posted on February 9, 2003 02:46:05 PM new
Bush might nominate a conservative black woman to the Supreme Court if there is a vacancy. And possibly a conservative Latino if there is a 2nd vacancy.
posted on February 9, 2003 03:18:42 PM new
Liberals Ready to Slice-and-Dice Hispanic
"On Wednesday the full Senate began a debate over the nomination of Miguel Estrada to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The first Hispanic nominated for a seat on that particular court, he has attracted a lot of interest -- not all of it good. A number of liberal special interest groups have come out strongly against his nomination and are putting pressure on Senate Democrats to keep him from being confirmed. Sources inside the Senate expected the Democrats to launch a filibuster against Estrada on Tuesday."
- Peter Roff, UPI's Capital Comment, 2/6/03
The Case Against Estrada
"Tell me one thing they can show against him, other than they think he's a conservative Republican who might be pro-life."
- Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) on Democrat opposition to the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit Court, Washington Times, 2/6/03
Filibuster Estrada? Bring It On!
"If Democrats want to filibuster (the Estrada nomination), Republicans should keep the debate going, for weeks if need be. Put Mr. Estrada on the talk shows, and have Mr. Bush go on Univision to talk about the Senate tactics. Democrats who refuse even to give Mr. Estrada a confirmation vote should be made to pay a political price. If Republicans let Democrats get away with this abuse of the system now, it will happen again and again."
posted on February 9, 2003 04:47:22 PM new
Miguel Estrada was a partner in the law firm that represented Bush to the Supreme Court during the election fight.
He is a right wing ideologue of the first magnatude.
The GOP's story of his "poor hispanic made good" is a load of garbage.If you look up a detailed bio, you will find that he emigrated here from Honduras with an upper middle class family. He is hardly representative of the general latino population.
Estrada, along with his pal, "The Bimbo of the New Right" Ann Coulter,is believed to have plotted with Kenneth Starr's office and Paula Jones' lawyers to lay the perjury trap that led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
He is viewed, by myself, my family and the latino community hereabouts as an "Oreo"...brown on the outside, white in the middle...which I'm sure is why he's so well accepted by the Bushies...brown enough, but not really.
posted on February 9, 2003 04:49:46 PM new
"If Democrats want to filibuster (the Estrada nomination), Republicans should keep the debate going, for weeks if need be. Put Mr. Estrada on the talk shows, and have Mr. Bush go on Univision to talk about the Senate tactics."
Now there's a concept for you. Have the man who made tons of promises to the latino population and is going back on them now left and right go on spanish TV and try to demonize the Senate. I guess somebody doesn't realize that the latin population that did support Bush initially feels overwhelmingly betrayed right now.
[ edited by neonmania on Feb 9, 2003 04:51 PM ]
posted on February 9, 2003 04:58:18 PM newIf Republicans let Democrats get away with this abuse of the system now, it will happen again and again."
This part is hilarious. As if filibustering by both parties hasn't been in practice for over a hundred years at least. Maybe longer than that. I love all the subtle attempted revisionism. Lol.
posted on February 9, 2003 05:57:30 PM new
I'd like to have more conservatives in the courts no matter their color, as a balancing factor. More conservative judges in all the open seats.
posted on February 9, 2003 06:19:27 PM new
Yes Linda, absolutely. Because afterall , who really needs that pesky right to have control over ones own body. What was I thinking? BTW - other than the right to leave the country - which freedom will we have left once this administration completes it's mission?
posted on February 9, 2003 07:10:34 PM new
neonmania - I know how you feel....just like I did for the almost 8 years I lived under the Clinton administrations decisions.
posted on February 9, 2003 07:40:29 PM new
At least people used to have the US to dream of escaping to. When it becomes too frightening to live here for a foreigner - not safe even if they become citizens as it might be stripped away. Where will they go? Will anyone take over the vision of a free and open society or was it just a brief blink in the normal run of oppresive and dominating governments? Never to arise again?
posted on February 9, 2003 07:47:26 PM new
Rights? I didn't loose any rights, and neither have you. Enjoying a different philosophy is what I have most enjoyed. My belief system is closer to those on the right, than to the thinking of those on the left.
