NationStates Jolt Archive

Now most of my life I've been a Liberal, ever since I could understand for myself I've been very liberal about my veiws politicallt, socially and economically. But over the last month, things have begun to change. Little things at first...

First I though, there should be limits to freedom of speech?
Then, maybe we do hav too much social security?
Then, I really don't like double standards for homosexuals?
Then, where does the money from my membership to the Tibetan Freedom Society go?

And the other morning I woke and turned on the tv. There were these starving Rawandan kids and I felt...nothing. Just a little truned of rice bubbles. I really couldn't care less, have I become that cynical and apathetic? Do I care I don't care? Not really, I just need to kill time.

FELNGS OF APATHY R IENVITABLE AS U BGIN 2 RECOGNIES HOW D3MOCRACY RILLY FUNCTIONS!1!! OMG WTF LOL U CAN 3ITHAR SLIED IN2 TEH BURGER-FILED WAST3LAND OF MERICAN OBDEINC3 OR U CAN TAEK SOMA DIERCT ACTION
BCOME!!1! OMG AN ANARCHIST 2DAY1!!!! OMG WTF THEN U 2 CAN B EX3CUT3D BY UR GOVERNMENTS POLIEC FORCAS1!!!1!1! WTF

and what do you suppose has wrought these changes in you?

and what do you suppose has wrought these changes in you?

Blame Canada! :P

As a bleeding-heart liberal my entire life, I felt obligated to lead the nation of MadJoy to give people the freedoms and the government I always wished I'd had.

However, despite my leftist tendencies, at times I have begun to realize I become my worst fear on certain issues - CONSERVATIVE.

The evil of conservatism is a myth. It's OK to be liberal on some issues and conservative on others. You don't have to follow every single position of the liberal party in your NationState.

There is something slightly disturbing about not caring of the poor people in Rowanda, but that doesn't mean you must devote your life to helping them. In fact, it is often necessary to perfect yourself and your own NationState before applying your own imperfections to others.

and what do you suppose has wrought these changes in you?The conservative media? High blood alcohol levels? A butterfly in Siberia? My ex-girlfriends menstral cycle?

and what do you suppose has wrought these changes in you?The conservative media? High blood alcohol levels? A butterfly in Siberia? My ex-girlfriends menstral cycle?
eventually you relise that no one really gives a damn and you can;t do anything to change it and so you begin to just not care anymore...

I used to be a liberal, too. Then I took some economics courses, regained my faith, and started realizing how silly so many of my old "proofs" were.... :wink:

I used to be a liberal, too. Then I took some economics courses, regained my faith, and started realizing how silly so many of my old "proofs" were.... :wink:

i was a full-on lefty for a while, but then i started reading up on Communism and Socialism, and economic theory, and that was the end of that. i'm still left-wing on social issues, but when it comes to money i am far more righty than most Dems can stand.

I was never liberal! I am a die hard conservative!

Isn't there some famous saying about how the youth tend to me more liberal, and the "post-youthful" more conservative?

I mean, a lot changes when we get older, right? We take on more responsibilities, and our foolishness is harder and harder to dismiss as youthful "delusions of invincibility". We might start families...or businesses...or careers...or more than one of these at the same time. Who knows, right?

I've become more liberal, for myself, in the last year, but I imagine it'll swing back the other way once this misplaced rebellion I'm feeling peters itself out.

:? Aiera

I really could care less about these labels. Don't group yourself, just believe in what you want.

My left leaning isn't down to rebellion but a general sense that the way the world works is immoral... but I also live in the real world and need money! and I need to be the best at my game so I work darn hard and progress well ironic really... but the last of the working class I suppose

Well theres one....

"If you are not a liberal at age 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at age 40, you have no brain." -- Winston Churchill

Left and right are horizontal lateral movements.

Roots go vertically, they go down to fundamentals.

Roots means radicals, like the punk group o the same name.

Well theres one....

"If you are not a liberal at age 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at age 40, you have no brain." -- Winston Churchill

How old was he when he said that? :)

Well theres one....

"If you are not a liberal at age 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at age 40, you have no brain." -- Winston Churchill

How old was he when he said that? :)
I think it's quite funny when you think that people like Winston Churchill invested huge amounts into the NHS as it was a sign of how great the nation was... Conservatives didn't become quite the money hungry *realises he's about to descend into gibberish and leaves*

Now most of my life I've been a Liberal, ever since I could understand for myself I've been very liberal about my veiws politicallt, socially and economically. But over the last month, things have begun to change. Little things at first...

First I though, there should be limits to freedom of speech?
Then, maybe we do hav too much social security?
Then, I really don't like double standards for homosexuals?
Then, where does the money from my membership to the Tibetan Freedom Society go?

And the other morning I woke and turned on the tv. There were these starving Rawandan kids and I felt...nothing. Just a little truned of rice bubbles. I really couldn't care less, have I become that cynical and apathetic? Do I care I don't care? Not really, I just need to kill time.

Ah, you're probably just in a slump..;)

My lovely wife, when she was in college and reached voting age (18 in California,) was very proud to vote for Clinton in 1992 and 1996 (while she was in college, at UC-Davis, which can make Berserkeley seem like a hotbed of conservatism.) Her parents told her she would vote Democratic until she finished college, got herself a job and had to pay taxes.

She became a teacher in the public school system, and was coerced into joining a union. Then the union started to support causes she disagreed with. Then the union told her she had no say in how her dues were spent by the union. Then she found herself unable to buy a house, since half her paycheck went to taxes or union dues (somehow she was one of the evil rich, making $32,000 a year.) Then we got married, and between our paychecks, we made $75,000 a year, which drove both of us to forget about tax refunds unti we could buy a house AND have children.

In 2000, she voted Republican for the first time. In 2002, she registered as a Republican. Want to guess who she is voting for in November?

Bottom line: while you're young, you probably can afford to be idealistic, therefore you're likely to be a liberal. But when you grow up, get a job and have to face the tax man, you're more likely to become a conservative, at least in the fiscal sense.

Bottom line: while you're young, you probably can afford to be idealistic, therefore you're likely to be a liberal. But when you grow up, get a job and have to face the tax man, you're more likely to become a conservative, at least in the fiscal sense.Thats absurd. Liberalism just isn't idealism, and a leftist economy can work, its just that you have less of the uber rich people stealing all the pie.

