McGrath, And I'm even more long winded.

Guest Liberal (and others) Its along one.

>First, let me apologize 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<

Not so much who as, being a confirmed cynic, in not knowing, I suspect ulterior motives. I appreciate your clarification >They may be separable, but generally LSCs differ only in degree. That is the way it is - not as it should be. < But then the difference between a puddle and the pacific can be said to be a matter of degree. The implication is that the degree is minor, that LSC is just different words for the same thing. I don't think that's supportable. The argument seems to be in the "either -or" form. (And I responded in kind. Sorry.) Rather than a line graph, I think the issue is more three-dimensional. Should I argue that conservative-capitalistic-religious are the same thing? If I remember, the logical fallacy is of composition. >Another tendency of LSCs is to put inordinate faith in pollsters and pundits (who represent their views), regardless of evidence.< The evidence was that the polls showed a close race and it was. Putting faith in pollsters or pundits is a cross spectrum phenomena, not limited to LCS. My faith in polls is always in with hindsight. >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! < I won't. IMO, the Supreme Court majority blew it. Rather than a firm yes or no, they responded with an responding ....maybe sometimes. Remember that the majority agreed that the recount had merit, there just wasn't time. Whether Bush or Gore would have won in a recount is a non-falsifiable claim. Neither of us can prove our respective contention. We argue opinion. You have mine. >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. < In past elections, other factors (age, sex, race, income) were better predictors of how someone would vote. This time it was religion. I wasn't talking about the Religious Right, anyway. They didn't make religion a core issue in the campaign. Bush did. I have no problem with that, just the implication of purity on one side, deviousness on the other. All politics is about agendas. One side may appeal to you, the other not. Neither have the answer, just their own set of assumption. >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...< Clinton and his cadre are not "they". And they done wrong. Nixon blamed the hippies and effete snobs. Eisenhower blamed the Military-Industrial Complex. "They' would need to include the slightly over 50% who voted for Gore, and probably those who voted for Nader. We could get into Iran/Contra, or Watergate. Or the Teapot Dome Scandal. Clinton and his group are LSC. They did bad things. Therefore all LSCers are bad, doesn't make logical sense and certainly assults common sense. Put another way, Reverend Garcia (of SC fame), is a Christian. Rev X is guilty of molesting childrem. Therefore........ >This ignores over 200 years of precedent, as well as being factually incorrect. The limit is to prevent the government from establishing a compulsory, state-approved religion. It states that there shall be freedom of religion - not freedom from religion. It's all there for the reading.<

It states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Your interpretation is just that, yours. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled otherwise. You or I may not like the call., but the Court's the referee. They can change their minds, We can amend the constitution. Until them, we live by their interpretation. What the founding fathers may or may not have meant isn't relevant. The Court has been remiss too, in not defining religion. Rather, they tend to deal with issues on a case by case basis. Is Judaism a religion? How about Wicca. Or Voodoo? In some parts of the world they are. >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.<

Strange. That's how the Executive Order reads. And how it's worked in States, including Texas. Along with the order is the directive that various cabinet officers compile a list of rules and regulations that might interfere with faith based grants so they can be amended to get read of any obstacles. I don't claim that as Bush's intent. I claim that is where it could lead, intended or not.

>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 inappropriate for school children. These kids are too young to be burdened with gay rights, activist women's issues, how to mount a condom, anti-American culture, and all the other LSC agenda.<

The appropriation was limited to purchase of text books approved by the State Board of Education. And if "everyone has textbooks" I need to call at least a dozen teachers I know (in three different school districts and seven schools), to tell them that, somewhere, the books exist and they really don't need to share books with three different classes.

With bond debt and maintenance of facilities, it currently costs about $10,000 a year per student in Florida. Historically (this is both flavors of politicians) Florida has underfunded schools by between $700 million and $1 billion a year. (By underestimating or not accepting estimates). Money is diverted from textbooks to teachers, Supplies and maintenance costs. The schools (this is hearsay from friends who are teachers) who buy the sort of books you talk about are the ones who have money because the district is wealthy. What about the poor counties who have one set of history books for six periods? There's no money for all the "LSC ageneda" books you decry. Or for history books either. And the decision is a local one, not mandated from the State. Made by elected Boards. In the finest tradition of representative democracy. Florida is a home rule state (so far). The State can't stop the purchase of whatever the local Board directs (well, within reason).

Likewise, the kids should also not be burdened with being told that all Jews are damned because the murdered Christ, that gays are an abomination and should be castrated.... shall we swap horror stories? Want to get into the censorship of books? My favorite was 'Little Red Riding Hood' because it promotes alcoholism. Do I think students should be forced to read books like "I have Two Daddies", if their parents don't approve. No. What if their parents do approve? What if their parents don't know? Then why are they parents?

>We do agree on the money issue. Parental involvement 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.<

Yes. I'll go further. The child should be every ones priority. What's tragic is the people who want to be involved, but are afraid to take time off from work because of (usually valid) fears of repercussions. As a society, we need to make children important again.

>I can believe this! <

Which part? It's a small school and I know the headmaster.

>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. <

My sister is by no means LSC or wealthy. Fools not to? The other side of the coin is that private schools can be, in effect, hot-houses that don't prepare kids for the real world. I do think that kids who are chronic discipline problems need to be pulled out of the regular class and school. In pilot programs (public schools), teachers claim that without the chronic discipline problems, they cover material about 20% faster with no decline in measured performance. >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. <

Sadly, private schools pick and choose. The public system has to provide mandated levels of education for the discipline problems, kids with learning disabilities and so on. Private Schools don't. And shouldn't. Its why they are private.

Church school shift cost and double use facilities. And have smaller classes. And pay far less tahn public schools. (In general).

>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. <

I call it a dictatorship, which has very little to do with the agenda of either side ofthe question. They also had universal health care and a pretty good education system. But lets not forget the underside of our system; The '29 crash. Company towns and the Pinkertons, sweat shops and forced child labor. Love Canal. The destruction of the Everglades...... Just the price we pay for all the rest? It was what you call the LSC types who fought to fix the flaws. And were fought tooth and nail (and guns and clubs) by the factory owners. One of my favorite songs that tied the Churches into it was "Pie in the Sky".

>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.<

Relatively speaking, their will always be people who are poor, yes. Lazy, definitely. Hunger is the one we can fix. It's the one the government shouldn't have to fix because we ought to be doing it. Through our churches and private charities, through our businesses. However we can. Not because of the LSC agenda, but because, like any charity, it's the right thing to do. "There will be poor always" wasn't meant to justify the condition. Or absolve anyone of responsibility to deal with it. >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? <

In order. No its not horrible. Just an example of resource concentration. Take a look at the statistics. Wealth is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the middle class is actually shrinking, the number of poor growing. Add a strong, state supported church and you get real close to a third world nation.

Taxes run necessary services. I'm not sure that derivaytives or indexing should qualify as making money. And, yes, the poor pay taxes. Not always income tax, but pay they do.

Lay pork barrel spending where it belongs. The people (that's you and me) who demand all those projects. Few politicians of any flavor are innocent. Mentioning the stadium built for GWB's team with taxpayers money woul dbe a cheap shot. But I take 'em where I can get em.

First, the protection we provide isn't all that resource intensive. And while we produce more goods and services, we do so(mostly) for our own use. Look at the trade deficit.

Who wants to live like a third world people? Noone, including them. Given the concentration of wealth trend inthis country, a whole lot of people had better get used to it.

>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.<

And as said, I don't care if you register, I just like to know who's doing the posting.

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

And vice versa.

Regards,

John