Government Should Teach Traditional Values

[Sky Dancer]

It’s also sad the poster made such accusations without providing any evidence.


In which case facts and evidence aren’t necessary, only rightist dogma.

Right wing hate speech, pure and simple.

not so much hate but jealousy.

Rage that they think is "righteous". It's just hate.

 

[peach174]

I was a daughter then and I simply see things differently than you do. I never once felt restricted to strictly 'women's' jobs and yes, the more the 'liberal values' began to rip the families apart, the more negative consequences we began to see in that. Women's liberation--definitely a liberal value--went way to the left to denigrate men and fathers and exalt the independent woman who needed no man while those of more conservative values didn't feel any need for liberation because we already were. But the "men aren't necessary' mantra had its effect and the trend of fatherless homes began to escalate to dangerous proportions with all the negative consequences resulting from that. It became fashionable to abort the conceived baby rather than adjust the lifestyle to accommodate a new life, and that too has had its negative consequences.

Conservative values are for two parent homes as much as possible, parenting, feeding your kids, disciplining your kids and teaching important values, parental involvement, knowing what was in the curriculum your kids are learning, and expecting kids to be educated and not promoted because it was too much trouble to see that they learned the material before pushing them on, knowing your kids' teachers, and paying attention.

It was not conservative values that changed all that.

Wait a minute...are you saying that Women's Liberation, certainly by name alone if nothing else, is a Liberal value that has been harmful to society as a whole? That girls shouldn't be taught Math, least they become Man-hating-rug-munching, scientists and engineers?

I am saying women's liberation as the liberals taught it was a vicious, man-hating, marriage destroying, destructive force in our society and has done severe damage to the kids. Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences. Never in my life have I been taught that there are some things women are incapable of doing or that I should not follow my dream because it was 'unsuitable' or 'off limits' to women. Nor was I required to see men as some sort of inferior species that accomplished things only by bullying or subjecting women.[/QUOTE]


Foxfyre is right. We both grew up in the late 60's and early 70's where the lefty socialists took over the movement and turned it into anti marriage, bra burning (very destructive force)
Gloria Steinem one of the lefties leading voices of the movement, quotes;

“A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after.”
– Gloria Steinem

"In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: Either she's a feminist or a masochist”
– Gloria Steinem
Notice this one - one way of thinking only.

Some of us are becoming the men we wanted to marry.
- Gloria Steinem

We've begun to raise daughters more like sons... but few have the courage to raise our sons more like our daughters.
- Gloria Steinem

This is the group who took over the movement's ideology;
All liberal Democrats.
They demand that marriage and the family be eliminated., that children be cared for by the society as a whole and not "belong" to anyone and that extra-uterine means of reproduction be developed as "a humane goal." They also oppose sexual intercourse ("at present its psychology is dominancepassivity") and suggest the exploration of other means of sexual gratification as a way toward "physical relations. . .(that) would be an extension of communication between individuals." In a demonstration at the Marriage License Bureau and City Hall the Feminists made additional demands for economic and educational reparations for women and repeal of all state laws pertaining to marriage, divorce and annulment.

 

[Samson]

in the late 60's and early 70's where the lefty socialists took over the movement and turned it into anti marriage, bra burning (very destructive force)
Gloria Steinem one of the lefties leading voices of the movement, quotes;

“A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after.”
– Gloria Steinem

"In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: Either she's a feminist or a masochist”
– Gloria Steinem
Notice this one - one way of thinking only.

Some of us are becoming the men we wanted to marry.
- Gloria Steinem

We've begun to raise daughters more like sons... but few have the courage to raise our sons more like our daughters.
- Gloria Steinem

This is the group who took over the movement's ideology;
All liberal Democrats.
They demand that marriage and the family be eliminated., that children be cared for by the society as a whole and not "belong" to anyone and that extra-uterine means of reproduction be developed as "a humane goal." They also oppose sexual intercourse ("at present its psychology is dominancepassivity") and suggest the exploration of other means of sexual gratification as a way toward "physical relations. . .(that) would be an extension of communication between individuals." In a demonstration at the Marriage License Bureau and City Hall the Feminists made additional demands for economic and educational reparations for women and repeal of all state laws pertaining to marriage, divorce and annulment.