I used to be a liberal, too. Then I took some economics courses, regained my faith, and started realizing how silly so many of my old "proofs" were.... :wink:

i was a full-on lefty for a while, but then i started reading up on Communism and Socialism, and economic theory, and that was the end of that. i'm still left-wing on social issues, but when it comes to money i am far more righty than most Dems can stand.This is one I honestly don't understand. How can you be left leaning on social issues and right on the economy in a world where money is power? How does compassion and equal rights for all people not translate into distribution of wealth in a fairer way? Whats the point of having rights if you can't afford to sue for them in the courts? Whats the point in being allowed to be gay if you can't get medicare if you catch AIDS? Read Jennifer Government for a stunning indictment of capitalistism.

I think that (despite the name of my nation) that it is dangerous to put yourself in a political box, be it liberal or conservative. In most cases you will have views and beliefs that fit into both, or none. And some days you will not give a damn about things.
Example : I am against the death penalty (liberal), I am against abortion on demand (conservative), I love my country (both), and I hate orginized religion (niether).

I used to be a liberal, too. Then I took some economics courses, regained my faith, and started realizing how silly so many of my old "proofs" were.... :wink:

i was a full-on lefty for a while, but then i started reading up on Communism and Socialism, and economic theory, and that was the end of that. i'm still left-wing on social issues, but when it comes to money i am far more righty than most Dems can stand.This is one I honestly don't understand. How can you be left leaning on social issues and right on the economy in a world where money is power? How does compassion and equal rights for all people not translate into distribution of wealth in a fairer way? Whats the point of having rights if you can't afford to sue for them in the courts? Whats the point in being allowed to be gay if you can't get medicare if you catch AIDS? Read Jennifer Government for a stunning indictment of capitalistism.

Well, capitalism can actually encompass things like health care and redistributon. Being capitalist just means being in favour of increased trade and openess, being in favour of mobile capital, and supporting the ability of firms and individuals to invest their money as they choose. Everything else is just peripheral.

First I though, there should be limits to freedom of speech?Yes. But they should not be arbitary.
Then, maybe we do hav too much social security?The perfect level of social security isn't giving an infinte amount of money to anyone who doesn't work. Its ensuring that people have the money they need to not starve to death when they go out of work, but still are inclined to get back on their feet. The word "security" implies balance. You wouldn't want a dozen armed bodyguards in your bedroom, but having a guy at your apartment block door can be comforting.
Then, I really don't like double standards for homosexuals?What are double standards for homosexuals?
Then, where does the money from my membership to the Tibetan Freedom Society go? I wouldn't know.

Bottom line: while you're young, you probably can afford to be idealistic, therefore you're likely to be a liberal. But when you grow up, get a job and have to face the tax man, you're more likely to become a conservative, at least in the fiscal sense.Thats absurd. Liberalism just isn't idealism, and a leftist economy can work, its just that you have less of the uber rich people stealing all the pie.

What he's talking about is not that uncommon though.. many women bow to their husbands political beliefs upon marriage.. especially when you're as right-wing as Panhandlia is.. actually the same could happen to a conservative woman who marries a liberal man. It was basically the rule of thumb back in the 50's.. when you got married, you changed your political views to that of your husband as well as your religion was changed before you even got married if it was different to appease the man. Just goes to prove that some women are still living in the 50's and buckle to their husbands.. Thankfully both Zeppistan and I are liberals and atheists.. so there was no dissent in our relationship when we got married.. and thankfully my husband is not an extremist of any kind and I would of told him to get stuffed had he tried to preach to me about things that went against what I believed in.. not all women can do that sadly..

If Panhandlia is really as right-wing as he appears to be on this forum.. it doesn't surprise me.. unless of course it's just an act. I don't know obviously.. but it's possible... the bottom line is people will believe what they believe.. and some times there is not a right or wrong answer.. it's just a matter of what you think and or believe is important.. to Panhandlia it's money.. to some of us life is about more then money.. then again my husband and I have lots of money, maybe if we didn't I might think differently.. but I doubt it because I didn't always have money.

I used to be a liberal, too. Then I took some economics courses, regained my faith, and started realizing how silly so many of my old "proofs" were.... :wink:

i was a full-on lefty for a while, but then i started reading up on Communism and Socialism, and economic theory, and that was the end of that. i'm still left-wing on social issues, but when it comes to money i am far more righty than most Dems can stand.This is one I honestly don't understand. How can you be left leaning on social issues and right on the economy in a world where money is power? How does compassion and equal rights for all people not translate into distribution of wealth in a fairer way? Whats the point of having rights if you can't afford to sue for them in the courts? Whats the point in being allowed to be gay if you can't get medicare if you catch AIDS? Read Jennifer Government for a stunning indictment of capitalistism.

Well, capitalism can actually encompass things like health care and redistributon. Being capitalist just means being in favour of increased trade and openess, being in favour of mobile capital, and supporting the ability of firms and individuals to invest their money as they choose. Everything else is just peripheral.Whats to stop hospitals from running themselves as buisnesses? What if one company gains a virtual monopoly on the market, like Microsoft, and hikes prices beyond what people can afford? That seems to be taking capitalism to a logical conclusion, and not even to an extreme.

Whats to stop hospitals from running themselves as buisnesses? What if one company gains a virtual monopoly on the market, like Microsoft, and hikes prices beyond what people can afford? That seems to be taking capitalism to a logical conclusion, and not even to an extreme.

Well, hospitals should/could be publically owned and operated. JUst as we don't need to smash the upperclasses when moving towards a socialist economy, we don't need to allow markets to be the default for all services. Capitalism is simply as social insititution which distributes goods and services, and it is perfectly compatible with other institutions.

.. unless of course it's just an act.OT: Have you seen what Snubis has just posted?

Whats to stop hospitals from running themselves as buisnesses? What if one company gains a virtual monopoly on the market, like Microsoft, and hikes prices beyond what people can afford? That seems to be taking capitalism to a logical conclusion, and not even to an extreme.

Well, hospitals should/could be publically owned and operated. JUst as we don't need to smash the upperclasses when moving towards a socialist economy, we don't need to allow markets to be the default for all services. Capitalism is simply as social insititution which distributes goods and services, and it is perfectly compatible with other institutions.Yeah, but if you're economicly on the right then how do you expect to pay for socialised medicine?

Whats to stop hospitals from running themselves as buisnesses? What if one company gains a virtual monopoly on the market, like Microsoft, and hikes prices beyond what people can afford? That seems to be taking capitalism to a logical conclusion, and not even to an extreme.

Well, hospitals should/could be publically owned and operated. JUst as we don't need to smash the upperclasses when moving towards a socialist economy, we don't need to allow markets to be the default for all services. Capitalism is simply as social insititution which distributes goods and services, and it is perfectly compatible with other institutions.Yeah, but if you're economicly on the right then how do you expect to pay for socialised medicine?