Any administration would have made changes to the status quo after a 9-11. I understand what some here share and I've said in the past that I believe the changes we've made [to date] were necessary ones. Necessary to better protect our country. I understand there are those who don't agree and I don't have a problem with that. But I do support what the Bush administration has done to this point. [I'm not referring to the latest 'rumors' that are circulating, as I haven't read them yet.]
posted on February 9, 2003 08:26:54 PM new
You lost me Linda. I asked what rights woulf be left other than the right to leave the country when Bush is done. You state that you understand my feelings, you felt that way during the Clinton administration. I ask what rights you lost during that time and you state none and that you are thrilled.
I guess you missed the right to privacy.
The right to actually have an objective third party approve the government deciding to listen in on your every conversation.
The right to know the charges against you, or to even have charges filed against you while you sit in jail for months at a time whie the government decides if you are a terrorist or not.
And if you get your way with all of the conservative anti abortion judges on the Supreme Court - the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.
Since I have a feeling this isn't a right you think people should have anyway I wonder where you stand on increased welfare budget, increases in minimum wage, increased budgeting for social services such as foster care and supervision thereof, increased school expenditures t o provide daycare in high schoos and all of the other wonderful expenses that come with denying the kids that you already decided not to teach about sex in high school the right to end the pregnancy rather than pay their entire life for a single mistake?
[ edited by neonmania on Feb 9, 2003 08:28 PM ]
posted on February 9, 2003 08:40:47 PM new
DAY CARE IN HIGHSCHOOLS?
SORRY, I WOULDN'T SUPPORT THAT... I DO SUPPORT ABORTION AND IF THEY CHOSE NOT TO, WELL IT IS NOT THE SCHOOLS RESPONSIBILITY TO RAISE THAT CHILD.
PARENTS ALREADY ASK THEM TO RAISE THEIR CHILDREN...
DON'T SUPPORT INCREASE IN WELFARE BUDGETS, MOST WELFARE RECEIPENTS ARE WELL PAID FOR THEIR LAZINESS...
MINIMUM WAGES DO NEED TO BE HIGHER, FAMILY OF 4 CAN'T SUPPORT THEMSELVES ON $5.15 AN HOUR... OF COURSE THIS RAISES PRICES ON EVERYTHING ELSE, VISCIOUS CIRCLE.
FOSTER CARE.... HAVEN'T SEEN WHERE THEY ARE HURTING FOR MONEY.
posted on February 9, 2003 08:55:34 PM new
"I guess you missed the right to privacy.
The right to actually have an objective third party approve the government deciding to listen in on your every conversation.
The right to know the charges against you, or to even have charges filed against you while you sit in jail for months at a time whie the government decides if you are a terrorist or not"
Yeah, but that's only if you're up to no good, right? Honest, patriotic, RIGHT thinking Americans have nothing to fear from these changes in basic constitutional protections do they?
gravid: it's Tio Tomas, and Estrada is the definition of him....
posted on February 9, 2003 09:02:17 PM new
You want to discuss the whole gambit of issues? And me saying I lean to the right doesn't pretty much answer your questions? I'll try to clarify.
[i]I asked what rights woulf be left other than the right to leave the country when ush is done. You stte that you understand my feelings, you felt that way during the Clinton administration[i]. I have never wanted to leave my country. I think I'm very fortunate to live in the best country in the world. What I meant was I disagreed with the many liberal decisions that were implimented during his administration.
I ask what rights you lost during that ime and you state none and that you are thrilled. I guess you missed the right to privacy. You'd have to be more specific but if you're referring to wire tapping, we've been doing that for a long time on peoples phones. Just extending that same rule to more modern instruments.
The right to actually have an objective third party approve the government deciding to listen in on your every conversation. Now I believe you're into the new policy...because up until now it's required a judge's okay.