Assuming your absurd notion that there was some Liberal Democratic Conspiracy, and that most women did not simply want to get a better job:

Why was it so easy to "take over the movement's ideology?"



Was it the opposition to sexual intercourse?

 

[Foxfyre]

Why do you think there was some sort of "Liberal Conspiracy?"

Doesn't it make perfectly good sense that women that were "free" and "liberated," might enjoy an array of choices other than being dependant on a male income?

You aren't reading what I am writing. Nor understanding it apparently. I said nothing about women being dependent on a male income. I didn't even infer such a thing. I said nothing about women being dependent on men period and didn't even infer such a thing.

Nor did I suggest that the "men are unnecessary" kind of women's lib was a conspiracy. It was one of those misguided movements that we see from time to time. It seems to have pretty much run its course, but the ugly legacy of it does linger on. In my opinion it did do a terrible disservice to the values in this country most especially for the children.

But it is getting away from the thesis of the thread which is the government pushing of values in the school so can we move back to that?

You said:

"Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences...."

"before that" implies there was something...some event?...some "misguided movement" that you believe was completely spontaneous, yet was also a result of some sort of "Liberal" (Women's Liberation Dogma). This is an absurd dichototomy: "Misguided" means that it was badly lead, impliying that there was SOME LEADERSHIP. Guess what? this means that there was a PLAN, or a CONSPIRACY.

You also say that Women's Liberation...was "freeing, liberating." This IMPLIES that there was something holding women back; that something was restraining them. Help me out here: If it wasn't MEN, then what was it???? I didn't know that it was a huge leap of logic to believe that it was women's dependance on income from men that was the primary restraint on their freedom! Please enlighten me! Were they literally being chained to kitchen sinks???

The fact is that women are just as deserving as men in the employment pool where there are no concerns about physical strength. They took jobs that were outside the TRADITIONAL home, but continued to have kids: Unhappily this often left less time for them to teach value lessons, and the result was a bunch of unmannered idjots attending public school. Desperate to correct the problem of undisiplined students, schools began teaching values. Nothing here is any result of an Evul Liberal Agenda unless you believe that a Woman's Place is At Home.

Again Samson, you aren't reading what I am writing. I am 100% a women's liberation champion and that has been part of my vocation and/or avocation for much of my adult life. And if you can't see the possibility in a difference between promoting equity in opportunity and fairness for women as opposed to the militant and hateful movement that caused as much or more damage than good, then I probably won't be able to persuade you with anything I say.

I was a charter member and officer in N.O.W. when it first came to Kansas. I left the organization when I could see that its purpose was as much to denigrate men, tear down traditional values, and put 'political correctness' into every place in society as it was to further the cause of women. Nor was it interested in promoting equality and fairness to all women but mostly for liberal women who shared their views. You can see that even now in their silence toward the brutal treatment of such women as Condoleeza Rice, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and other prominent conservative women, but they will go to bat for the slightest affront to one of their own.

I have been a professional woman all of my adult life. I took off a bit of time with each of my kids when they were infants, but otherwise have held some sort of paying job since I was 14. I have been a professional woman in a man's world doing work more commonly done by men a great deal of that time. Don't try to put me barefoot and pregant in the kitchen and pretend that I don't know what a glass ceiling or inequities are or don't care.

But I damn sure know the difference between destructive policies and helpful ones. And I don't have to be blind to unintended negative consequences in order to be true to my convictions and beliefs.

 

[Sky Dancer]

What a bunch of hooey. An embittered former NOW member, ex-feminist, projecting her biases against liberals. You see the fact that women in power, including conservatives are attacked in the media as a failure of women's liberation movement. Au Contraire. They are powerful enough to warrant attention, lots of it, positive and negative.

No wonder you don't want to be friends. I stand up to you, Fox. With a lot of passion.

