First, let me apologise for failing to log in with a guest name. It was purely a matter of hitting the "submit message" button before Thinking of it. I am aware that some people must know who is speaking before they know what position to take on an issue!

Now:

>You imply that liberal/socialist/communist are >inseparable. This demonstrates a rather profound lack of >understanding of any of them.

They may be seperable, but generally LSCs differ only in degree. That is the way it is - not as it should be.

>Your statement that Gore had the election handed to him >on a silver platter is odd since pollsters and pundits >alike claimed that Gore had an uphill battle from the >get go.

Another tendency of LSCs is to put inordinate faith in pollsters and pundits (who represent their views), regardless of evidence.

>A Supreme Court decision that elevated sophistry, >cynicism and lack of character to new levels had a >little to do with it. However, if you believe that we >are a Nation of the Law, that's the way it is.

No idea what this is about, unless it is concerning the election decision. Bush won the election in accordance with the law. What the Gore people and democrats wanted was to change the law - after the election outcome! Please don't attempt to tell me that the democrats would have championed that if Gore had won the count and the recount!

>If people are becoming educated about the "true agenda" >of the LSC then the interesting fact that the single >most valid predictor from the presidential election was >religious affiliation would seem to show all us LSC's >that the true agenda of whatever the opposite of LSC. >(I'll let others decide what that might be) is >religiously motivated.

Again, not clear about your meaning. The religious right voted as they always have. Differences in this election were that religious people from the left, along with more union members, women and non-black minorities went Republican.

>Those you characterize as LSC share the blame for what's >wrong in this Country. Just as they can accept praise >for their part in what's right

This lofty statement sounds good, but is refuted by the facts. They do not accept blame. They blame others. Look at the Clintons, as a case in point. They fielded teams of lawyers to assign blame to innocent people. - The travel office staff - Numerous women - A Vast Right Wing Conspiracy - Congress - Rednecks - Prosecuters - And on and on...

>The manifest agenda of the "other side" is heavily laced >with religion. Strange that the Constitution was >designed to limit the involvement of Church and State...

This ignores over 200 years of precedent, as well as being factually incorrect. The limit is to prevent the government from establishing a compulsary, state-approved religion. It states that there shall be freedom of religion - not freedom from religion. It's all there for the reading.

>Once tax-payer's dollars start flowing into religious >organizations, tax payers of all flavors are going to >start demanding accountability. When the church becomes >accountable to Caesar, you end up with a church stripped >of all those elements that make it important. Just >another arm of the secular bureaucracy. Belief in God >being optional.

This is a mischaracterization of Bush's proposals. I won't waste the bandwidth to go through it, but you really should study the issue a little closer. In short, Bush does not propose to give taxpayer dollars to religious organizations.

>and the Bible admonishes use to render unto caesar that >which is caesar's, yet the answer to everything is to >entangle religion with government. I predict that even >if it happens, the long term losers will be religion. I >have a number of friends who teach. I'm sure they would >like to know where all the money went. Not into text >books. Or computers. Or buildings. Or salaries. Or >supplies. The Florida Legislature did a one time >appropriation of $756 million two years ago to fund text->book purchases. The goal was to ensure that every >student had their own text-book. They reached about 80% >of that goal. The next year the appropriations for text->books were cut from the budget since they'd given them >so much the year before. This, btw was a conservative >legislature.

I wont argue your predictions or your opinions. However, I am from Florida and the text book allegation is also mischaracterized. All students have text books. What was stopped was was the purchase of materials inapropriate for school children. These kids are too young to be burdened with gay rights, activest women's issues, how to mount a condom, anti-American culture, and all the other LSC agenda.

>Money, however, was never the answer. Parental >involvement was and is. For a group who champions family >values, you seem very quick to blame everything except >the fact that most parents aren't involved. In public >schools in my area, about 45 % of the parents show up >for scheduled parent/teacher conferences. Less than30% >come to open house. Less than 5% volunteer to help out >at school.

