# just curious



## seabass

I'm just curious why the Politics forum has two moderators (both ardent Republicans) when all the other forums have one or none. I enjoy browsing here now and again and that caught my eye.


----------



## Plainsman

I'm not ardent republican, I am ardent conservative, and Bob doesn't have the time, so I'm just helping. As you may have noticed he hasn't been on here near as much. I like talking with liberals like BigDaddy, because he really wants to discuss things. Not simply argue like a head case. I think it was Robert Langager who asked last fall "if someone takes a very strong liberal or conservative stand do you react by moving further the other way". I answered truthfully, yes. I hope my arguing with MT has not caused as many people to move left as those who have moved right. I'm sure I have been counter productive at times.

I wish we could get past the partisan politics and really talk about some of the important things. I don't defend the war in Iraq because I am conservative, I defend conservatives because I think we need to do something now in the Mid East before it gets worse. Put all the reasons aside that have been talked about before. One thing that has come to light is Sadam was paying the suicide bombers in Israel. Israel has nuclear weapons, and if a real war broke out I am afraid it could quickly become even more serious than what we face today.

I'll take the first step and say I am disappointed in the environmental record of the republican party. I don't think they are as bad as some people think, but there is certainly room for improvement. Both parties take advantage of the others weakness, and I think the democrats overreact to the environmental platform of the republicans to make points. This argument on both sides is counter productive and the environment suffers while they bicker. I hope that is honest enough for you.


----------



## Storm

*Seabass* why don't you become the Liberal Moderator...  All you have to do is start posting subjects. I joined this site a few months ago and really enjoy all the forums. But I do get turned off to this forum at times because of all the bickering. Instead of having a deep debate on issues, it turns into a bickering match between Tiger and almost everyone else. Both sides are gulity it's just not Tiger. Most of the post on here are people who make knee jerk comments back to someone else who made them mad. And then it just spirals down from there.


----------



## Robert A. Langager

That is the exact reason I stopped posting here. Still read it though. I miss the glimmer of good dialogue that showed through every now and then. All it takes is a moronic comment or two to throw a wrench in the works.

Life's too short to get mad at people I don't know. Especially if they are idiots.

RC


----------



## seabass

Storm said:


> *Seabass* why don't you become the Liberal Moderator...


Ha, I figured someone would post that, even if joking. The best democrat for the job would be BigDaddy or you Langager. I really do think the forum has changed in the last few months... mainly because the ratio of democrats to republicans posting is way down...


----------



## Robert A. Langager

seabass said:


> Ha, I figured someone would post that, even if joking. The best democrat for the job would be BigDaddy or you Langager. I really do think the forum has changed in the last few months... mainly because the ratio of democrats to republicans posting is way down...


I agree about the ratio. It is just MT and he has pushed people so far with his antics that is just mainly a bunch a name-calling BS and bickering. What is a Weedhopper anyhow? Is that some sort of device in which one carries their weed?

The forum has gotten really obnoxious.

If elected moderator...........................

Just kidding. We could have our own version of Crossfire...........oh wait, they got cancelled.

RC


----------



## sevendogs

There are some reasobably smart Repubicans, because anything what involves many people would not go too far in the direction of stupidity. Someone will be always against the trend. Now, stupidity prevails, but only until next elections.


----------



## sevendogs

Robert A. Langager said:


> That is the exact reason I stopped posting here. Still read it though. I miss the glimmer of good dialogue that showed through every now and then. All it takes is a moronic comment or two to throw a wrench in the works.
> 
> Life's too short to get mad at people I don't know. Especially if they are idiots.
> 
> RC


Let us better talk aout global warming. We have a very vocal specialist on global warming in our country and he is Rush Limbaugh. Is not it right? Just listen him on the radio.


----------



## Robert A. Langager

sevendogs said:


> There are some reasobably smart Repubicans, because anything what involves many people would not go too far in the direction of stupidity. Someone will be always against the trend. Now, stupidity prevails, but only until next elections.





sevendogs said:


> Let us better talk aout global warming. We have a very vocal specialist on global warming in our country and he is Rush Limbaugh. Is not it right? Just listen him on the radio.


