. We don't have a federal police force. We have city, county and states police forces. But at the national level (at least until recently) we had investigators and accountants, not cops and swat teams. If it's run by the government (at any level including state or local) it is, ipso facto socialist.... 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
PhillyKev 0 #47 December 19, 2003 QuoteIf it's run by the government (at any level including state or local) it is, ipso facto socialist. I was going to use ipso facto yesterday in a post....but thought it sounded pretentious Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #48 December 19, 2003 QuoteQuoteIf it's run by the government (at any level including state or local) it is, ipso facto socialist. I was going to use ipso facto yesterday in a post....but thought it sounded pretentious And you would be correct. It would be pretentious if you used it.... 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
HRHSkyPrincess 0 #49 December 19, 2003 No one should be forced to pray to anything or anyone in a public school. (Public school is not a house of worship.) That's what it means. It 's pretty simple. You want prayer in school? Go to a private school. Pay for it with your dollars, not mine. And what do I do? I vote. Yes, I too would rather be judged by 12 of my peers...***************** Attitude is everything! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dbattman 0 #50 December 19, 2003 Prayer is not prohibited in public schools. Any group of students can get together and say prayers if they are so inclined. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)