We do agree on the money issue. Parentel involvment is another issue we agree upon. Parents must be responsible for their children - not the government. If both spouses must work to pay the incredible tax burden we suffer (please don't tell me about the tax rates in some European country - I don't want America to go that way!) or for some other good reason, they still must not shirk their responsibility. Their child should be their first responsibility.

>I have a friend who runs a private school that requires >that parents help out as aides on a regular basis as >part of the tuition "cost". About 15% offer to pay more >so they wont have to show up. About 10 % of the 15% have >valid reasons why they can't show up. The rest are "just >too busy. And that's what we're paying you for". This is >an LSC school, btw.

I can believe this!

>My sister, on the other hand, sends her children to a >private school run by their church. They have the same >requirement and the same problem. Their percentages >of "I just can't" runs at about 25%, with 5% having >legitimate excuses.

Most wealthy LSCs send their children to private school. They would be fools not to - if they can indeed afford it. But I agree that there is a lack of responsibility by many parents, and it is facilitated by modern culture.

>Another fact. In public schools that require parental >involvement (usually magnet schools), performance >skyrockets. Unfortunately, those kind of programs cost >money.

Private schools can provide this kind of performance for much less money than public schools. Here in Florida, it cost, on average, between $7,000 - $9,000 per student, per year. This is the whole enchilada - transportation, extracurricular activities, etc. A local church school charges $1,800 per year for each student. The parents must provide transportation, books, and some classroom materials. Other church schools charge up to $3,500 but provide busing, after-school sports, and other activities. Guess which students perform better? Now, I know many parents can't afford private school and can't provide transportation, books, etc. But they might if vouchers gave them choice.

>All anecdotal. But factual. More than can be said for >the opinions your shared.

Hmmm?

>Your comments about Russia are curious as their major >problem was that productivity was extremely low and they >didn't have the money to throw at their many problems. >And they had massive corruption and a rich, sheltered, >elite and the system collapsed. And they weren't >communistic anyway. Neither is Cuba, come to that.

Call it what you will, communistic or other, but the government controlled all activities. Capitalism was shunned. Poor productivity was the result of no incentive to produce. Workers were allocate as much money as the government thought they needed. Essentially, you have reinforced my point.

>Want to talk about poverty and hunger? We have it here >in the richest country in the world. With all those LSC >programs gobbling up tax dollars. Or to you believe that >the only reason people are hungry is becasue they're to >lazy. Or being punished by God. (Strange. I don't >remember that part of the Bible.)

There will always be poor, lazy, hungry people - no matter what your form of government. But you must admit, America is a helluva better place to be poor (long-term) than any other country! It will improve under President George W. Bush.

>We have more millionaires than anyone in the world. The >President has proposed a tax cut that would give $36 >billion dollars in tax cuts to 1% of the people. $804 >million would benifit 1200 people. Talk about a rich >sheltered elite. With 4% of the worlds population, the >US uses 40% of the resources. This allows us to take the >moral high-ground?

You keep making my case! The most millionaires? Oh, how horrible! Tax cuts don't give anything to anybody. They simply let people keep more of what they earn. Poor people don't pay taxes, so they are not hurt either way. What will suffer is pork-barrel spending by corrupt politicians, like the Clintons (to name a current case, you can add some Republicans if you wish - there are some of those too). As far as America using the most resources, that's because we produce more of the world's good and services. We protect most of the world from each other, so we use some resources on their behalf. Anyway, so what? Who wants to live like third-world people?

>And finally, as evil, corrupt and selfish as most of us ?>LSCers are here on mudcat, at least we have the >integrity to register and post and defend, if needed, >our beliefs and ideas, rather than hide behind an >anonymous login. Should I presume that this sort of >thing is also a characteristic of the non LSCers?

See first statement above. If you have a problem with registering/not registering, take it up with Mudcat. Not my show. Besides, registering on Mudcat does not make you right by default.

I don't expect to convert you to being a conservative - but I will try to keep you honest!