Uhh, what were we saying about partisan bickering and idiots? Do you have anything constructive to say or are you trying to hijack this thread?

Arrrggh!

RC


----------



## Plainsman

lol It seems no one is immune. Well you were Robert.

I could delete obnoxious posts, but I have pretty much let people go. I don't like infringing on freedom of speech. Maybe we each have to try harder to ignore the outrageous comments.

Let me ask the liberals a question. I see this morning that the democrats are voting who should lead their party. Out of over 400 that could vote a few over 100 did. They voted heavily for Dean. For those of you who are liberal (it's your party) who would you like to see running it? Do you feel the same way as your leaders in Washington? What direction would you like to see your party go for the next election?


----------



## farmerj

Global warming is good, think of all the waterfowl habtat it creates.  :wink: :wink: :roll:


----------



## huntin1

OK you guys, I don't like the bickering and name calling either, and I'm guilty as charged. I should not let a certain person get to me, but he does. I'll try to do better. For the record, and I've stated this before, I am not a strict republican, I vote mostly republican, but I also vote democrat too if I feel the guy has a decent platform. I also have friends who are democrat, I don't dislike any democrat. However, I do have a dislike for the ultra-liberal, far left ideal. There is room for all opinions here and I for one will do my best to lighten up.

:beer:

huntin1


----------



## BigDaddy

Like Robert and some other libs, I read this forum from time to time. However, I rarely post anymore due to the fact that few want to have intelligent discussions.

Plainsman posted:



> Let me ask the liberals a question. I see this morning that the democrats are voting who should lead their party. Out of over 400 that could vote a few over 100 did. They voted heavily for Dean. For those of you who are liberal (it's your party) who would you like to see running it? Do you feel the same way as your leaders in Washington? What direction would you like to see your party go for the next election?


This is an excellent post. I am currently reading Hometown Democrat by Garrison Keillor, and I have been thinking about this very thing. Democrats need to return to their roots. We aren't the party of Kennedy anymore, so I would like to have a leader of the party that can truly inspire people to make this country a better place. Democrats are truly different than Republicans when it comes to things like personal liberty, placing high value on culture, stressing the importance of a well-rounded and educated population, and civil rights, and I would like to see the Democrats find a leader that can clearly differentiate the core values of liberals and conservatives..... somebody that can once again challenge people to be better people. This is what excited me and so many other liberals when Obama spoke at this year's convention. He eloquently communicated the need for hope and social justice.

At the same time, Democrats need a leader that can bring the party back to its core constituency. Democrats aren't all fringe libs who advocate gun control. Although most Democrats are truly liberal with issues like civil rights, education, and the environment, we are moderate on many other issues. I would like to see a more moderate voice for the party from the midwest, somebody like Harkin from Iowa or Bob Kerry from Nebraska.

The problem with the Democratic party is trying to find a moderate from the midwest that does not alienate his or her constituents back home. That was part of the problem with Daschle. You have to lead either party by appealing to its fringes. In other words, you have to lead the Republicans by appealing to the far right and the Democrats by appealing to the far left. This simply doesn't fly if you are from South Dakota.


----------



## jamartinmg2

huntin1 said:


> OK you guys, I don't like the bickering and name calling either, and I'm guilty as charged. "huntin1


I think the great Rodney King once was quoted as saying...."Can't we all just get along?" I believe he said that after his 4th or 5th DUI arrest... Can't quite remember.


----------



## seabass

BigDaddy said:


> This is an excellent post. I am currently reading Hometown Democrat by Garrison Keillor, and I have been thinking about this very thing. Democrats need to return to their roots. We aren't the party of Kennedy anymore, so I would like to have a leader of the party that can truly inspire people to make this country a better place. Democrats are truly different than Republicans when it comes to things like personal liberty, placing high value on culture, stressing the importance of a well-rounded and educated population, and civil rights, and I would like to see the Democrats find a leader that can clearly differentiate the core values of liberals and conservatives..... somebody that can once again challenge people to be better people. This is what excited me and so many other liberals when Obama spoke at this year's convention. He eloquently communicated the need for hope and social justice.