The right toknow the charges against you, or to even have charges filed against you while you sit in jail for months at a time whie the government decides if you are a terrorist or not. After 9-11 are you referring to? Yes, many who our government believed may have been involved in a plot to destroy our country were held. Does that worry me? No.
And if you get your way with all of the conservative anti abortion judges on the Supreme court - the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. No one here wants me to start talking about my views on abortion again. Think most everyone knows where I stand on that subject. Many changes need to be made in that area, imo. And I've shared them many times. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing sort of issue. There can be compromises made.
Since I have a feeling this isn't a right you think people should have anyway I wonder where you stand on increased welfare budget I like what the previous administration did with getting people off the rolls and back to work.
increases in minimum wage Nope...I believe that doesn't help.
increased budgeting for social services such as foster care and supervision thereof We need better people in the highest position to better manage these organizations. We've been thowing more money, each year, and it's not helping the problems.
increased school expenditures t o provide daycare in high schoos Unmarried teenagers where have babies in record numbers...this is decreasing. I believe that if girls knew they'd be responsible for all the babies they were producing themselves might make them use some of the birthcontrol that's been pushed on them for a number of years. They have the knowledge...they've had it for years. Just don't choose to use it. And I don't believe we OWE them anything. They need to be responsible for their actions.
and all of the other wonderful expenses that come with denying the kids that you already decided not to teach about sex in high school the right to end the pregnancy rather than pay their entire life for a single mistake? Kids have been taught sex and pregnancy prevention since I was in school. The numbers have only increased ...even with the knowledge. I can understand the parents who'd like to teach their own children their personal values rather than having a teacher do so.
Right to end a pregnancy....again I've said I support the morning after pill, unrestricted from a pharmacy...no prescription needed. To me that would be the most desirable. I might even go so far as to support abortions in the first trimester....but there is no reason that I can accept that a woman can't make up her mind to either keep or terminate the pregnancy [other than for life saving purposes] in the first trimester - 12 wks. And late term abortions and partial birth abortions [again, other than for saving the life of the mother] are totally un-necessary, imo. There are compromises that can be made between those on the very far left who want absolutely no restrictions, and those on the very far right who want no abortions. Most things are regulated...that's not taking away a woman's right...that's [imo] putting limits to an 'anything goes' attitude.
My answers are brief...as you had so many questions.
On education...I think we've proved that throwing more and more money isn't changing a thing. I believe vouchers would give parents a choice to send their children where they want to send them. The poor could get tutors..or head for a better school system.
I like this adminstrations policies like threatening to take away Federal funds IF children or teachers are not allowed to pray in school. Before school, during lunch, on school ground after school. No forcing anyone, just allowing them to practice their beliefs where ever they choose to.
I like this administrations decision to work towards giving support to organizations who do great work for the poor and the addicted.
I like this administrations decision to promote family values. I believe that's one of the many things that has changed most in our society and has been the cause of many of our social problems.
I like many things this administration has promoted.
posted on February 9, 2003 09:17:24 PM new
Twelve - I was referring to what happens when Roe vs. Wade is overturned which is one of Bush's goals. (Notice only anti-abortion Judges are being considered.)
If we are going to make abortion illegal we have to expect that you are going to have a huge number of high school mothers. Now you have a couple of options
1) Increased welfare expenditures to help them afford day care while they finish school.
2) Increased Minimum wage to help them afford life as a parent
3) Day care in the schools to help these mothers get he basic education level to assist them in eventually not having to rely on minimum wage levels and welfare to take care of themselves.
As for the foster care (and I meant to include child welfare systems), ask any case worker in the system if they have they budget to keep up with demand, you'll get a resounding no. Since the great argument of all pro-lifers is that there are thousands of couples dying to take these children, you are going to have to add a great deal more case workers to the roles to investigate fitness and periodic follow-ups of all of the children that you have now forced upon the system.
When government removes a woman's right to decide to have a child or not, they must then take up partial responsibility for it's life.