I can't believe you are whining about Bachmann, Palin and Condie Rice taking some flack. You sure don't care when it's Hillary, or Helen Thomas.

 

[Samson]

You aren't reading what I am writing. Nor understanding it apparently. I said nothing about women being dependent on a male income. I didn't even infer such a thing. I said nothing about women being dependent on men period and didn't even infer such a thing.

Nor did I suggest that the "men are unnecessary" kind of women's lib was a conspiracy. It was one of those misguided movements that we see from time to time. It seems to have pretty much run its course, but the ugly legacy of it does linger on. In my opinion it did do a terrible disservice to the values in this country most especially for the children.

But it is getting away from the thesis of the thread which is the government pushing of values in the school so can we move back to that?

You said:

"Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences...."

"before that" implies there was something...some event?...some "misguided movement" that you believe was completely spontaneous, yet was also a result of some sort of "Liberal" (Women's Liberation Dogma). This is an absurd dichototomy: "Misguided" means that it was badly lead, impliying that there was SOME LEADERSHIP. Guess what? this means that there was a PLAN, or a CONSPIRACY.

You also say that Women's Liberation...was "freeing, liberating." This IMPLIES that there was something holding women back; that something was restraining them. Help me out here: If it wasn't MEN, then what was it???? I didn't know that it was a huge leap of logic to believe that it was women's dependance on income from men that was the primary restraint on their freedom! Please enlighten me! Were they literally being chained to kitchen sinks???

The fact is that women are just as deserving as men in the employment pool where there are no concerns about physical strength. They took jobs that were outside the TRADITIONAL home, but continued to have kids: Unhappily this often left less time for them to teach value lessons, and the result was a bunch of unmannered idjots attending public school. Desperate to correct the problem of undisiplined students, schools began teaching values. Nothing here is any result of an Evul Liberal Agenda unless you believe that a Woman's Place is At Home.

Again Samson, you aren't reading what I am writing. I am 100% a women's liberation champion and that has been part of my vocation and/or avocation for much of my adult life. And if you can't see the possibility in a difference between promoting equity in opportunity and fairness for women as opposed to the militant and hateful movement that caused as much or more damage than good, then I probably won't be able to persuade you with anything I say.

I was a charter member and officer in N.O.W. when it first came to Kansas. I left the organization when I could see that its purpose was as much to denigrate men, tear down traditional values, and put 'political correctness' into every place in society as it was to further the cause of women. Nor was it interested in promoting equality and fairness to all women but mostly for liberal women who shared their views. You can see that even now in their silence toward the brutal treatment of such women as Condoleeza Rice, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and other prominent conservative women, but they will go to bat for the slightest affront to one of their own.

I have been a professional woman all of my adult life. I took off a bit of time with each of my kids when they were infants, but otherwise have held some sort of paying job since I was 14. I have been a professional woman in a man's world doing work more commonly done by men a great deal of that time. Don't try to put me barefoot and pregant in the kitchen and pretend that I don't know what a glass ceiling or inequities are or don't care.

But I damn sure know the difference between destructive policies and helpful ones. And I don't have to be blind to unintended negative consequences in order to be true to my convictions and beliefs.

All I really wanna know is: Did you go bra-less?

 

[Foxfyre]

You said:

"Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences...."

"before that" implies there was something...some event?...some "misguided movement" that you believe was completely spontaneous, yet was also a result of some sort of "Liberal" (Women's Liberation Dogma). This is an absurd dichototomy: "Misguided" means that it was badly lead, impliying that there was SOME LEADERSHIP. Guess what? this means that there was a PLAN, or a CONSPIRACY.

You also say that Women's Liberation...was "freeing, liberating." This IMPLIES that there was something holding women back; that something was restraining them. Help me out here: If it wasn't MEN, then what was it???? I didn't know that it was a huge leap of logic to believe that it was women's dependance on income from men that was the primary restraint on their freedom! Please enlighten me! Were they literally being chained to kitchen sinks???