I don't know how you can't be inspired to be a democrat after reading Keillor's book. I wish more here would read it. Another great one is _What's the Matter with Kansas_ by Thomas Frank.

Bigdaddy, can you explain this: "You have to lead either party by appealing to its fringes." My instincts would tell me you need to lead a party by appealling to the moderate within each party.

I think Obama is going to be just what the party needs in the coming years...


----------



## BigDaddy

seabass:

Let me explain my statement about leading a party by appealing to its fringes. The old rule of thumb in politics was that 15 to 20% of the population were "locks" on the fringes, meaning that they were locked into voting for their respective party. That left 70 to 80% of the voting population up for grabs. In such a situation, you could appeal to the moderate middle, hoping to get 35 to 40% of the moderates. Adding this 35% or so of the moderates to the 15 to 20% on the fringe would get you over the 50% hump to win the election.

That's not the case anymore. The electorate has become polarized, leaving more people on the fringes and fewer in the middle. In other words, people have chosen sides..... staunch catholics who will not vote democrat based solely on abortion, regardless if they are liberal on other issues. The same goes for folks who refuse to vote for a republican because of one or two core issues. This leaves a small percentage (maybe 15 or 20%) who are truly up for grabs. I know that this sounds contrary to the voting polls where a larger number characterize themselves as "undecided", but it is true.

Because of this polarization, each party has gotten lazy, and each party's leadership is more on the fringes. By the leadership, I mean the national committees and caucuses. Knowing this, candidates appeal to the fringes to get a respective party's endorsement.

Also, with this polarized electorate, you can't beg for votes in the middle because you may very well alienate the staunch party-backers further toward the fringe. In the old days, there were enough votes in the middle to give up those on the fringe. There aren't enough votes in the middle to do that anymore.

Along these same lines, the Congressional leaders of each party (majority and minority leaders in each house of Congress) are stuck trying to get certain bills passed or certain bills blocked. For example, a Senator like Daschle may need a liberal argument to get the botes of Barbara Boxer or Ted Kennedy, or they may need to vote in favor of a liberal Boxer bill to get her support on another bill. This happens all the time for a member of Congress, but it is more obvious when you are a minority leader. This can come back to haunt a moderate democrat who has made appeals to the liberal fringe.

The question is, how do we overcome this system? I hope that we will eventually revert to a system where there are more free votes "in the middle" to allow a truly moderate candidate to win. The other option is to find a highly-popular personality with moderate views that could thumb his or her nose at the fringe liberals and conservatives and win by pure charisma and smarts. Somebody like Colin Powell could pull it off, but he doesn't want to run. A reincarnation of Bill Clinton could pull it off (Clinton was truly moderate, regardless of the labels of the ditto-heads). Such a candidate and president could unite America again.


----------



## Plainsman

Seabass

Before I forget in a few posts past I should have mentioned that Bobm is not republican he is a Libertarian.

BigDaddy and Seabass this is a great discussion. I forgot who had which points, but I will post what I think without looking back.

I think the reason the republicans have won the past couple times is because they have moved to the middle. I hate to give democrats the advantage by what I think is good advice, but they need to do the same. The far left has hijacked the democratic party. If they move to the middle do any of you think the far left fringe will vote republican? Not a chance in -------well, you know. Some of you may not think Bush is moderate, but that's how the nation sees him, or he would not have won. When a moderate like Bush runs, do you think the extreme right will vote democrat. Again, not a chance in he//.

The truth is 90% of America doesn't want an extreme from right or left.

Now let me tell you where I wish the republicans would improve. I agree with much of their platform, but I wish they would become a little more concerned with the environment. I really like the idea of Supreme Court judges that interpret the constitution strictly as it is written, not adding their own current social twist to it. I don't want them twisting it right or left. There are other things but this would get long.

