Good point, but when you continue with that dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest mentality with absolutely no government overrule to keep order, you begin to approach something along the lines of facism. As everyone's been saying, balance is the key- and it is still possible, you know, to have a capitalistic economy while still having a government to keep order (and force a system, as you say). From what you said, it seems that it's either every man for himself (like Iraq right now) or a communist tyranny. Not everyone can be made completely happy, but there is space between.

 

I hear you, but my feelings for the child are just as strong as for the mother. This is not really a conservative-liberal or even a religious-atheist thing, just a difference of opinion on the definition of a human life.

 

Extremism is extremely dangerous (pun intended), and puts the blinders on people. September 11, Ireland and Israel are proof of this. It's very easy (and far too simplistic) to view the world in black and whites. An open minded person who truly yearns to understand can see merit in both liberal and conservative ideals, but again, the easy way out is to say "I'm right, you're wrong" without giving it a second thought.
Of course it's virtually impossible to come up with a "correct" answer, or else we would live in Utopia. What is not impossible, although difficult, is for people to take the time and effort to think about, and be engaged in their government. It's tough because there is not instant gratification and it is very easy to think that you make no difference.

Your welcome for the polite response, btw. Intelligent discussion between people of different ideals is what I think of when I hear "united we stand". I think that Americans have a lot in common, despite the efforts of modern politicians.

 

That's not fascism. Fascism is where there is too much "government overrule". Libertarians don't think that there should be no government to keep order. We just feel that the government should only restrict individual liberties when one person's actions directly harm another person.

 

"It makes me sick that Democrats pretend to be compassionate when they are the biggest racists on the planet..... poor, poor little immigrants need a handout. Blacks, watch out for the Republicans... they are marginalizing YOU!!!!

So who's the racist?"

I've heard the arguments for why liberals are supposedly racist. But the bottom line is that liberals want to improve education in minority areas, and conservatives would rather spend on defense. If education in minority areas improved, then racism in general would get less prevalent. Liberals are not patronizing minorites as conservatives would make you think; they are simply aknowledging some major short comings in the education system that leave many minorities in a disadvantaged position compared to those with good education.

 

I honestly knew I was spelling it wrong... and had a good idea as to how it is spelled , but put up a quick phonetic interpretation so that those unfamiliar with the term could understand it. But you and I are still on the same page. I said before that both sides are needed BUT the ratio is debatable. Your ratio I'm sure is different than mine, but the principal you and I understand is the same. So I guess I'm not arguing with you, instead I am arguing with Oafs liberal=crazy.

-Chris

ONLY liberal = crazy just as ONLY conservative=crazy. Amalgom of liberal/conservative= teh win!

 

This one depends on the definition of racism. Do liberals (as defined by the DNC) hate non-whites and wish to harm them? I doubt it very much. Have their policies (starting with LBJ's war on poverty) hurt non-whites? Greatly.

 

I hear ya.

 

"This one depends on the definition of racism. Do liberals (as defined by the DNC) hate non-whites and wish to harm them? I doubt it very much. Have their policies (starting with LBJ's war on poverty) hurt non-whites? Greatly."
...yeah you're prolly right on that one...

 

I think this has already been gone over... and the answer? Why, Yes.
...He still hasn't learned to speak out of the correct oriface.

 

Noted.

 

If you didn't notice, I said "something along the lines of," as I couln't think of a term that fit what I was thinking of properly. I mean that, if it's survival of the fittest, those that are fit become the elite. As this continues, the disparity between the rich and poor becomes more and more extreme, just as it has in this country. Without a system to redistribute wealth (by funding education, etc.), this continues unchecked, that is, until the peasants revolt . So you think that a poor child that is bright and self-motivated shouldn't get any kind of break, or help, to at least give him a chance at becoming 'elite'?

This all reminds me of my theory that no president should be allowed to serve more than 4 years. In a nation of bipartisan politics, our country gets ingrained with the ideology of one side after four years, and people lose sight of the advantages of the other view (in this case, environment, etc.) We have agreed that both sides each have part of the right idea, correct?

Did Mussolini tax himself and give to the poor? I thought this was the type of 'government overrule' you were referring to. Facism is by no means altruistic toward the general population, it's more like the subjugation and intimidation kind of over-rule.

 

I don't disagree with helping children. I disagree with liberals "helping" by confiscating money from our paychecks before we even see it.
Voluntary help = cool
Involuntary help enforced by government coercion = tyranny

 

I don't think that's true. We are talking about minority sub-groups now. Why is it that asians flourish in the "worst" schools, while the dropout rate for blacks and hispanics keeps getting worse? This is really a subject for another thread, but what IS relevant that majorly irritates me that Democrats are seen as "minority friendly" when they are just using the poor immigrants as pawns and lumping "minorities" together as a whole.

 

Cultural differences and social views. And the fact that asians have not been in the American system that long yet. Wait a couple of more years till they become americanized and you will proably see a trend. Asians that come to the US have HUGE pressures from the first generation parents to do well in school. You don't see that in either black or hispanic students, since they have been here for several generations and their parents just don't have any faith in the system anymore. (Their is more to it than just that but thats the tip of the ice berg.) The Democrats are more minority friendly. Prove it otherwise because me personally as a minority I don't see how the Republicans can compare to Democrats in that aspect.