The fact is that women are just as deserving as men in the employment pool where there are no concerns about physical strength. They took jobs that were outside the TRADITIONAL home, but continued to have kids: Unhappily this often left less time for them to teach value lessons, and the result was a bunch of unmannered idjots attending public school. Desperate to correct the problem of undisiplined students, schools began teaching values. Nothing here is any result of an Evul Liberal Agenda unless you believe that a Woman's Place is At Home.

Again Samson, you aren't reading what I am writing. I am 100% a women's liberation champion and that has been part of my vocation and/or avocation for much of my adult life. And if you can't see the possibility in a difference between promoting equity in opportunity and fairness for women as opposed to the militant and hateful movement that caused as much or more damage than good, then I probably won't be able to persuade you with anything I say.

I was a charter member and officer in N.O.W. when it first came to Kansas. I left the organization when I could see that its purpose was as much to denigrate men, tear down traditional values, and put 'political correctness' into every place in society as it was to further the cause of women. Nor was it interested in promoting equality and fairness to all women but mostly for liberal women who shared their views. You can see that even now in their silence toward the brutal treatment of such women as Condoleeza Rice, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and other prominent conservative women, but they will go to bat for the slightest affront to one of their own.

I have been a professional woman all of my adult life. I took off a bit of time with each of my kids when they were infants, but otherwise have held some sort of paying job since I was 14. I have been a professional woman in a man's world doing work more commonly done by men a great deal of that time. Don't try to put me barefoot and pregant in the kitchen and pretend that I don't know what a glass ceiling or inequities are or don't care.

But I damn sure know the difference between destructive policies and helpful ones. And I don't have to be blind to unintended negative consequences in order to be true to my convictions and beliefs.

All I really wanna know is: Did you go bra-less?

No, sorry. I was too well endowed.

 

[Samson]

Again Samson, you aren't reading what I am writing. I am 100% a women's liberation champion and that has been part of my vocation and/or avocation for much of my adult life. And if you can't see the possibility in a difference between promoting equity in opportunity and fairness for women as opposed to the militant and hateful movement that caused as much or more damage than good, then I probably won't be able to persuade you with anything I say.

I was a charter member and officer in N.O.W. when it first came to Kansas. I left the organization when I could see that its purpose was as much to denigrate men, tear down traditional values, and put 'political correctness' into every place in society as it was to further the cause of women. Nor was it interested in promoting equality and fairness to all women but mostly for liberal women who shared their views. You can see that even now in their silence toward the brutal treatment of such women as Condoleeza Rice, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and other prominent conservative women, but they will go to bat for the slightest affront to one of their own.

I have been a professional woman all of my adult life. I took off a bit of time with each of my kids when they were infants, but otherwise have held some sort of paying job since I was 14. I have been a professional woman in a man's world doing work more commonly done by men a great deal of that time. Don't try to put me barefoot and pregant in the kitchen and pretend that I don't know what a glass ceiling or inequities are or don't care.

But I damn sure know the difference between destructive policies and helpful ones. And I don't have to be blind to unintended negative consequences in order to be true to my convictions and beliefs.

All I really wanna know is: Did you go bra-less?

No, sorry. I was too well endowed.

 

[Ravi]

If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
as a shock!

This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...

In terms of expressing the view that view that government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society guess which age group showed the highest support!!!

C'mon....guess!


"In most of Gallup's Governance surveys from 2001 through 2010, older generations of Americans were more likely than those in Generations X or Y to say they want government to sanction and protect traditional values. However, the percentage of young adults -- aged 18 to 34 -- who want government to promote traditional values has been steadily increasing in recent years, rising from 38% in 2008 to 53% today."
As a result -- and owing to declines in older adults' support for government's promoting traditional values -- young adults are now the most likely to favor it.
Americans Divided on Gov't Role in Promoting Values


Meaning???
The end is near for the Left!


Hallelujah!!

Throughout human history are accounts of those who were able to reason over and above the conventional wisdom of their peers and promote a more accurate truth.

While I want government out of all forms of social engineering, it is encouraging that maybe humankind is still able to reason over and above the conventional wisdom of their peers. If we have Americans returning to their Classical Liberal roots, again appreciating our unique and exceptional American history, roots, culture, borders, and values that have withstood the test of time, that is a breath of fresh air and very encouraging to me.