BTW - I believe minimum wage is currently at 6.90 and moving towards another increase but it's still well below a living wage.
posted on February 9, 2003 09:41:43 PM new
Some comments on some issue you raised.
Notice only anti-abortion Judges are being considered.) Yes, and when the democrats are in office the same thing happens...only the pro-choice are considererd.
If we are going to make abortion illegal we have to expect that you are going to have a huge number of high school mothers. Why? Why can't we teach our children, just as was done in my generation that to have children either out of wedlock or when you are not able to care for them yourself is not the best choice for them.
Increased welfare expenditures to help them afford day care while they finish school. There are other options. But most on the left won't even consider them. When our son's were in high school, a local school was where the pregnant girls went to finish their schooling. Local 'grandmas' from the neighborhood volunteered to care for their children while they were in class. And parents and family could be called on for support. Again...those family values. The state doesn't have to take responsibility for all these issues.
Increased Minimum wage to help them afford life as a parent. Better yet, teach them responsibility. Teach them to use better decision making choices. It worked years ago. Why couldn't it be expected to work now?
Day care in the schools to help these mothers get he basic education level to assist them in eventually not having to rely on minimum wage levels and welfare to take care of themselves. my answer above.
As for the foster care (and I meant to include child welfare systems), ask any case worker in the system if they have they budget to keep up with demand, you'll get a resounding no. Since the great argument of all pro-lifers is that there are thousands of couples dying to take these children, you are going to have to add a great deal more case workers to the roles to investigate fitness and periodic follow-ups of all of the children that you have now forced upon the system. No parent has to pass any requirement to become a parent. I think we need to make it easier for those who would love to help and raise these children to do so. Why should the prospective parents income or age be part of the decision making process? It's not when we have our own children. It wasn't years ago for the children in orphanages. They were lucky to have someone take them home to care and love them.
When government removes a woman's right to decide to have a child or not, they must then take up partial responsibility for it's life. That hasn't happened, and will never happen.
BTW - I believe minimum wage is currently at 6.90 and moving towards another increase but it's still well below a living wage. Right....so let's do as we used to do and teach children, from an early age, that in order to 'grow up' there are certain things they must do. One being take responsibility for their actions. Not just do whatever they wish and know that the government will take care of them.
posted on February 9, 2003 09:52:45 PM new
::You'd have to be more specific but if you're referring to wire tapping, we've been doing that for a long time on peoples phones. Just extending that same rule to more modern instruments.::
Yes, But now they can do it without obtaining a warrant if you are suspected being a risk (the definiition of which has yet to be specified)
::The right to actually have an objective third party approve the government deciding to listen in on your every conversation. Now I believe you're into the new policy...because up until now it's required a judge's okay. ::
Actually not since shortly after 9-11
::The right toknow the charges against you, or to even have charges filed against you while you sit in jail for months at a time whie the government decides if you are a terrorist or not. After 9-11 are you referring to? Yes, many who our government believed may have been involved in a plot to destroy our country were held. Does that worry me? No. ::
Unfortunately since there is no definition of this terrorist or subversive type it's an easily abused power. What if someone decided that RT was the cyberspace base of a subversive political group and all posters are arrested and held without bail or charges for an indeterminate period of time. You still good with this concept?
::And if you get your way with all of the conservative anti abortion judges on the Supreme court - the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. No one here wants me to start talking about my views on abortion again. Think most everyone knows where I stand on that subject. Many changes need to be made in that area, imo. And I've shared them many times. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing sort of issue. There can be compromises made. ::
You are thankfully more open than the administration you support.
::Since I have a feeling this isn't a right you think people should have anyway I wonder where you stand on increased welfare budget I like what the previous administration did with getting people off the rolls and back to work.::
I do too, but what do we do with all of the new single parents who don't make enough to take care of their child on the entry level position minimum wage tht you do not favor raising?
::increased budgeting for social services such as foster care and supervision thereof We need better people in the highest position to better manage these organizations. We've been thowing more money, each year, and it's not helping the problems. ::
All the administration in the world isn't going to help oversee the abundance pf new cases that flood the system with all of the forced births.