There's lots of justification for it. The most obvious is that it's actually much cheaper, on the whole, for a whole variety of reasons. Anyone who tells you private medicine is cheaper or more efficient is ignoring fact: the countries that spend the most per capita on healthcare are those with the most private health care, with the US on top by a huge margin. As public intervention increases, per capita cost seems to go down. I pay less through taxes on health care than I would if I had to pay for it independently, for a whole basket full of reasons. Basically, the market is great when it works, when it doesn't we shouldn't be afraid to look for alternatives.

Believe there is a direct proportion between age and conservatism. No absolutes but just as a rule.

We also gain more wisdom as we age. :D

.. unless of course it's just an act.OT: Have you seen what Snubis has just posted?

haha speaking of which, indeed.. never think no matter how much you think you *think* you know a poster.. that you really do.. I mean there are of course exceptions when you get to know them in real time chat and stuff.. but some times even still.. although I think it's funny that Snubis didn't realize that the mods knew. We make it policy to not say any thing.. plus Snubis never really did any thing to get banned, just laughed at.. but we were also aware of his trolling with the "furries" so he's not as smart as he thinks he is.. *shrug* oh well.. whatever turns his crank I suppose! .. Oh and all the Holy Child ones.. they were my DEATs.. I knew a little more I guess then he thought I did.. ;)

Believe there is a direct proportion between age and conservatism. No absolutes but just as a rule.

We also gain more wisdom as we age. :D

That means I should be checking into retirement pretty soon...;)
hmmmm...
Thats a very great thing for us young conservatives to hear ...I mean does that make us old farts now??

sorry.. I meant thats NOT a very good thing...oops

My local newspaper did a story the other day about children who face "hunger." One of the pictures showed a fat woman and her fat son carrying groceries out of a food bank. Hunger, huh? ~ Michael.

I used to be a liberal, too. Then I took some economics courses, regained my faith, and started realizing how silly so many of my old "proofs" were.... :wink:

i was a full-on lefty for a while, but then i started reading up on Communism and Socialism, and economic theory, and that was the end of that. i'm still left-wing on social issues, but when it comes to money i am far more righty than most Dems can stand.

Funny, reading up on economics made me support the mixed economy even more.

Odd.

Bottom line: while you're young, you probably can afford to be idealistic, therefore you're likely to be a liberal. But when you grow up, get a job and have to face the tax man, you're more likely to become a conservative, at least in the fiscal sense.Thats absurd. Liberalism just isn't idealism, and a leftist economy can work, its just that you have less of the uber rich people stealing all the pie.
Exactly, who does your wife think she is, making $32,000 teaching our children? She obviously is only worth half that, else the government wouldn't take the rest from her! (by the way, that's sarcasm)

Liberalism just isn't idealism, and a leftist economy can work, its just that you have less of the uber rich people stealing all the pie.The rich don't steal the pie. The rich bake the pie. ~ Michael.

Liberalism just isn't idealism, and a leftist economy can work, its just that you have less of the uber rich people stealing all the pie.The rich don't steal the pie. The rich bake the pie. ~ Michael.No--the working class bakes the pie. The rich sell it, pay the workers a very small fraction of the profits, falsify the profits to investors, take their bonuses and exercise their stock options on the artifically inflated stocks, and throw a birthday party for their wives on the island of Sardinia complete with dancers clad in togas and an ice sculpture of Michelangelo's David that urinates vodka. Because it's classy.

and what do you suppose has wrought these changes in you?The conservative media? High blood alcohol levels? A butterfly in Siberia? My ex-girlfriends menstral cycle?
eventually you relise that no one really gives a damn and you can;t do anything to change it and so you begin to just not care anymore...Sounds about right.

I used to be a liberal, too. Then I took some economics courses, regained my faith, and started realizing how silly so many of my old "proofs" were.... :wink:

i was a full-on lefty for a while, but then i started reading up on Communism and Socialism, and economic theory, and that was the end of that. i'm still left-wing on social issues, but when it comes to money i am far more righty than most Dems can stand.This is one I honestly don't understand. How can you be left leaning on social issues and right on the economy in a world where money is power? How does compassion and equal rights for all people not translate into distribution of wealth in a fairer way? Whats the point of having rights if you can't afford to sue for them in the courts? Whats the point in being allowed to be gay if you can't get medicare if you catch AIDS? Read Jennifer Government for a stunning indictment of capitalistism.

i've read Jen Gov, it's a cool book. and quite tongue in cheek, for those who pick it up...

but anyhoo, i should have been more precise about my terms, i guess. when it comes to social issues i am not about "compassion," i am about minimal government interference and equality UNDER THE LAW. however, i don't believe all human beings are equal in ability, so i don't aim to make them all equal in social status, income, health, etc.

Bottom line: while you're young, you probably can afford to be idealistic, therefore you're likely to be a liberal. But when you grow up, get a job and have to face the tax man, you're more likely to become a conservative, at least in the fiscal sense.Thats absurd. Liberalism just isn't idealism, and a leftist economy can work, its just that you have less of the uber rich people stealing all the pie.

What he's talking about is not that uncommon though.. many women bow to their husbands political beliefs upon marriage.. especially when you're as right-wing as Panhandlia is.. actually the same could happen to a conservative woman who marries a liberal man. It was basically the rule of thumb back in the 50's.. when you got married, you changed your political views to that of your husband as well as your religion was changed before you even got married if it was different to appease the man. Just goes to prove that some women are still living in the 50's and buckle to their husbands.. Thankfully both Zeppistan and I are liberals and atheists.. so there was no dissent in our relationship when we got married.. and thankfully my husband is not an extremist of any kind and I would of told him to get stuffed had he tried to preach to me about things that went against what I believed in.. not all women can do that sadly..

If Panhandlia is really as right-wing as he appears to be on this forum.. it doesn't surprise me.. unless of course it's just an act. I don't know obviously.. but it's possible... the bottom line is people will believe what they believe.. and some times there is not a right or wrong answer.. it's just a matter of what you think and or believe is important.. to Panhandlia it's money.. to some of us life is about more then money.. then again my husband and I have lots of money, maybe if we didn't I might think differently.. but I doubt it because I didn't always have money.

As usual, thou presumest too much, but that does not surprise me about Libs like you.

To clear it up for you, my wife did not "bow to (my) political leanings." In fact, we have continuously respected each other's positions, and we still have several aspects in which we agree to disagree. But, she was working and facing the pressures from unions and taxes before we even met. By the time we started dating, her path to the Right was already underway. Then when we got married, and we faced the marriage tax penalty (we went from both getting tax refunds while filing as singles, to owing several thousand dollars for the whole year, even though we had been married a small portion of that year), her change of mind was complete. The icing on the cake came while we were trying to conceive, and we had friends getting all-too-convenient abortions, due to "the baby cramp(ing) their style." Or, seeing our tax money go to support illegal immigrants (we were living in San Antonio, TX at the time, which has a burgeoning illegal immigrant community) who were having huge numbers of children, since those children are welfare checks in the bank. Watching the morally bankrupt Bill Clinton (whom she had voted for, twice) get away with his philandering certainly made her turn irrevokable (sp?)