Maybe even the deplorable and unconscionable public education system has not been able to brainwash all the young and there are some still able to think and do critical reasoning in spite of all that.

And yet you are a champion of the mortgage deduction, which is NOTHING but social engineering.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is social engineering only if some groups are eligible for the mortgage deduction while others are not. So long as the deduction is made available to everybody without regard to socioeconomic status or political affiliation, it is not social engineering but an affirmation of the traditional value of property/home ownership and recognizes the benefits in that for society as a whole. It does not require the government to take property from one person and give it to another in order to accomplish that. And it does not involve any mandates. I certainly hope the schools are still teaching the economic benefits to the individual and the community when home ownership is a priority and the norm. They taught that when I was in school.

 

[daws101]

Again Samson, you aren't reading what I am writing. I am 100% a women's liberation champion and that has been part of my vocation and/or avocation for much of my adult life. And if you can't see the possibility in a difference between promoting equity in opportunity and fairness for women as opposed to the militant and hateful movement that caused as much or more damage than good, then I probably won't be able to persuade you with anything I say.

I was a charter member and officer in N.O.W. when it first came to Kansas. I left the organization when I could see that its purpose was as much to denigrate men, tear down traditional values, and put 'political correctness' into every place in society as it was to further the cause of women. Nor was it interested in promoting equality and fairness to all women but mostly for liberal women who shared their views. You can see that even now in their silence toward the brutal treatment of such women as Condoleeza Rice, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and other prominent conservative women, but they will go to bat for the slightest affront to one of their own.

I have been a professional woman all of my adult life. I took off a bit of time with each of my kids when they were infants, but otherwise have held some sort of paying job since I was 14. I have been a professional woman in a man's world doing work more commonly done by men a great deal of that time. Don't try to put me barefoot and pregant in the kitchen and pretend that I don't know what a glass ceiling or inequities are or don't care.

But I damn sure know the difference between destructive policies and helpful ones. And I don't have to be blind to unintended negative consequences in order to be true to my convictions and beliefs.

All I really wanna know is: Did you go bra-less?

No, sorry. I was too well endowed.

by n.e.a. or privately funded?

 

[Ravi]

It is social engineering only if some groups are eligible for the mortgage deduction while others are not. So long as the deduction is made available to everybody without regard to socioeconomic status or political affiliation, it is not social engineering but an affirmation of the traditional value of property/home ownership and recognizes the benefits in that for society as a whole. It does not require the government to take property from one person and give it to another in order to accomplish that. And it does not involve any mandates. I certainly hope the schools are still teaching the economic benefits to the individual and the community when home ownership is a priority and the norm. They taught that when I was in school.

Nah, it's social engineering because they encourage you to have a mortgage and be a homeowner. That's why the tax break. Same with EITC.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is social engineering only if some groups are eligible for the mortgage deduction while others are not. So long as the deduction is made available to everybody without regard to socioeconomic status or political affiliation, it is not social engineering but an affirmation of the traditional value of property/home ownership and recognizes the benefits in that for society as a whole. It does not require the government to take property from one person and give it to another in order to accomplish that. And it does not involve any mandates. I certainly hope the schools are still teaching the economic benefits to the individual and the community when home ownership is a priority and the norm. They taught that when I was in school.

Nah, it's social engineering because they encourage you to have a mortgage and be a homeowner. That's why the tax break. Same with EITC.

There is no relationship between the EITC and home ownership. EITC does nothing to encourage self sufficiency or economic independence.

Home ownership provides economic stability for both the homeowner and the community. Home owners have an interest in keeping property and resale values up, in having good schools, in having reasonable zoning policies, and in the effect and purpose of property taxes and bond issues. The homeowner's mortgage deduction helps the homeowner pay about the same amount each month to be buying a home as he/she would be paying in rent. But a home in a stable neighborhood steadily builds equity as well as invvariably improving aesthetics and quality of life.