In ending I think much of this should not be partisan. There are things liberals like that I like, and I am sure there are things that liberals would agree with me on. We all have a hesitancy to admit that because we feel it will weaken our overall political advantage. Unfortunately the politicians have us by the short hairs until we can talk with one another. Thanks for the serious none combative debate.

Oh, I thought Obama's speech at the convention was very good. Kennedy (I think it was this morning) goofed his name and called him Osama Binladen (however you spell it) I thought that was funny if I liked him or not.


----------



## seabass

So what are the values that characterize the Left fringe today?


----------



## zogman

Seabass wrote



> So what are the values that characterize the Left fringe today?


As a person near the other end. I won't have a clue. I could tell you my(and most of the countries) preception of the far left is but that will just ignite Weedhopper.


----------



## zogman

Great discussion.

Seabass you out there? Please explain I'm curious as to the values of the left fringe???????????????????????


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> I could tell you my(and most of the countries) preception of the far left is but that will just ignite Weedhopper.


Again, for some reason the republicans feel like they can stand up and vouch for the whole class, only to look like idiots.


----------



## zogman

Weedy, I asked a simple question for Seabass regarding his post.
You can shut the flip up anytime. I like to interact with all walks of life, however you don't qualify. One of the most intelligent persons I know is a liberal. She is a first class lady in every sense of the word and a very good friend. You my friend are in never never land. You truly have :******: me off. I would say more but I respect this site too much.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

If you wish to make mockery of me, expect to get burned back.


----------



## Robert A. Langager

zogman said:


> Weedy, I asked a simple question for Seabass regarding his post.
> You can shut the flip up anytime. I like to interact with all walks of life, however you don't qualify. One of the most intelligent persons I know is a liberal. She is a first class lady in every sense of the word and a very good friend. You my friend are in never never land. You truly have :ticked: me off. I would say more but I respect this site too much.


You know, I used to think that this forum consisted of a bunch of Repubs vs. MT back and forth, all the time. My partisan leaning had me thinking that the Repubs were pretty obnoxious and MT was being ganged up on. So why would I want to post here and be subject to that.

I changed my mind. MT deserves everything he gets. I think he is a troll. He has contributed absolutely nothing here. He should go away.

RC

I may come back to play here. LOOK OUT!


----------



## the_rookie

MT i have no problem with democrats i just have problems with u... u r what gives democrats a bad name i will say even as a republican there are somethings that i dont agree on such as global warming personally i think its great cause where i live its cold and some heat would be nice but now some summers are unbareble and thats never happend before so when u go off on another fellow republican prepare to be smacked back by his FRIENDS


----------



## pointer99

Robert A. Langager said:


> I may come back to play here. LOOK OUT!


and you will be welcome too.......so is weedhopper..........i do kinda admire him for being the lone ranger sometimes but only too a point.

the only thing i don't like is when he twists plainsman and huntin1 posts just for the sake of having an argument.

do i give him hell??? why hell yes i do....... but most of the time it is just in fun.

i actually like people from all walks of life and in person i pretty much don't discuss politics........mainly because people take it too seriously.

besides i rather talk about sex. i made a serious offer to pig rancher in tradin him 200 carolina babes with most of their teeth for a quality duck hunt. he hasn't got back to me yet.

maybe we could start a sex forum.........lotsa rauchy pics too...hehehe.

pointer


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> You know, I used to think that this forum consisted of a bunch of Repubs vs. MT back and forth, all the time. My partisan leaning had me thinking that the Repubs were pretty obnoxious and MT was being ganged up on. So why would I want to post here and be subject to that. I changed my mind. MT deserves everything he gets. I think he is a troll. He has contributed absolutely nothing here. He should go away.


I don't suppose that you would take a negative attitude after being called "weedhopper"? That your opinion of a person could be changed by one lashback, the origin of which you obviously understand very little about speaks volumes about what kind of person you are. As to your "fact" that I have contributed nothing, I have contributed my opinion, which upon the issue of politics is all that can be given. If I were a troll I would come to stir things up, and leave. As shown, I do no such thing. I just happen to disagree with most of the people on this board.