So, no, I did not have that much to do with my wife's conversion to the Right. She made the change all on her own; after all, she is an intelligent woman (then again, she did marry me, so sometimes I wonder.) By the way, she is the one who got us involved in church after we married, in case you were thinking it was the other way around. She re-discovered Christianity and brought me to church. What do you say to that? I know, somehow in your mind, I forced that too.

i've read Jen Gov, it's a cool book. and quite tongue in cheek, for those who pick it up...Lets it slide...

but anyhoo, i should have been more precise about my terms, i guess. when it comes to social issues i am not about "compassion," i am about minimal government interference and equality UNDER THE LAW. however, i don't believe all human beings are equal in ability, so i don't aim to make them all equal in social status, income, health, etc.You don't see the connection between the amount of money you have and the ability to exercise your rights?

Exactly, who does your wife think she is, making $32,000 teaching our children? She obviously is only worth half that, else the government wouldn't take the rest from her!I'm the first one to say that teachers should get paid more money and be charged less taxes, so you're gonna find it tough to paint me evil on this issue. My thing is that if we're going to have tax breaks, they should go to the teachers, the dustmen, the box packers, rather than the CEOs or into repealing the estate tax.(by the way, that's sarcasm)No, really?

but anyhoo, i should have been more precise about my terms, i guess. when it comes to social issues i am not about "compassion," i am about minimal government interference and equality UNDER THE LAW. however, i don't believe all human beings are equal in ability, so i don't aim to make them all equal in social status, income, health, etc.You don't see the connection between the amount of money you have and the ability to exercise your rights?

yes and no. you certainly have more freedom with more money, and there are many things that become easier with money (like getting a good lawyer, if you happen to be in trouble). however, many rights are an all-or-none deal, so how much money you have simply can't be a factor.

believe me, i know what it's like to be screwed over because of poverty. i know about the unequal police protection, the differences in medical options, and all the little ways that life becomes horribly unfair when you haven't got any money. but life isn't fair, and it's just another reason to spur me out of poverty and make me work my ass off to build a better life. very few people are actually poor because the world was impossibly cruel to them...most have simply made choices that turned out to be poor ones, or have not dealt with life's wrinkles in the right way. it's partly about luck and partly about how you deal with your luck, good or bad, and i think people these days are far to eager to blame "the system" for things they could have handled if they tried.

yes, there is a connection between money and how you can exercise your rights, of course. we are all free to travel throughout the country but only the rich can do so in a private jet. does this mean the laws are unfair, or that it is the responsibility of the government to even that out? not in my opinion. as long as we all have the same rights under the law it is up to us, not "the system," to determine how we do so. it is our responsibility to build our lives, and nobody should expect the government to do that for them.

Bottom line: while you're young, you probably can afford to be idealistic, therefore you're likely to be a liberal. But when you grow up, get a job and have to face the tax man, you're more likely to become a conservative, at least in the fiscal sense.Thats absurd. Liberalism just isn't idealism, and a leftist economy can work, its just that you have less of the uber rich people stealing all the pie.

What he's talking about is not that uncommon though.. many women bow to their husbands political beliefs upon marriage.. especially when you're as right-wing as Panhandlia is.. actually the same could happen to a conservative woman who marries a liberal man. It was basically the rule of thumb back in the 50's.. when you got married, you changed your political views to that of your husband as well as your religion was changed before you even got married if it was different to appease the man. Just goes to prove that some women are still living in the 50's and buckle to their husbands.. Thankfully both Zeppistan and I are liberals and atheists.. so there was no dissent in our relationship when we got married.. and thankfully my husband is not an extremist of any kind and I would of told him to get stuffed had he tried to preach to me about things that went against what I believed in.. not all women can do that sadly..

If Panhandlia is really as right-wing as he appears to be on this forum.. it doesn't surprise me.. unless of course it's just an act. I don't know obviously.. but it's possible... the bottom line is people will believe what they believe.. and some times there is not a right or wrong answer.. it's just a matter of what you think and or believe is important.. to Panhandlia it's money.. to some of us life is about more then money.. then again my husband and I have lots of money, maybe if we didn't I might think differently.. but I doubt it because I didn't always have money.

As usual, thou presumest too much, but that does not surprise me about Libs like you.

To clear it up for you, my wife did not "bow to (my) political leanings." In fact, we have continuously respected each other's positions, and we still have several aspects in which we agree to disagree. But, she was working and facing the pressures from unions and taxes before we even met. By the time we started dating, her path to the Right was already underway. Then when we got married, and we faced the marriage tax penalty (we went from both getting tax refunds while filing as singles, to owing several thousand dollars for the whole year, even though we had been married a small portion of that year), her change of mind was complete. The icing on the cake came while we were trying to conceive, and we had friends getting all-too-convenient abortions, due to "the baby cramp(ing) their style." Or, seeing our tax money go to support illegal immigrants (we were living in San Antonio, TX at the time, which has a burgeoning illegal immigrant community) who were having huge numbers of children, since those children are welfare checks in the bank. Watching the morally bankrupt Bill Clinton (whom she had voted for, twice) get away with his philandering certainly made her turn irrevokable (sp?)

[...]

First of all, I couldn't care less if any of the people running my country would have an affair and then continue to lie about it. Whatever anybody says, he was good at what he did. So what if he had some bad habits, everybody has. The idea that people running a country should be totally pure instead of just good at their job is plain wrong. Furthermore I think it's worse to lie to the entire country about starting a war then about having an affair (since the latter doesn't make them the target for every idiot with a bomb). I can't believe you can call Bill Clinton morally bankrupt and then state you're going to re-elect the current president, but hey that's just me.