While renting and not having the responsibility for property suits some people, rent is just an out of pocket expense that builds no wealth of any kind for the renter. In contrast, neighborhoods in which home ownership is the norm will almost always have a higher percentage of two parent families, lower crime, better schools, and an improve quality of life as well as building an estate that usually helps the homewoner retire more comfortably and economically independent.

 

[Ravi]

It is social engineering only if some groups are eligible for the mortgage deduction while others are not. So long as the deduction is made available to everybody without regard to socioeconomic status or political affiliation, it is not social engineering but an affirmation of the traditional value of property/home ownership and recognizes the benefits in that for society as a whole. It does not require the government to take property from one person and give it to another in order to accomplish that. And it does not involve any mandates. I certainly hope the schools are still teaching the economic benefits to the individual and the community when home ownership is a priority and the norm. They taught that when I was in school.

Nah, it's social engineering because they encourage you to have a mortgage and be a homeowner. That's why the tax break. Same with EITC.

There is no relationship between the EITC and home ownership. EITC does nothing to encourage self sufficiency or economic independence.

Home ownership provides economic stability for both the homeowner and the community. Home owners have an interest in keeping property and resale values up, in having good schools, in having reasonable zoning policies, and in the effect and purpose of property taxes and bond issues. The homeowner's mortgage deduction helps the homeowner pay about the same amount each month to be buying a home as he/she would be paying in rent. But a home in a stable neighborhood steadily builds equity as well as invvariably improving aesthetics and quality of life.

While renting and not having the responsibility for property suits some people, rent is just an out of pocket expense that builds no wealth of any kind for the renter. In contrast, neighborhoods in which home ownership is the norm will almost always have a higher percentage of two parent families, lower crime, better schools, and an improve quality of life as well as building an estate that usually helps the homewoner retire more comfortably and economically independent.

At least you seem to admit that it is social engineering.

And yes, EITC does promote responsibility. You don't get it if you don't work. It keeps people off the welfare roles.

 

[daveman]

If you get your impressions from the Old Left Media, the following Gallup poll may come
as a shock!

This Gallup poll certainly came as a surprise to me...

In terms of expressing the view that view that government should do what it can to promote traditional values in society guess which age group showed the highest support!!!

C'mon....guess!

[..]

Meaning??? The end is near for the Left!

Hallelujah!!

This is sorta weird as traditional American values of opportunity, law, sound and honest business practices, supporting America, working hard, being tolerant of all, level playing field, are all liberal values.

Controlling and monitoring the lives of others, intolerance, removing legal rights, torture, illegal war, booing veterans, not caring for the sick, scapegoating, not working together, and corporate greed are all modern conservative republican values.

Do I have you guys wrong? Nah, you simply don't face up to what you have become. You hide behind a smoke screen in which it is always the other who is at fault.

You can find yourself here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/189696-libertarian-flame.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/186726-republican-ideology-through-history.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...es-of-midcans-insights-into-contemporary.html


PS Just bought another American car made by Americans. Good for us and liberals who still support America.

And then there are the poor souls who seem to have NO CLUE re what liberals or conservatives think, believe, or want in this country as testified by the post quoted here.

It's just the usual mindless leftist mantra: "Liberal good, conservative baaaaad."

 

[Sky Dancer]

This is sorta weird as traditional American values of opportunity, law, sound and honest business practices, supporting America, working hard, being tolerant of all, level playing field, are all liberal values.

Controlling and monitoring the lives of others, intolerance, removing legal rights, torture, illegal war, booing veterans, not caring for the sick, scapegoating, not working together, and corporate greed are all modern conservative republican values.

Do I have you guys wrong? Nah, you simply don't face up to what you have become. You hide behind a smoke screen in which it is always the other who is at fault.

You can find yourself here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/189696-libertarian-flame.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/186726-republican-ideology-through-history.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...es-of-midcans-insights-into-contemporary.html


PS Just bought another American car made by Americans. Good for us and liberals who still support America.

And then there are the poor souls who seem to have NO CLUE re what liberals or conservatives think, believe, or want in this country as testified by the post quoted here.