::increased school expenditures t o provide daycare in high schoos Unmarried teenagers where have babies in record numbers...this is decreasing. I believe that if girls knew they'd be responsible for all the babies they were producing themselves might make them use some of the birthcontrol that's been pushed on them for a number of years. They have the knowledge...they've had it for years. Just don't choose to use it. And I don't believe we OWE them anything. They need to be responsible for their actions. ::
That's a great an wonderful concept if it worked but the past decade shows that it is not a reality. Yes, five years down the line teens may see the overwhelming evidence of the reprocutions but in the meantime you are going to have a huge number of high schoolers dropping out of school if they are forced to have kids they are not equipped to raise. Do we punish the child and sentance them to the least in life beause their parent didn't get a clue?
::Right to end a pregnancy....again I've said I support the morning after pill, unrestricted from a pharmacy...no prescription needed. To me that would be the most desirable. I might even go so far as to support abortions in the first trimester....::
No arguement from me... but the curent administration doesn't agree.
::but there is no reason that I can accept that a woman can't make up her mind to either keep or terminate the pregnancy [other than for life saving purposes] in the first trimester - 12 wks.::
Lets accept the reality of the fact that many girls hope that if they ignore it, it will just go way. Again, thee's the optimal answer and then the realistic answer.
:n education...I think we've proved that throwing more and more money isn't changing a thing. I believe vouchers would give parents a choice to send their children where they want to send them. The poor could get tutors..or head for a better school system.::
I am split on vouchers - On one hand, they inspire schools tob be the best they can to draw in more students and thusly more funds. On the other hand, you open the door for rampant corruption and misappropriation.
::I like this adminstrations policies like threatening to take away Federal funds IF children or teachers are not allowed to pray in school. Before school, during lunch, on school ground after school. No forcing anyone, just allowing them to practice their beliefs where ever they choose to. ::
Why must there be organized prayer for one to pray. I'm betting that most teachers say a little prayer about a dozen times a day in school, it just doesn't need to be organized and vocalized.
::I like this administrations decision to work towards giving support to organizations who do great work for the poor and the addicted. ::
No Problem with that - big problem with favortism towards faith based bias.
::I like this administrations decision to promote family values. I believe that's one of the many things that has changed most in our society and has been the cause of many of our social problems. ::
Who decides the definition of said values? The are conservative values, liberal values, middle of the road values. Does each administration get to promote their own set of values? The problem with governing values is it becomes a slippery slope. What happens when the ball starts rolling in the wrong direction?
posted on February 9, 2003 09:55:05 PM new
>increases in minimum wage Nope...I believe that doesn't help.
True enough. What a Minimum Wage Increase actually is, is a disguised Tax Increase!
I recall when the minimum, which I was earning at the time, went from $1.70/hr to $2.00/hr. I recallthinking, "Wow! I can hardly wait to see a big increase in my check will look like because of it!" Imagine my shock when my paycheck was smaller!
How's that?
With the mimum wage times fourty hours a week, Congress easily figures out how much you earn. What they do is to raise your wages just enough to slip you into the next higehr tax bracket. You realize that the place to be income wise is one dollar short of the next higher tax bracket. Imagine being one dollar over!
Not only do the poor pay more in taxes that way (Democrats don't raise taxes on the Poor -- do they? Only REPUBLICANS do that!!) but the business that employs them also pays more in FICA and other fees, local, state, and federal.
IF you want to give the Working Poor a wage boost, lower the tax rate for them! *THAT* is how you give a REAL boost to the poor!
Sorry. That's a sticking point with me. I hate hypocrits from ANY political party! Especially when they prey on the Poor!
posted on February 9, 2003 10:00:56 PM new
>Unfortunately since there is no definition of this terrorist or subversive type it's an easily abused power. What if someone decided that RT was the cyberspace base of a subversive political group and all posters are arrested and held without bail or charges for an indeterminate period of time. You still good with this concept?