And about those immigrants. Don't forget that they're there bcs some industries that want cheap labour hire these people and get away with it. Of course the government _could_ crack down on this practice, but especially in the case of the agriculture industry this would mean more subsidising from the government or bankruptcy (sry bout the spelling, english is not my native language). So much for free trade.

but anyhoo, i should have been more precise about my terms, i guess. when it comes to social issues i am not about "compassion," i am about minimal government interference and equality UNDER THE LAW. however, i don't believe all human beings are equal in ability, so i don't aim to make them all equal in social status, income, health, etc.You don't see the connection between the amount of money you have and the ability to exercise your rights?

yes and no. you certainly have more freedom with more money, and there are many things that become easier with money (like getting a good lawyer, if you happen to be in trouble). however, many rights are an all-or-none deal, so how much money you have simply can't be a factor.

believe me, i know what it's like to be screwed over because of poverty. i know about the unequal police protection, the differences in medical options, and all the little ways that life becomes horribly unfair when you haven't got any money. but life isn't fair, and it's just another reason to spur me out of poverty and make me work my ass off to build a better life. very few people are actually poor because the world was impossibly cruel to them...most have simply made choices that turned out to be poor ones, or have not dealt with life's wrinkles in the right way. it's partly about luck and partly about how you deal with your luck, good or bad, and i think people these days are far to eager to blame "the system" for things they could have handled if they tried.

yes, there is a connection between money and how you can exercise your rights, of course. we are all free to travel throughout the country but only the rich can do so in a private jet. does this mean the laws are unfair, or that it is the responsibility of the government to even that out? not in my opinion. as long as we all have the same rights under the law it is up to us, not "the system," to determine how we do so. it is our responsibility to build our lives, and nobody should expect the government to do that for them.I know about your past, but I have to say, all it does is confuse me more. Would you really have been less inclined to work hard if you had baisc medical care availible to you?

How about the protection of the law thing? If you're poor, your chances of staying out of jail are significantly reduced. This isn't based on whether or not you're more likely to commit crimes, but on whether or not you'll go to jail, whether or not you are guilty. Is your solution to this just to say "tough luck"? Its not a private plane issue, its an equal protection issue (14th Amendment I believe).

The poverty thing... I don't buy it. I'm willing to accept that stats could prove me to be wrong, but I believe that very often people are made poor by circumstances beyond their control, whether its a factory being closed or being born into a poor family. And while you yourself are proof that you can work very hard and get yourself out of poverty, I don't think that its right that you should have had to. I have nothing against hard work, but I think that maybe it could be just... a little bit easier.

First of all, I couldn't care less if any of the people running my country would have an affair and then continue to lie about it. Whatever anybody says, he (Clinton) was good at what he did. (quote -- RingWereld)

Good at what? :D LOL Bill (I didn't have sex with that woman) Clinton's legacy...

1. Status of U.S. Military [Defenselss against ICBM's] - [Undermanned & Equipped] - [Poor Moral]

2. Status of U.S. Intelligenge Undermanned] - [Piercing Security] - [Echelon & High Tech] - [Export Control] - [Technology Give Aways

3. High Treason Time Line] - [People] - [Events]

4. Criminal Enterprise Prosecutions] - [Tainted Blood] - [Judicial Watch Lawsuits] - [White Water] - [Drugs] - [CDFI & BCCI]

5. Remember the Dead List of Names] - [Suicides] - [Homicides] - [Accidents] - [Natural/Unknown] - [On Duty] - [Tragedies] - [Unrecorded]
[Mary Mahoney] - [TWA800 1] - [TWA800 2] - [Body Count] - [Waco Sleeper Theory] - [Waco WMD Theory] - [Al-Dura]

6. Obstruction of Justice Privelege] - [Interference] - [Strange Justice] - [Witness Status & Memory Lapses]

Have only listed the first 6 of 24 categories. Will furnish you with additional links if you wish. What Bill (I didn't have sex with that woman) Clinton did to our nation was much worse then lying about an affair.

[DOWNSIDE LEGACY - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE]

First of all, I couldn't care less if any of the people running my country would have an affair and then continue to lie about it. Whatever anybody says, he (Clinton) was good at what he did. (quote -- RingWereld)

Good at what? :D LOL Bill (I didn't have sex with that woman) Clinton's legacy...

1. Status of U.S. Military [Defenselss against ICBM's] - [Undermanned & Equipped] - [Poor Moral]

2. Status of U.S. Intelligenge Undermanned] - [Piercing Security] - [Echelon & High Tech] - [Export Control] - [Technology Give Aways

3. High Treason Time Line] - [People] - [Events]

4. Criminal Enterprise Prosecutions] - [Tainted Blood] - [Judicial Watch Lawsuits] - [White Water] - [Drugs] - [CDFI & BCCI]

5. Remember the Dead List of Names] - [Suicides] - [Homicides] - [Accidents] - [Natural/Unknown] - [On Duty] - [Tragedies] - [Unrecorded]
[Mary Mahoney] - [TWA800 1] - [TWA800 2] - [Body Count] - [Waco Sleeper Theory] - [Waco WMD Theory] - [Al-Dura]

6. Obstruction of Justice Privelege] - [Interference] - [Strange Justice] - [Witness Status & Memory Lapses]

Have only listed the first 6 of 24 categories. Will furnish you with additional links if you wish. What Bill (I didn't have sex with that woman) Clinton did to our nation was much worse then lying about an affair.

[DOWNSIDE LEGACY - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE]Clinton did fund the military, and anyone who says otherwise is flat out lying.

If you don't believe me, ask Dick Cheney. He says that the state of any military is basicly due to the funding given by the previous administration

Lying about an affair wasn't the worst thing that Clinton did, but can we at least criticise him accurately?

Where those supposed to be links or something? I was kinda commenting mostly on his international policies and the fact the american economy did real good during his time (although that is of course not completely his doing but the deficit was smaller)

You mention some pretty strange things like "defenseless against ICBM's". ICBM's being fired on any nation in the world would surely be the end for all of us and what that missile shield that Bush is building is, is really a useless (it still doesn't work!) piece of crap. The chance that russia or any other nation would ever fire a ICBM at the US is enormously small. Did this rocket shield protect the twin towers in New York? I don't think so.

You seem grossly misinformed about a lot of things...

Just as a question... Panhandlia, I didn't think illegal immigrants were entitlted to collect welfare, are you sure that's what's going on? Possibly your state has different legislation, but I believe that generally speaking illegals are unable to collect any kind of social assistance.

I know about your past, but I have to say, all it does is confuse me more. Would you really have been less inclined to work hard if you had baisc medical care availible to you?
I can't speak for Bottle, but I know that I would be more inclined to work if I didn't have money coming in and free health care for doing nothing but popping out babies. If you are in a terrible state of poverty, and the government is NOT giving you handouts, you have three choices:
1. Work your ass off til no longer in poverty
2. Steal your way
3. Die
And some people have moral problems with the second two. Whereas, when the government is giving you stuff for free you've got the added choice of living off of such handouts (I won't point out that this is- effectually- the same as #2 above....oops...) and increasing the size of the handout by bring MORE babies into poverty

How about the protection of the law thing? If you're poor, your chances of staying out of jail are significantly reduced. This isn't based on whether or not you're more likely to commit crimes, but on whether or not you'll go to jail, whether or not you are guilty. Is your solution to this just to say "tough luck"? Its not a private plane issue, its an equal protection issue (14th Amendment I believe).
sorry, I don't really know much about this, so I can't comment....