It's just the usual mindless leftist mantra: "Liberal good, conservative baaaaad."

No, it's usually you guys saying "conservative good, liberal bad."

 

[daveman]

And then there are the poor souls who seem to have NO CLUE re what liberals or conservatives think, believe, or want in this country as testified by the post quoted here.

It's just the usual mindless leftist mantra: "Liberal good, conservative baaaaad."

No, it's usually you guys saying "conservative good, liberal bad."

See? You just proved my point!

 

[Foxfyre]

Nah, it's social engineering because they encourage you to have a mortgage and be a homeowner. That's why the tax break. Same with EITC.

There is no relationship between the EITC and home ownership. EITC does nothing to encourage self sufficiency or economic independence.

Home ownership provides economic stability for both the homeowner and the community. Home owners have an interest in keeping property and resale values up, in having good schools, in having reasonable zoning policies, and in the effect and purpose of property taxes and bond issues. The homeowner's mortgage deduction helps the homeowner pay about the same amount each month to be buying a home as he/she would be paying in rent. But a home in a stable neighborhood steadily builds equity as well as invvariably improving aesthetics and quality of life.

While renting and not having the responsibility for property suits some people, rent is just an out of pocket expense that builds no wealth of any kind for the renter. In contrast, neighborhoods in which home ownership is the norm will almost always have a higher percentage of two parent families, lower crime, better schools, and an improve quality of life as well as building an estate that usually helps the homewoner retire more comfortably and economically independent.

At least you seem to admit that it is social engineering.

And yes, EITC does promote responsibility. You don't get it if you don't work. It keeps people off the welfare roles.

I guess if you reaaaaaaallly stretched the definition of social engineering, you wouldn't be entirely wrong about that.

The dictionary definition:

social engineering
—n
the manipulation of the social position and function of individuals in order to manage change in a society

So is promotion of something proven to produce a benefit to all of society without respect for race, gender, socioeconomic standing, political affiliation, etc. the same thing as "manipulation of social position and function of individuals?" Gut level I see a difference between those two things, but in a much broader sense you could have a point.

 

[Sky Dancer]

It's just the usual mindless leftist mantra: "Liberal good, conservative baaaaad."

No, it's usually you guys saying "conservative good, liberal bad."

See? You just proved my point!

C'mon dave. You and the other conservatives dis liberals all the time. We never get to actually talk about anything. I'm saying conservative pundits have their own mantra, and it's bad, bad, bad, godless, liberals.

For example, let's try talking about government inefficiency. I hate government inefficiency, yet YOU FOLKS think I LOOOOVE big government waste because I'm a liberal.

I don't. It's a stereotype. My wife is an accountant for our local county. She could tell you horror stories of waste in government. Example, tons of medications being destroyed at high cost of disposal because the state can't afford to pay the rent to store it.

Does that make sense?

Not to me.

But hey, let's not talk about anything like that because we're too busy labelling each other.

You guys would probably blame liberals for that waste, wouldn't you?

Is labelling each other a value that government should teach?

Do you have any problem with teaching tolerance in school?

 

[daveman]

No, it's usually you guys saying "conservative good, liberal bad."

See? You just proved my point!

C'mon dave. You and the other conservatives dis liberals all the time. We never get to actually talk about anything. I'm saying conservative pundits have their own mantra, and it's bad, bad, bad, godless, liberals.

I am responsible ONLY for the things I say. I have no control over the opinions of others.

For example, let's try talking about government inefficiency. I hate government inefficiency, yet YOU FOLKS think I LOOOOVE big government waste because I'm a liberal.

I don't. It's a stereotype. My wife is an accountant for our local county. She could tell you horror stories of waste in government. Example, tons of medications being destroyed at high cost of disposal because the state can't afford to pay the rent to store it.

Does that make sense?

Not to me.

Nor to me. That's why I love my job. I make sure a contractor does the things he's paid by Uncle Sam to do. If he doesn't, I recommend he doesn't get paid for what he didn't do.