The usual answer is that it hasn't happened.
The reply to that is this, "By the time that it actually does happen, it is already too late! The changes that could have been prevented from taking place that allow these abuses to occur have already been made and written into stone. You should have acted when you could have. Hindsight is b*tch!"
Instead -- fix it NOW -- before it becomes a problem.
posted on February 9, 2003 10:18:19 PM new
::Right....so let's do as we used to do and teach children, from an early age, that in order to 'grow up' there are certain things they must do. One being take responsibility for their actions. Not just do whatever they wish and know that the government will take care of them.::
From your posts Linda I get the feeling that you and I are probably seperated by a generation. From you generation to me generation there was a substantional decrease in the so-called "traditional values". From me generation to the current generation there has been still another decrease. I love the argument of -- "well we'll just tell them and they'll listen" but it's rather utopian don't you think?
If it was REALLY that easy don't you think things would be turning around? And if it took two generations to get to this point, do you think that it'll just take a couple quick lessons to turn it back around?
Yes, I could not agree more that teens need to stop this madness now. That a 14 year old having a baby so that she will have someone to love her is sad and ridiculous but its reality and rather than shut our eyes to it and wait for the change we have to deal with what happens in the meantime.
Yes, kids should learn to take responsibility for their actions, but to what degree do we punish the infant to teach the parent a lesson?
As a personal example - My mother was 19 with no parenting skills when she got pregnant. Unfortunately the skills didn't come to her magically during labor either and I, my friends, and my surroundings had more of a hand in my upbringing than my mother. Result - I have no parenting skills either. I'm am lucky enough to realize this but there are thousands of teens today that don't and they are doomed to relive the sins of their parents unless society steps up and lends a hand and teaches the parent and helps the kids and hopefully when the next generation comes along things will start turning around but in the mean time simply clicking our heels will not make it so.
posted on February 9, 2003 10:41:47 PM newno definition of this terrorist or subversive type it's an easily abused power. I understand the concerns of those to whom this is a worry to. It's just not a worry to me and many who are like minded. [Not to be found here on the RT ]
I think we have to give our government a little 'slack'. If we the people see it's being abused, I believe our system of government is there for us to make the necessary changes. Impeachment...voting out of office, etc.
You are thankfully more open than the administration you support. I think there are millions just like myself. Who are middle of the road, while leaning right, who feel SOME restrictions are necessary. That this has gone too far - been abused. The Bush administration, currently, is working to stop partial term abortions. Not total abortions....they wouldn't get enough votes/backing if they went that far right, imo.
I do too, but what do we do with all of the new single parents who don't make enough to take care of their child on the entry level position minimum wage tht you do not favor raising? It's my belief we have to stop funding/encouraging this behavior. It's going to be rough on these parents for a while. They could turn to family to help, just as people use to do. This was the biggest concern of the left when welfare was going to be put into place. Didn't pan out that way. It surprised many of those doubters who worried about all the poor children suffering. It's been sucessful beyond anyone's amagination. If they learn they will have to stand on their own two feet, they will. People always have...even through very severe hardships.
All the administration in the world isn't going to help oversee the abundance pf new cases that flood the system with all of the forced births. I believe you're projecting something that doesn't need to happen. They're will never be forced birth. Girls just need to be taught to deal with it right away...to use protection...if an accident happens to get to a pharmacy quickly. There's no 'forcing' here.
That's a great an wonderful concept if it worked but the past decade shows that it is not a reality. I believe that's because the left wants to 'take care' of rather than teaching self reliance. It could work...it will work...it has worked in the past. But those where the days when girls knew they were going to have to take care of themselves.
Lets accept the reality of the fact that many girls hope that if they ignore it, it will just go way. But see...that's what I'm saying...the must be forced to deal with the way REAL life is. You screw up....you pay. Just like we do as adults...we make the wrong decisions...we suffer the consequences and hopefully learn from our mistakes. That's reality, imo.