The poverty thing... I don't buy it. I'm willing to accept that stats could prove me to be wrong, but I believe that very often people are made poor by circumstances beyond their control, whether its a factory being closed or being born into a poor family. And while you yourself are proof that you can work very hard and get yourself out of poverty, I don't think that its right that you should have had to. I have nothing against hard work, but I think that maybe it could be just... a little bit easier.
I don't buy your belief that people ARE poor due to extenuating circumstances. I mean, you admitted that people can work their way out- so even if they were initially held back by these circumstances, that doesn't explain why they are still there. I was lucky, born into a well-off family with great parents, but I grew up in West Virginia, and I know about poverty. I know many people that instead of working their way to a better life, chose to work their way deeper in by only buying brand-name clothes to fit in. I also know plenty of people who were happy living as they were, with a job during good months, to be laid off, regularly, when the job was over. My dad's best friend was a boilermaker who lived in a 1 room shack in the middle of nowhere and was happy as a clam- didn't demand the government give him money for being poor, and damn sure didn't ask for free healthcare (other than workers comp when working) Now in college, I know plenty of people here on full scholarship- some well-off, some not. I have a friend whose family couldn't afford to pay for heat one winter in upstate New York. He's here on full-scholarship. Fully merit based....
Sorry...I know I am rambling a bit, but the bottom line is I don't think any of these people are being asked to work unfairly hard, and I definitely don't support your idea that "Hard work is good as long as it's easy"

First of all, I couldn't care less if any of the people running my country would have an affair and then continue to lie about it. Whatever anybody says, he (Clinton) was good at what he did. (quote -- RingWereld)

Good at what? :D LOL Bill (I didn't have sex with that woman) Clinton's legacy...

1. Status of U.S. Military [Defenselss against ICBM's] - [Undermanned & Equipped] - [Poor Moral]

2. Status of U.S. Intelligenge Undermanned] - [Piercing Security] - [Echelon & High Tech] - [Export Control] - [Technology Give Aways

3. High Treason Time Line] - [People] - [Events]

4. Criminal Enterprise Prosecutions] - [Tainted Blood] - [Judicial Watch Lawsuits] - [White Water] - [Drugs] - [CDFI & BCCI]

5. Remember the Dead List of Names] - [Suicides] - [Homicides] - [Accidents] - [Natural/Unknown] - [On Duty] - [Tragedies] - [Unrecorded]
[Mary Mahoney] - [TWA800 1] - [TWA800 2] - [Body Count] - [Waco Sleeper Theory] - [Waco WMD Theory] - [Al-Dura]

6. Obstruction of Justice Privelege] - [Interference] - [Strange Justice] - [Witness Status & Memory Lapses]

Have only listed the first 6 of 24 categories. Will furnish you with additional links if you wish. What Bill (I didn't have sex with that woman) Clinton did to our nation was much worse then lying about an affair.

[DOWNSIDE LEGACY - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE]

Right, let's do this again.

1. Status of Military: Quotes? Cites? Sources? Exactly what are you basing your statements on? Additionally, under The Shrub, we have increased service terms with decreased pay, decreased veteren's benefits, the constant and dangerous hatred of being in a war zone where you can't win, constant looting by contractors such as Halliburton and a military spread so thin that we are seriously in trouble if someone decides to invade right now.

2. Status of US Intelligence: Again, exactly what are your sources? Clinton tried to take steps to neutrilize Osama during his administration but was blocked by a Republican Congress. Additionally, defunding of real world intelligence began back in the Regan years and continued through the term of Shrub the Elder. Piercing Security? Er, what? Technology give aways. Such as the links between the Bush family and the Saudi Arabian government? Such as the funding and arming of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein by the Regan administration?

3. High Treason: Er, again, what? Do you mean how the Bush administration leaked security details in a vengeful political manouver designed to attack a detractor? Possibly you are referring to the lie perpetrated on the American people in justifying the Iraq war? No, no, wait, I think I have it. You're talking about the discounting of credible evidence of the 9/11 plot by the Bush administration when it first came to power, summed up in the slashing of funds earmarked for research into chemical/biological weapon and prevention because, as Ashcroft put it, "they don't represent a real threat."

4. Criminal Enterprise: Again, I point you to the looting of our country's morals, freedoms and treasuries by Bush Co. Let's also talk again about the lie that is Weapons of Mass Destruction/Saddam Is A Clear and Present Danger/Saddam Is Responsible for 9/11. Drugs...well, I think neither administration can point the finger at the other for that one, although I'd much rather have a pot head in the white house than a coke head alcoholic.

5. Remember The Dead: 740 "Coalition of the Willing" deaths so far, and counting; 3,457 United States troops wounded so far, and counting; thousands of Iraqi civilians killed so far, and counting; over 3,000 World Trade Center victims of all nationalities; over 200 dead in Madrid, Spain, subway attack; any sort of good will the rest of the world might have had for us after 9/11.

6. Obstruction of Justice: No, there will be no 9/11 investigation. Wait, yes there will, but I get to pick the members. No, I won't testify. Wait, yes I will, but only for a little bit. No, Condalabia Rice won't testify. Wait, yes she will, but maybe not publicly. And never forget the whopper that got The Shrub into office in the first place.

Next time, try to come up with something at least vaugely interesting.

http://www.alamo-girl.com/

Link above works fine. Twenty-four major areas that Bill (I didn't have sex with that woman) Clinton failed us are listed. Read & weap. :D

Tomorrow we learn what the real definition of "is" is from Bill's own mouth.
Stay tuned. :D

Wow, golly, four years after the man left office, people are still talking about him.

While you're defining things, perhaps you're like to define "Mission Accomplished".

Oh, and as we like posting links to sites, here's one:

http://www.wage-slave.org/

Have fun, drone!

Liberals are the ones who allow feminists to have too much power.

Feminists then go about thier way in trying to create a genderless utopia.

Wow, golly, four years after the man left office, people are still talking about him.

While you're defining things, perhaps you're like to define "Mission Accomplished".

Oh, and as we like posting links to sites, here's one:

http://www.wage-slave.org/

Have fun, drone!

Well, people still bash on "Reaganomics", and he's been out of office for a decade or so. Come to think of it, people still bash on the last president Bush, the father of the current catastrophe.

