(07-25-2015 03:17 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: (07-25-2015 02:33 PM)dawgitall Wrote: 1. No
We agree on that
Quote:2. I have mixed feeling about abortion.
If your philosphy is live and let live, you shouldnt have mixed feelings about it.
Quote:3. Vouchers have been ruled legal in NC just this week. The fear I have is that this will result in reduced funds for public schools. If it doesn't then I'm okay with them. Since taxpayer funds are going to go toward private school tuition I think there is a need for DPI oversight. Charter schools are a reality as well. They really seem to produce a mixed bag of results. Some are very good.
It is a VERY LIBERAL position to take a stance that the public schools can not have funding removed. The main objective here should be the quality of education, not the amount of funding. If charter schools and vouchers allow kids to get a better education (and usually for less money per child than public education), then if you care about education itself, you dont care if the public school system dissolves completely. The primary focus should be on the kids and the quality of their education, not that preservation of public schools and teacher's unions.
It also should be no business of the governments if the school is religious or not. That is the choice of the parent. What happened to live and let live?
Quote:4. How about this one. I recognize the need for responsible coal mining as it is a major energy source, but I oppose Mountaintop Removal mining. How about you?
I oppose most mountain top removal.
Quote:5. I don't read a lot of the threads because the discussion doesn't interest me or the comments are just so predictable, it seems a waste of time. Hillary would be a good example. I do like general political discussions, and enjoy poking a little in some of the far right threads, and who can resist commenting about "the Donald" who of course is just a sideshow. I also post on a NC specific political BB that leans far to the left, and there I offer a counterpoint to some of the progressive over reaches.
If you can not call out Hillary, you are not a moderate. If you can not call out Obama on anything, you are not a moderate. Hell, I called out Bush for not vetoing spending bills coming from the republican congress.
Quote:
6. I can only think of one or two Republicans in the Senate that wouldn't be considered conservatives, Olympia Snow being the first to come to mind. There aren't many in the house either. I think RINO is code for not tea party influenced and willing to cross the isle to get thing done. I would say the mandate and medicaid expansion aspects of the ACA would be easily considered liberal but setting up the exchanges, minimum standards and tax credits seem moderate to me. So I guess it depends on what exactly you are talking about when it comes to the ACA.
There are more conservatives now than there were when the ACA vote was taken. But back then, there were far more moderate and liberal republicans than conservative. There are a lot fewer democratic moderates today, as they were voted out in 2010 and 2014 after they voted for the liberal aca bill. The aca bill was designed by liberals, and the process controlled by liberals. All the moderate democrats had to do was to stand up to it. They didnt.
Rino is code for someone like Charlie Crist, Lincoln Chafee and Arlen Specter. Arlen Specter tried to pose as a moderate to get elected, but he consistently voted along liberal lines. After he voted for for the stimulus, he was dead to the voters. He switched parties, but still lost. And he lost not because he was a moderate, but because he was a liberal.
2. Why? I don't want women to get abortions if at all possible, but understand that it is legal. I also don't want women to die when an abortion might save her life. I think abortions should probably be legal but seldom done. I also think it is between a woman, the man that got her pregnant if he is in the picture, her doctor, and God. If you oppose abortion do you oppose it in the case of the mother's health, incest or rape? If you are okay with either of those three situations then like me, you have mixed feelings.
3a. I don't I agree with you assessment. Public schools are a linchpin to creating and maintaining a modern well functioning society.
Charter schools are public schools. The whole purpose of the creation of Charter schools is to create an opportunity for innovative ideas to be implemented without the restraints of regulations regular public schools are subject to. Then when any innovations are found to be effective they can be applied in the regular public schools. Unfortunately little along these lines has been achieved. That isn't to say that other options such as private and home schooling aren't viable options. However, if funding is diverted students in traditional public schools will be adversely affected. If taxpayers are going to supplement the cost of private k-12 education through vouchers there has to be accountability. There are some great private schools out there, but like traditional and charter public schools there are poor, middling, and exceptional schools out there. There should be some way to evaluate the quality of those schools as well. I would call that a reasonable pragmatic approach.
3b. I never said anything about the religions private schools so I don't know what you are talking about. With vouchers taxpayers will be supporting these schools as well. This would mean that not only Christian schools but Jewish, Muslim and Satanic schools as well. I don't know if there are any Satanic schools out there, but if there are they would have to be included.
5. Why should I call out Clinton? The fact that I haven't jumped head first into those threads makes me no less or more moderate, conservative or liberal. It just means that I find it uninteresting, fruitless or I just don't know enough about it to comment.
6. There are more far right Republican then there were a few years ago but calling any of them in 2010 "liberal" is a huge stretch. It is like calling Lindsey Graham a liberal. Moderates can vote for something even when it is written by, "conservatives" or "liberals" because they understand that good law can come from either direction on the political spectrum. RINO gets thrown around entirely too often and is a political code word used by the far right to leave impotent any elected republican that attempts to work with others or otherwise not tow the far right line, especially the social agenda.