> MT i have no problem with democrats i just have problems with u... u r what gives democrats a bad name i will say even as a republican there are somethings that i dont agree on such as global warming personally i think its great cause where i live its cold and some heat would be nice but now some summers are unbareble and thats never happend before so when u go off on another fellow republican prepare to be smacked back by his FRIENDS


There is no hope for you rookie. I wish you the best life possible.



> the only thing i don't like is when he twists plainsman and huntin1 posts just for the sake of having an argument.


It is rather hard not to put a spin on someone's comment when nearly everything they say is almost Robert Bork level conservative garbage.


----------



## mr.trooper

:crybaby: :crybaby: :crybaby: :crybaby:

One of these days we will have a productive thread witought all the whining. At least hope so...

and Props to whoever started the "Wheed Hopper" thing...but it s getting a little old we should be more mature than that. :wink: Sorry for calling you"hopper" on those few occasions MT. honestly, the name calling on bolth sides in uncalled for. lets keep it civil.


----------



## pointer99

Militant_Tiger said:


> It is rather hard not to put a spin on someone's comment when nearly everything they say is almost Robert Bork level conservative garbage.


okie dokie weedhopper and i mean this in the nicest possible way..........

up yours azzhule

pointer


----------



## mr.trooper

Knock it off Pointer. Your guna get kicked like you almost did with that other idiot. Keep it Civil.

HONESTLY. Caling people names is NOT the way to convince them you are right. it just makes your side look bad...


----------



## pointer99

good nite yall...........may your dreams be filled with mad dogs and rattlesnakes.

pointer


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Ok I'll give you the weedhopper thing. But you know what. I am about the only one who has ever come to your defense here.

But you spew your crap in this forum and let it bubble over and pollute other forums too. Like my rifle thread with Plainsman.

We value your opinions. But your methods of expressing them are pretty sophomoric. How does that go? If you want to run with the big dogs....................

RC


----------



## Robert A. Langager

pointer99 said:


> okie dokie weedhopper and i mean this in the nicest possible way..........
> 
> up yours azzhule
> 
> pointer


Play nice. Don't lower yourself to that level.

RC


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Robert A. Langager said:


> Ok I'll give you the weedhopper thing. But you know what. I am about the only one who has ever come to your defense here.
> 
> But you spew your crap in this forum and let it bubble over and pollute other forums too. Like my rifle thread with Plainsman.
> 
> We value your opinions. But your methods of expressing them are pretty sophomoric. How does that go? If you want to run with the big dogs....................
> 
> RC


There have been others who have supported my position, but I have never asked it of anyone. I feel fine defending my own point against a crowd. What crap do I spew? I will give you the rifle forum, but there was a point to be addressed, and I addressed it. It would have been better to post a new topic upon it in the politics forum, but hindsight is 20/20 then isin't it.



> okie dokie weedhopper and i mean this in the nicest possible way..........
> 
> up yours azzhule


If I'm not mistaken the original post which I replied to concerned Plainsman and Huntin1. No worries, I never took any of your posts seriously.


----------



## Storm

As I stated earlier the bickering and name calling is getting to be to much. It keeps spiraling down the tubes, as evident by this thread.


----------



## BigDaddy

Let me see if I can get this thread back on track. I may have to start another one to focus the discussion.

Seabass wrote:



> So what are the values that characterize the Left fringe today?


I don't know what values exist on the liberal "fringe", but we all know what policies the fringe pushes. These are such things as socialized healthcare, a woman's right to control their own body, and gun control.

I consider myself relatively liberal, but I do not consider myself on the "fringe". I can, however, comment on values and beliefs of liberals in general.

Liberals place a value on public service. In his book, Homegrown Democrat, Keillor presents a great example of this. As a policy, EMTs and firefighters in St. Paul need to respond to a situation in 4 minutes or less. The citizens want and expect this type of excellent public service. As a result, citizens willingly pay higher taxes to place firestations throughout the city. Furthermore, EMTs are paid well, starting at $38,000 and moving very quickly to $50,000. In addition to emergency response, liberals value the services provided my most public servants, from highway workers to county extension agents to teachers.

