Still a Republican?

[flaja]

Okay, this is very flawed. The 10th Amendment specifically states that any unspecified powers in the Constitution (Education one of them) is a power either relegated to the individual or to the State. Hence the reason I mentioned that Amendment in my original post.

The Constitution also says that Congress can make any law that is necessary for it to fulfill any of its enumerated powers.

Also, the Federal Gov't's role in education before the NCLB act was only food for poor programs to ensure proper nutrition, not to directly fund and direct education from a centralized point.

For about the first 18 weeks of the 7th grade (in 1981) my class had to stand up to be counted by race, gender and whether or not our parents served in the military because my school received federal funding based on the demographics of the student body. By the time we were counted the last time it was such a joke and hassle that our teachers began apologizing to us every time we had to be counted.

And don't forget programs like Head Start- a federal public school program which came about in the 1960s or early 1970s.

BTW: If the federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in public education, why did no one sue the federal government for the Northwest Ordinance (which the Congress made federal law), Homestead law or the land grant colleges?

 

[flaja]

However, section 8 states

"and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;"

While not enumerated, it's easy to include education under general welfare.

If the money for that general welfare is coming from the Federal govt., they Federal govt. has a right to indicate how those moneys are spent, and therein is the power to regulate. If a state does not accept Federal funds, then they wouldn't have to comply with the funding requirements.

CL

I worry about public schools because of national security rather than the general welfare. Last summer I heard a radio news report that says the U. S. produces about 300 engineers a year while Red China produces 3,000.

 

[flaja]

Previous rulings would show that to be incorrect. Amazingly this is a supposed Libertarian giving advice on how to make it so everything can be controlled by the Federal Government? Almost everything could be included in "General Welfare" if you wanted to force it in there with a crowbar. There is a reason for Amendment 10, and it isn't because they wished everything to be covered under the general welfare. They specifically left those powers (education is clearly a power as it can influence how the child will think later) not enumerated to other places.

Can you explain how having a good quality public school system has nothing to do with the nation's general welfare?

 

[flaja]

You seem to be saying that, biblical values of the RR, are not good for this nation.

How would we know? The GOP has never tried much to implement Biblical values. Abortion is still legal. Christianity in public schools is becoming extinct. The divorce rate hasn’t gotten any better. And GWB’s civil unions for sodomites are nothing more than marriage under another name.

Would you say that an anti-abortion stance is not good for this nation, as the majority of the RR strive for in their political involvement or desire?

Suppose the GOP were to abolish abortion and babies that are now aborted are put up for adoption. Think of the gratitude these babies would have for being allowed to live. Think of the future GOP voters they could provide.

There are many blue state folks that are staunch Democrats who totally agree that secure borders, and a stoppage of the illegals coming across our borders is appropriate. They feel that their very livelihoods/jobs are being threatened as well as their taxes are being used to support the welfare of folks that have broken our immigration laws. These are not RR's or Neo Cons......yet they might be in agreement.

I forgot who it was, but a reporter on ABC News on election night commented that even with a Democrat majority the next Congress will likely be more conservative than the GOP Congresses have been because so many RINO’s were voted out and so many of the new Democrats had to run as conservatives to get elected. One of the new Democrats is a county sheriff of all things.

One good old test, that always shuts folks up......is, "If Jesus was here today..........what would He do, or What would He say?

Any lib who has to ask this question has not bothered to read the Bible. If they had, they’d know what Jesus would do and say.

 

[jillian]

to pay attention to (the religious right) and give them actual results but not focus on them to the detriment of all alse

How is it not pandering to the radical religious right if you "give them actual results"? And how is that not to the detriment of the rest of the country, assuming one isn't a member of the RRR?

 

[flaja]

Public schools are a state matter, not a Federal one. Your opinion otherwise doesn't change the facts.

Explain. Tell me how and why education is only a state matter.

 

[Gunny]

Explain. Tell me how and why education is only a state matter.

I pay school taxes directly to the school district I live in. It's different in other states. The point is, the Federal government is not involved in taxation for public shools. It's done locally.

I don't get what is so hard to understand about it.

 

[no1tovote4]

Did you not say, "So instead of trying it you give up and go for one of those parties with the massive .5% of the vote"?

What was I suppose to think? You make it sound like the 3rd party option would be like taking cyanide.

I didn't say that I voted that way. I said I worked toward change... You are supposed to read more than five words of a post and actually work to understand the points people are listing for you.

I stated to work toward change, not to vote like a sheep. How you register and the actions you take can change the Party so that you can feel good about voting for it. If you take no action and simply leave for one of those tiny parties you simply give up any voice you had in government and any power you had to effect the change and bring the party back to what you want to see.

 

[no1tovote4]

The Constitution also says that Congress can make any law that is necessary for it to fulfill any of its enumerated powers.



For about the first 18 weeks of the 7th grade (in 1981) my class had to stand up to be counted by race, gender and whether or not our parents served in the military because my school received federal funding based on the demographics of the student body. By the time we were counted the last time it was such a joke and hassle that our teachers began apologizing to us every time we had to be counted.