I am split on vouchers - On one hand, they inspire schools tob be the best they can to draw in more students and thusly more funds. On the other hand, you open the door for rampant corruption and misappropriation. The reason I support vouchers is because what we've been doing isn't working. Why keep going in that directions. Anything almost has to be an improvement.
Why must there be organized prayer for one to pray. Must be? No. If people want to pray in groups, it's their right as citizens. To practice their religion anywhere they wish. To wear a shirt, a cross, a Jewish star, etc. and not be forced to remove it in school. They wouldn't be forced to remove it anywhere else.
What I most have a problem with from the left is first they didn't want to be forced to say prayers...I have/had absolutely no problem with that at all. They don't want to be forced to say the Pledge to their country....okay, ...But then, as in most things, it moves to the position that you don't have the right to do so either. It offends me. That's what I'm against. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion. To me the left wants anything religious removed from every public place. Practice your religion in your home or church. Changing all the traditional Christmas holidays to generic names. Taking God off of our coins, out of our pledge, etc. etc. There's a large % of Americans who resent these actions.
No Problem with that - big problem with favortism towards faith based bias. I don't attend a church myself, haven't for over 35 years. But I believe [and stats prove] these organizations do more to help the needy, at a lower cost than our government does. That's why I would support them. Any faith who's organization can show a history of success in this area.
Who decides the definition of said values? The are conservative values, liberal values, middle of the road values. Does each administration get to promote their own set of values? The problem with governing values is it becomes a slippery slope. What happens when the ball starts rolling in the wrong direction? Well...it rolled one way during the Clinton administration and now it's headed back to a more conservate way. Family values like in elimating the marriage penalty on taxes. Encouraging people to marry before they bring children into the world....before they can support them. Encouraging families to give more to charities for the needy, rather than taxing them ...let them decide which charities they wish to [or not] support.
posted on February 9, 2003 10:56:19 PM newGeneration gap? Probably. I was born in the 40's.
utopian don't you think? No, I really don't. It worked, albeit not perfectly - never perfectly, when I was growing up. Then came the sexual revolution of the 60's. Woman were free. Well...not quite as free as they thought they'd be, but we have seen a lot of social changes...agreed. Not all changes were for the best, imo. Many of these changes are what has brought us to the position where we currently find ourselves. Too dependent on our government, in many ways, when we should be dependent on ourselves.
I must head off to bed. It's been my pleasure to exchange my positions on the issues with you in a calm manner.
posted on February 9, 2003 11:32:49 PM new
::utopian don't you think? No, I really don't. It worked, albeit not perfectly - never perfectly, when I was growing up. ::
I was not referring to the concept of kids simply being smart enough to not get pregnant at 15. I was actually referring to the concept of an immediate turn around. What it has taken two generations to destroy will probably take more than 1 semester of health and sex ed to fix but in the meantime, if abortion is abolished as Bush is working towrds ( it doesn't matter what the public wants - all it takes is two more justices to overturn Roe vs Wade ) there are going to be an awful lot of children born to children (and unequiped adults) and we can't just hang them out to dry to teach their parents a lesson.
::It's been my pleasure to exchange my positions on the issues with you in a calm manner. ::
Ditto. I'm not big on insults, I can get a bit sarcastic at times but a great debate of issues and sharing of ideas has always been more fun for me than hurling insults.
posted on February 9, 2003 11:39:26 PM new
>If we the people see it's being abused, I believe our system of government is there for us to make the necessary changes. Impeachment...voting out of office, etc.
Gee, Linda. What do you do if Martial Law is declared for the duration of the War on Terrorism and there is no longer an Impeachment process or vote because the United States Constitution has been suspended? Are you willing to wait until that happens before you take things seriously in life? When it happens, it will be darned late for anyone to legally do anything about it and a violent rebellion will be out of the question. What will you do? How will future generations look back on you and what will they say about you and those who think like you?
n education...I think we've proved that throwing more and more money isn't changing a thing. I believe vouchers would give parents a choice to send their children where they want to send them. The poor could get tutors..or head for a better school system.::