In direct contrast, many conservatives do not value public service or public servants with the exception of the military. For example, they use the "those that can do, those that can't teach" slogan to degrade teachers. Most conservatives tout "self-sufficiency" and lower taxes, and do not blink an eye when public services are cut or eliminated. They argue that our tax system is not fair and we should not pay taxes for people that are willing to fend for themselves. At the same time, they refuse to acknowledge that North Dakota is a welfare state... our largest source of income in that state is federal funding. Where is the shame of noting paying our fair share?

I like clean air, good roads, and other public services. As such, I am willing to pay my fair share to obtain these services. In addition, I value knowing that there are social agencies adequately funded and staffed with quality people to care for neglected children and those with mental illness.

Second, liberals value an educated and well-rounded public. They value their children reading Dickens, understanding different philosophies, being able to tell the difference between Bach and Mozart, and being able to write clearly. Liberals value a well-rounded education, and look at secondary schools and unversities as places where a person can learn more about themselves, the world they live in, and different cultures.

In contrast, most conservatives view schools and universities much like trade schools, places where people acquire skills to find a good job. They tout the need for the three "Rs", willingly cutting art and music programs because they are "fluff". In my humble opinion, if a person wants an education to find a job, they should study plumbing or arc welding at their local vo-tech.

Third, liberals place a value on personal liberty and civil rights. Liberals fight for the rights of an individual to dress like they please, say what they please, love who they please, and worship whatever god they want to. Even though I am not Muslim, I will fight for the rights of a Muslim to practice their religion without hindrance. At the same time, I will fight for the rights of Christians to practice their religion, ensuring that George Bush is able to say a prayer at his inaugeration.

The difference here is that conservatives see no problem with having children lead each other or be led in a prayer in a school, passing laws based on one particular religion, and calling dissent during a war "treason". After all, we are a white, Christian nation, and the majority should rule.

How's that?


----------



## seabass

It makes perfect sense to me, but I'm oh-so-curious as to what others think. Nice post.


----------



## adokken

BigDaddy your post was like a breath of fresh air, and for once some articulated what us Liberals believe and stand for. I have become more disgusted at all the liberal bashing that goes on on these posts. I will be eighty years old this year, have been married to the same woman for over 50 years, I am a veteran of two wars, So is there any reason for anyone to hold me in contempt for being a Liberal.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

I could not have stated that better myself. Thanks for getting the thread back on track as well.


----------



## seabass

"This is the Democratic bedrock: we don't let people lie in the ditch and drive past and pretend not to see them dying. Here on the frozen tundra of Minnesota, if you neighbor's car won't start, you put on your parka and get the jumper cables out and deliver the Sacred Spark that starts their car. Everybody knows this. The logical extension of this spirit is social welfare and the myriad government programs with long dry names all very uninteresting to you until you suddenly need one and then you turn into a Democrat. A liberal is a conservative who's been though treatment."

Garrison Keillor


----------



## tail chaser

Big Daddy

Nice post!
TC


----------



## Plainsman

Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:08 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BigDaddy

I seen your post during break today, and I could scarcely wait to get home and respond. That was very good, excellent. The only thing that bothers me is I thought I was conservative. It stepped on my toes a little, but not in a bad way, in a way that encourages thought.

BigDaddy wrote:


> I don't know what values exist on the liberal "fringe", but we all know what policies the fringe pushes. These are such things as socialized healthcare, a woman's right to control their own body, and gun control.
> 
> I consider myself relatively liberal, but I do not consider myself on the "fringe". I can, however, comment on values and beliefs of liberals in general.
> 
> Liberals place a value on public service. In his book, Homegrown Democrat, Keillor presents a great example of this. As a policy, EMTs and firefighters in St. Paul need to respond to a situation in 4 minutes or less. The citizens want and expect this type of excellent public service. As a result, citizens willingly pay higher taxes to place firestations throughout the city. Furthermore, EMTs are paid well, starting at $38,000 and moving very quickly to $50,000. In addition to emergency response, liberals value the services provided my most public servants, from highway workers to county extension agents to teachers.