Food for thought.
;) Aiera

I know about your past, but I have to say, all it does is confuse me more. Would you really have been less inclined to work hard if you had baisc medical care availible to you?
I can't speak for Bottle, but I know that I would be more inclined to work if I didn't have money coming in and free health care for doing nothing but popping out babies. If you are in a terrible state of poverty, and the government is NOT giving you handouts, you have three choices:
1. Work your ass off til no longer in poverty
2. Steal your way
3. Die
And some people have moral problems with the second two. Whereas, when the government is giving you stuff for free you've got the added choice of living off of such handouts (I won't point out that this is- effectually- the same as #2 above....oops...) and increasing the size of the handout by bring MORE babies into povertyThe slightest tinge of eletism in that post I feel.

Personally, I feel that people should be helped by the government so that option 2 and 3 are less likely. Why? Because the world is a better place with less dead people and less theives. If you disagree, vote Bush.


How about the protection of the law thing? If you're poor, your chances of staying out of jail are significantly reduced. This isn't based on whether or not you're more likely to commit crimes, but on whether or not you'll go to jail, whether or not you are guilty. Is your solution to this just to say "tough luck"? Its not a private plane issue, its an equal protection issue (14th Amendment I believe).
sorry, I don't really know much about this, so I can't comment....
You aren't aware that expensive lawyers keep people out of jail more efficiently than DAs? Or you don't know what the 14th Amendment is?

The poverty thing... I don't buy it. I'm willing to accept that stats could prove me to be wrong, but I believe that very often people are made poor by circumstances beyond their control, whether its a factory being closed or being born into a poor family. And while you yourself are proof that you can work very hard and get yourself out of poverty, I don't think that its right that you should have had to. I have nothing against hard work, but I think that maybe it could be just... a little bit easier.
I don't buy your belief that people ARE poor due to extenuating circumstances. I mean, you admitted that people can work their way out- so even if they were initially held back by these circumstances, that doesn't explain why they are still there. I was lucky, born into a well-off family with great parents, but I grew up in West Virginia, and I know about poverty. I know many people that instead of working their way to a better life, chose to work their way deeper in by only buying brand-name clothes to fit in. I also know plenty of people who were happy living as they were, with a job during good months, to be laid off, regularly, when the job was over. My dad's best friend was a boilermaker who lived in a 1 room shack in the middle of nowhere and was happy as a clam- didn't demand the government give him money for being poor, and damn sure didn't ask for free healthcare (other than workers comp when working) Now in college, I know plenty of people here on full scholarship- some well-off, some not. I have a friend whose family couldn't afford to pay for heat one winter in upstate New York. He's here on full-scholarship. Fully merit based....
Sorry...I know I am rambling a bit, but the bottom line is I don't think any of these people are being asked to work unfairly hard, and I definitely don't support your idea that "Hard work is good as long as it's easy"Please don't take it to offence when I ask you this, but you're in college and you don't know what quotation marks do? Please tell me you're not an English major.

I did not say that "Hard work is good as long as it's easy". If you can quote me correctly I'll give you a cookie. Why should poor people be forced to work twice as hard just because they weren't born wealthy? I'm not saying its impossible for them to do it, but why should they have to. Why just because you are born (and I don't think even you can claim that the circumstances of your birth are your own fault) why just because you are born into a family making less that $20,000 a year should that mean that you have to spend your whole life working twice as hard as everyone else?Why should that mean you're less likely to go to college? Why should that mean you're more likely to go to jail? Why should that mean that you have a greater chance of dying before either of the first two happen? If you can give me a good reason why money is more important that freedom, education or life then I will register for the Republican party right now.

Just as a question... Panhandlia, I didn't think illegal immigrants were entitlted to collect welfare, are you sure that's what's going on? Possibly your state has different legislation, but I believe that generally speaking illegals are unable to collect any kind of social assistance.

C'mon...you're talking about people who are able to enter a country illegally. And, since I am sure you have never been to San Antonio, allow me to educate you. San Antonio is more than 80% mexican...and many of those who sneak through the border and go to San Antonio, already have family there. How difficult do you suppose it is for them to obtain fake documents in order to get welfare? Or, how difficult could it be for Cousin Pedro to simply add the new arrivals from south of the border to his welfare account?

Bump without replying to Panhandlia, who seems to think that Mexicans are worth less than Americans because of a couple of kilometers difference in where they live.

Bump without replying to Panhandlia, who seems to think that Mexicans are worth less than Americans because of a couple of kilometers difference in where they live.

I don't have such thoughts. I do, though, believe that until we finish fixing welfare, and enforce our borders, we will continue to be abused.

You, on the other hand, have given us a glimpse of how you think.

You, on the other hand, have given us a glimpse of how you think.I have? And what are they?

You aren't aware that expensive lawyers keep people out of jail more efficiently than DAs? Or you don't know what the 14th Amendment is?
Actually, no, I wasn't sure which the 14th Amendment was. I do see a discrepancy there though- I don't see any way to fix it as of yet, so I might as well just go ahead with what I already said- which was since I don't know enough, I won't say something stupid.

Please don't take it to offence when I ask you this, but you're in college and you don't know what quotation marks do? Please tell me you're not an English major.

I did not say that "Hard work is good as long as it's easy". If you can quote me correctly I'll give you a cookie. Why should poor people be forced to work twice as hard just because they weren't born wealthy? I'm not saying its impossible for them to do it, but why should they have to. Why just because you are born (and I don't think even you can claim that the circumstances of your birth are your own fault) why just because you are born into a family making less that $20,000 a year should that mean that you have to spend your whole life working twice as hard as everyone else?Why should that mean you're less likely to go to college? Why should that mean you're more likely to go to jail? Why should that mean that you have a greater chance of dying before either of the first two happen? If you can give me a good reason why money is more important that freedom, education or life then I will register for the Republican party right now.
No, engineer- however I DO know what quotes to, so to quote you accurately "I have nothing against hard work, but I think that maybe it could be just... a little bit easier." I apologize, you never said that hard work was good...I take back my previous quote.
Now, how does a high school age student, in a household making $20,000 a year have to "work twice as hard" as I did at the same school? I'm not discussing other factors right now, so we should keep otherwise equal circumstances to eliminate confounding variables. I know plenty of people who fell into this income range in my high school- some were hard workers, some were slackers, and some were whiners, just like in any other income bracket (I know that one major problem is that the upperclass slackers don't have to worry about starving to death, but as I said, I don't see any way to fix that without limiting the hard-working people) The top two people in my class were in the higher income range and the next was in a much much lower range. I won't say that I got to the top two by working hard, I know I got there by my birthright- which was that I was smarter than most of the other kids. In fact, the girl ranked third, in my calc class one day complained to the teacher "It's not fair that Lauren makes better grades than me- she knows the material!" I was shocked to hear something so stupid, my calc teacher laughed at her and I realized that that was why she'd be finishing third in our class. So yeah, I guess the moral of the story is that they DO have to work harder- find ways to bribe and blackmail the teachers. But don't expect me to feel sorry for them because of it.