And don't forget programs like Head Start- a federal public school program which came about in the 1960s or early 1970s.

BTW: If the federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in public education, why did no one sue the federal government for the Northwest Ordinance (which the Congress made federal law), Homestead law or the land grant colleges?

Because many stand by and say that it is good for them to muck around in what should be left to the States...

Both of the major parties have a stake in it. Many RRs and Cons believe that either prayer or the pledge should be made mandatory across the nation, the Ds believe that it should be relegated to the ashbin (I know exaggeration, not all of them, but enough that both parties want it to look like they could realistically effect this change.)

 

[no1tovote4]

Can you explain how having a good quality public school system has nothing to do with the nation's general welfare?

Extending it to a national program makes it progessively more expensive and demonstrably less flexible to changing needs of the populace. It is in the best interest of the nation, the students, and our welfare that we have a good system at each state with strong local control who can direct changes according to their needs.

 

[no1tovote4]

How is it not pandering to the radical religious right if you "give them actual results"? And how is that not to the detriment of the rest of the country, assuming one isn't a member of the RRR?

Instead of pretending to be all strong on abortion, yet passing laws known to be unconstitutional. One would pass an actual late-term abortion law with the "Life of the Woman" clauses required by the SCOTUS. This would take away much of the power of the RR in the party as they would have less interest in the vote.

I guess I wasn't quite expressing it as I wanted. The Party feels that it can continue to use this issue to get them to vote, they stretch it out. They don't "cater" so much as use it as a power card to get the religious vote, much like the gay thing...

I'd rather work to get results than simply put this forward as the platform that we are running on so consistently. Let the gay thing go, it is a waste of time. Even the most unrealistic person knows that sooner or later gays will be getting married. This opposition simply isn't going to last.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Has anyone here left the Republican Party for any reason other than “it is too conservative”?

I used to be a hardline conservative republican. My opinions have changed a good bit in recent years, although in many respects (but not all) I could be considered an old-school paleocon. My main reasons are:

1) Cutting government matters, not cutting taxes. The democrats pay for skyrocketing spending with taxes; the republicans pay for it with borrowing and money printing. Either one siphons wealth from the private sector.

2) Reckless military interventionism is not compatible with a small government philosophy.

3) Too much "compassionate" conservatism (cover your wallet when you hear that). Too much "conservative" socialism, ie instead of cutting government, let's use the state for OUR ends. Too much talk of reform and better management--folks, I'm sorry but waste, fraud, and incompetence are the inherent nature of government. You aren't going to change it with some new management.

Basically, you can choose left-wing or right-wing socialism, and I want neither.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Any biologist will tell you life begins at conception. It's science, not religion.

 

[no1tovote4]

Any biologist will tell you life begins at conception. It's science, not religion.

True, but any realist will tell you that almost all of the population supports a late term ban, yet we get nothing at all done on the issue because we want to pretend we are "more hardline" than the other side? Come on. Let's get with the program and actually do what we can!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

True, but any realist will tell you that almost all of the population supports a late term ban, yet we get nothing at all done on the issue because we want to pretend we are "more hardline" than the other side? Come on. Let's get with the program and actually do what we can!

Hey! How peppy and stupid!

I just stated a fact. That fact is not negotiable.

 

[no1tovote4]

Hey! How peppy and stupid!

I just stated a fact. That fact is not negotiable.

I haven't said it was. At least attempt to comprehend the post. I wasn't arguing with you. Just suggesting that we should get done what we can easily do, late-term bans are one of those things.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I haven't said it was. At least attempt to comprehend the post. I wasn't arguing with you. Just suggesting that we should get done what we can easily do, late-term bans are one of those things.

DId I say we shouldn't work for late term bans? What are you blathering about?

 

[no1tovote4]

DId I say we shouldn't work for late term bans? What are you blathering about?

You said it was "stupid" to suggest it. In fact you said it was "Peppy and Stupid"...

Are you being deliberately disingenuous or are you just naturally talented at it?

I have said nothing that would suggest that I don't agree with your statement, yet you did with mine. So? Are you going to attempt to make yourself look better now or just fess up and say, "oops!"

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You said it was "stupid" to suggest it. In fact you said it was "Peppy and Stupid"...

Are you being deliberately disingenuous or are you just naturally talented at it?

I have said nothing that would suggest that I don't agree with your statement, yet you did with mine. So? Are you going to attempt to make yourself look better now or just fess up and say, "oops!"

No. You were peppy and stupid " Hey kids, let's just go along with what's popular and don't make waves, kay?" giggle.

 

[no1tovote4]

No. You were peppy and stupid " Hey kids, let's just go along with what's popular and don't make waves, kay?" giggle.

LOL. Nah, I'm suggesting that we work the easy play first then tackle the harder issues. We've been working at this late-term abortion ban for decades and gotten nothing done. Do something, it is better than nothing.

I knew you'd attempt to make yourself look better rather than actually attempt to comprehend the post!