This part of you post I agree with wholeheartedly. When I speak of not liking big government I am not talking about the number of employees that provide service to us, but how much government intrudes into our lives. I am thankful for good roads, good teachers, public land and the employees who manage it, and on and on.



> In direct contrast, many conservatives do not value public service or public servants with the exception of the military. For example, they use the "those that can do, those that can't teach" slogan to degrade teachers. Most conservatives tout "self-sufficiency" and lower taxes, and do not blink an eye when public services are cut or eliminated. They argue that our tax system is not fair and we should not pay taxes for people that are willing to fend for themselves. At the same time, they refuse to acknowledge that North Dakota is a welfare state... our largest source of income in that state is federal funding. Where is the shame of noting paying our fair share?


That one hurts, seriously. I hope not everyone thinks that of us. My mother was a teacher, my brother taught for 41 years, his wife teachers, my mother in law was a teacher, my wife and I do not teach, but both of us have teaching degrees. We do advocate lower taxes, and cutting some things that we see as wasteful, I think you could agree somewhat on that couldn't you. I would like to cut welfare for those that are capable to further increase benefits for those poor souls who are not capable. I also realize that we are a welfare state. I don't remember the data well, last time I paid attention was 90's but North Dakota at that time got over $4 back for every dollar paid to the federal government. In contrast California got back --- I think it was $0.56 so we do suck up tax dollars.



> I like clean air, good roads, and other public services. As such, I am willing to pay my fair share to obtain these services. In addition, I value knowing that there are social agencies adequately funded and staffed with quality people to care for neglected children and those with mental illness.


Absolutely



> Second, liberals value an educated and well-rounded public. They value their children reading Dickens, understanding different philosophies, being able to tell the difference between Bach and Mozart, and being able to write clearly. Liberals value a well-rounded education, and look at secondary schools and unversities as places where a person can learn more about themselves, the world they live in, and different cultures.


I wish our universities were set up to better serve the publics wishes. I paid on college loans for ten years after I was married. I took many classes that may have been interesting, but they cost me when my family could have used the money. Children with serious health problems would have been better off without my burden of unneeded classes. For those who want well rounded it should be available. I found history very interesting, but absolutely useless in a science career. Our universities could better serve our students by providing what they wish. I felt that many classes were required simply to support professors and the school not the student.



> Third, liberals place a value on personal liberty and civil rights. Liberals fight for the rights of an individual to dress like they please, say what they please, love who they please, and worship whatever god they want to. Even though I am not Muslim, I will fight for the rights of a Muslim to practice their religion without hindrance. At the same time, I will fight for the rights of Christians to practice their religion, ensuring that George Bush is able to say a prayer at his inaugeration.


I agree with that also. Where I disagree with the liberals is when they make laws that are for different groups of people. I believe that the constitution is for all people regardless of race, religion, sex, etc. What I don't like for example is the hate laws. No one murders anyone for any other reason than hate. A heterosexual murders a homosexual and it is a hate crime. A homosexual murders a heterosexual and it is not a hate crime? There are so many laws for so many groups, but as a white male (was once middle age too) I feel like a second class citizen. Because I have not been included I feel society is telling me I am not as valuable.



> The difference here is that conservatives see no problem with having children lead each other or be led in a prayer in a school, passing laws based on one particular religion, and calling dissent during a war "treason". After all, we are a white, Christian nation, and the majority should rule.


I suppose I can only speak for myself here. I don't want school led prayer either, but I don't want a student who does pray hassled. I can see the danger here that if we ever become a Muslim nation then our children may be required to say Muslim prayers. I believe governments part in religion is to stay out of it period. My biggest grip with what I see as an anti Christian movement is the display of the ten commandments where individuals wish to display it. If a judge wishes it in his courtroom he should be able to. The ten commandments are all over at the supreme court. I don't want to force anyone into my religion, but our pledge to the flag has been that way for many years, and our money say's in god we trust, and I see no reason to change either.