EDIT: Sorry, by the way, I neglected to reply to your last couple sentences. As I was trying to say above, I don't think an equal person in a lower income bracket has a harder time getting into college. I have no doubt that anyone who beat out the top two kids at my school (legitimately- I can't even imagine what girl #3's letters of rec. might have been like) could've gone to college wherever they wanted, no matter what income bracket they're in.
It's precisely because money isn't as important as freedom or life, that you can't take freedom and life from someone in order to give their money to someone else (this is also why you shouldn't vote republican)

You aren't aware that expensive lawyers keep people out of jail more efficiently than DAs? Or you don't know what the 14th Amendment is?
Actually, no, I wasn't sure which the 14th Amendment was. I do see a discrepancy there though- I don't see any way to fix it as of yet, so I might as well just go ahead with what I already said- which was since I don't know enough, I won't say something stupid.

Please don't take it to offence when I ask you this, but you're in college and you don't know what quotation marks do? Please tell me you're not an English major.

I did not say that "Hard work is good as long as it's easy". If you can quote me correctly I'll give you a cookie. Why should poor people be forced to work twice as hard just because they weren't born wealthy? I'm not saying its impossible for them to do it, but why should they have to. Why just because you are born (and I don't think even you can claim that the circumstances of your birth are your own fault) why just because you are born into a family making less that $20,000 a year should that mean that you have to spend your whole life working twice as hard as everyone else?Why should that mean you're less likely to go to college? Why should that mean you're more likely to go to jail? Why should that mean that you have a greater chance of dying before either of the first two happen? If you can give me a good reason why money is more important that freedom, education or life then I will register for the Republican party right now.
No, engineer- however I DO know what quotes to, so to quote you accurately "I have nothing against hard work, but I think that maybe it could be just... a little bit easier." I apologize, you never said that hard work was good...I take back my previous quote.
Now, how does a high school age student, in a household making $20,000 a year have to "work twice as hard" as I did at the same school? I'm not discussing other factors right now, so we should keep otherwise equal circumstances to eliminate confounding variables. I know plenty of people who fell into this income range in my high school- some were hard workers, some were slackers, and some were whiners, just like in any other income bracket (I know that one major problem is that the upperclass slackers don't have to worry about starving to death, but as I said, I don't see any way to fix that without limiting the hard-working people) The top two people in my class were in the higher income range and the next was in a much much lower range. I won't say that I got to the top two by working hard, I know I got there by my birthright- which was that I was smarter than most of the other kids. In fact, the girl ranked third, in my calc class one day complained to the teacher "It's not fair that Lauren makes better grades than me- she knows the material!" I was shocked to hear something so stupid, my calc teacher laughed at her and I realized that that was why she'd be finishing third in our class. So yeah, I guess the moral of the story is that they DO have to work harder- find ways to bribe and blackmail the teachers. But don't expect me to feel sorry for them because of it.

EDIT: Sorry, by the way, I neglected to reply to your last couple sentences. As I was trying to say above, I don't think an equal person in a lower income bracket has a harder time getting into college. I have no doubt that anyone who beat out the top two kids at my school (legitimately- I can't even imagine what girl #3's letters of rec. might have been like) could've gone to college wherever they wanted, no matter what income bracket they're in.I wasn't talking about high school students, I meant people looking to get into college who require higher grades to get a merit based scholarship or people of working age who need to work two jobs a day at minimum wage. One of the benifits of a state funded education system is that it makes less distinction based on money than private alternatives.


It's precisely because money isn't as important as freedom or life, that you can't take freedom and life from someone in order to give their money to someone else (this is also why you shouldn't vote republican)I don't understand what you mean here.

The 14th amendment BTW says that no citizen of the United States can be denied due process under the law. Now if you have an expensive lawyer, you can get much more benifit out of the numerous appeals processes, you'll have someone more familiar with the law in your circumstance, someone who, essentially, is more likely to get you off than a District Attorney. So, basicly, if you have less money, you're more likely to go to jail. This violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause (as described above). I don't know what the solution is, but I find it abhorrant, not to mention against the law, that simply having less money means you're more likely to end up in prision. I don't know what the solution is, but I think the first thing to do is acknowledge that there is a problem there.

I wasn't talking about high school students, I meant people looking to get into college who require higher grades to get a merit based scholarship or people of working age who need to work two jobs a day at minimum wage. One of the benifits of a state funded education system is that it makes less distinction based on money than private alternatives.
Well who is it that has to work to get higher grades to get into college if not high school students?
I can see how someone working two minimum wage jobs is working twice as hard as many people. But often the work of minimum wage jobs isn't nearly as hard as some other work for which you would get better pay. That last statement isn't really true. Most private colleges (all, in fact, that I have heard of) select students need-blind, then determine merit based scholarships, then any special-interest scholarships, THEN they determine need based aid. They take any extra scholarship money out of the need-based aid (which is often determined by the government)


It's precisely because money isn't as important as freedom or life, that you can't take freedom and life from someone in order to give their money to someone else (this is also why you shouldn't vote republican)I don't understand what you mean here.
I don't guess you would. In order to ensure everyone has "equal freedom, life, and education" you would take money from on person to give to another person. This means that you are equating money with freedom, life, and education (money is, truthfully very closely related to education- even state funded educations- but I don't think education is more important than money, so that is really moot as far as I'm concerned) You can't take something from one person and give it to another in the name of equality, because you are NOT treating the two people equally. If the two people aren't being treated equally by the government, it seems to me that they aren't equal in the eyes of the government. Mr. 1 loses the freedom to spend his hard earned money while Mr. 2 gains the freedom to spend Mr. 1's money as well as his own. (then of course they both have to give their money to pay to allow Mr. 3 to visit the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which neither Mr. 1 nor Mr. 2 care to visit)
I propose that freedom, as in being free of having to do things you don't want to do to the limit where you are personally harming someone else is the MOST important thing. I don't have to say that life is important, because I believe without freedom, you aren't really alive. Life is about choices- when the choices have been removed, so has life.

Well, people still bash on "Reaganomics", and he's been out of office for a decade or so. Come to think of it, people still bash on the last president Bush, the father of the current catastrophe.

Food for thought.
;) Aiera

Good point, Aiera. I suppose I'm guilty of a little snide hypocracy myself. I'm one of those people that bash both Regan and Bush the Elder.

Bush the Younger, however, is still a lying moron with all the moral compass of your average tick and needs to be voted out of office and confined to either Betty Ford and/or a maximum security federal prison.