BigDaddy I really appreciate this opportunity for serious discussion. It felt so good to be having a discussion, not even a debate. You have no idea how much I appreciate you post. When we put our partisanship aside it is amazing how closely we think. I guess we all fear being entirely honest because we are afraid that to admit we see value in the other side is to weaken our own goals. Anyway, thanks.


----------



## BigDaddy

Thanks for compliments Plainsman. It is appreciated.

Just as a point of reference, I made it through college on scholarships, federal Pell grants, student loans, and working my tail off in the summer. Therefore, I understand your frustration with having to pay for more liberal ed credits to gain a science degree. I also received a degree in the sciences (environmental studies with minors in biology and chemistry). However, I'm glad that I took philosophy 101 to learn about about existentialism and other philosophies, I'm glad that I took geography so that I know where Iraq is, I'm glad that I learned how to waltz in social dance class, and I'm glad that I took courses in political science.

Maybe we are talking about a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself. You discussed frustration with having to shell out money on a tight budget to take liberal ed classes unassociated with science. Would you have been similarly frustrated if more of your education would have been paid for with federal grants, or if your tuition would have been lower because of more federal funding for your university?

We have a major problem with rising tuition at public universities in this country. In fact, many universities have seen double-digit percentage increases in their tuition, largely pricing a college education out of reach for low and middle income kids. Why? Ask a university administrator about steady deceases in federal funding for universities. It's scary.

I think that any citizen in this country should be able to get a quality education if they can meet the entrance requirements. I'm not talking about a free ride. I'm talking about low-interest loans, more federal grants for those with insufficient income, and work-share arrangements.


----------



## Plainsman

Good Evening BigDaddy

I seen your post just as we were heading out the door to say good by to our church youth leader. They will be taking over Red Willow Bible Camp. Now my mind is wondering other places because they had asked me about being a youth faith mentor.

Anyway to try answer your question. Yes I enjoyed some of those classes, but I reserve dancing for Prairie Chickens and Grouse.

If more grants would have been available I would have had mixed emotions about that. I would have been thankful for the help, but would have felt guilty that perhaps a family in more need was taxed for me to take classes that were interesting, but not necessary. I wouldn't have deserved a grant. I was a screw off in high school. I didn't do great to start with in college, then something happened my sophomore year and boom my grades went up. Then after getting married my grades really went up. I guess many of us can relate to that.

I agree with you anyone in America should be able to get a college education. I had a fellow from China working with me for a year. He said in Cina between 1 and 2 percent get to go to college. Not that many even get to high school. I think that to continue educating our young we will need to look at multiple approaches to solve the funding problems.

We need to continue federal funding, but will perhaps have to move more to the low interest loans and fewer grants. This would allow us to help more young people. Not as much per individual I know, but we could reach more individuals. Then I think we need to look at our educational system. Now a student has little to say about their classes. I think they still need a major and a minor, but beyond that they should be able to choose their electives. They should also be left the freedom to reject electives that have no interest to them. Very low interest loans should be available to support students classes as related to their majors and minors. I don't think outright grants should pay for electives that students take just because they are interesting. That money could be better used by another student who can not afford any college. If the waste was curtailed there would be more money for the truly needy. I am ok with my tax dollars going to support education, but federal money is not a bottomless pit. When some get it others must go without. I simply want to see it used with the greatest efficiency.

The only down side to this is that some college professors would be out of a job. If the college didn't require some classes no students would take them and the professor would be out the door. But, many of us must change jobs in the course of a lifetime. Then too, less professors would lower the cost to the University, and I would hope that would reduce tuition.

You know even though I went to NDSU I have never seen the Bison play. I am 56 years old and have yet to see a game. I just can not generate any interest. As a matter of fact I never did use my student activities ticket , not once. It was mandatory, why, because many would not have wanted them if left the choice. Like classes the athletics should live or die of their own merits. Isn't it a pitiful world when a fellow who can catch a ball has a better chance at education than a student who could possibly be the next Lois Pasteur and perhaps find the cure for cancer. We wonder why are children have misplaced priorities. We have not been good examples.


----------

