Separation of School and State

Really? Please cite evidence of that in any of these posts. You liberals are amazing. You equate opposition to the nanny state with a lack of "heart for the poor".

As I have cited here before, conservatives in this country... those who oppose big government... give more to charity than liberals who claim moral superiority. The key difference between conservatives and liberals here is that liberals think the indigent should be relieved with OPM while conservatives give of their own.

People are poor for a number of reasons. When the churches and private citizens cared for the poor, they were discriminant. People got a hand up, not a hand out. The truly needy or disabled were helped. The lazy and immoral were not enabled to continue their errant ways.

Bureaucrats and politicians aren't motivated by kindness or charity. They are motivated by job security. They don't discriminate between the needy and the slothful. They discriminate between people who will help them stay in power and those who won't.

The US Gov't has spent billions on Great Society social engineering. What have we gotten? A permanent entitlement class, rampant illegitimacy, crime, divorce, drug abuse, declining school performance,... and according to our government, the percentage of people living in poverty has remained flat.

Excuse me but "Please pull your head out of the sand."

In the US, we have millions of legal and illegal Mexicans. The vast majority of them are filling jobs that "the people" you are talking about turn their nose up at.

I have supervised some of "the people" that have no skills. They literally think that work is beneath them and have no appreciation for the privilege of employment. They were uncooperative. They sought to find out what the minimum expectation was and do no more. At the same time, they complained constantly and had terrible attitudes.

These aren't "skill" deficiencies. They are moral and ethical deficiencies... that aren't going to be solved by gov't sponsored training.

Somehow people have bought into the idea that we have a "right" to a certain standard of living. Immigrants from Mexico and other less wealthy countries do not operate under this misconception.

By contrast, our Mexican temps worked for less money, did easily twice as much work, and never complained. That is why I have mixed emotions on the immigration issue. The Mexicans I knew had more of the American working spirit than Americans do.

You want to know why someone can come to the US without knowing the language or having any particular skill then become successful? They see the opportunities and don't think they are above living in less than comfortable conditions until they can afford better. Many of the "poor" you refer to think that if they can't afford better that someone else should pay for it.

Jesus cares first and foremost for their soul. Jesus never said "Go your way and do whatever you want to do... He said go your way and sin no more". Enabling someone to continue in sinful, self-destructive behavior (which slothfulness and being a poor servant are) is not Christlike, it isn't a fulfillment of the gospel, it isn't even kind...

Actually I am just not deluded by the notion that welfare is the same as charity in any sense.

There is no genuine kindness involved in demanding that government take money from someone else and give it to the poor indiscriminately. That is feigned love at best. That is "love" that says "Something should be done because I have a guilty conscience but I don't want it to be done by me or at my personal expense."

IOW's, you love people so much that you want government to force someone else to give them money because you think they ought to ... nope, you want find that in the commands or example of Christ or anyone in the NT.

[ September 27, 2005, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Oh and another thing King James.

Statistically, the number one cause for child poverty in America isn't oppression nor lack of educational/employment opportunities... it is being raised by a single mother (usually by way of illegitimacy). That is a moral problem FIRST. If the moral problem is not solved, no amount of government spending will fix it.

It is liberals who supported the "freedom" of the sexual revolution. It is liberals who gave us the welfare state that enabled poor women to be sexually irresponsible... and to pass that behavior on to their children.

 

Some people value their liberty, realize how it can be lost, and desire to guard against it. To be wary of the government is not to disrespect its validity but rather to keep it within its bounds. </font>[/QUOTE]Isn't that the same thing the "conspiracy theorists" are doing though?

To kill two birds with one stone...I would rather parents taught their kids. I'm not a huge fan of public schools today. I just don't see it as a big deal. In the same way it is up to parents, it is also up to each individual to decide if public school and the government is an issue. I don't see it as one. Parents are responsible for their own kids. I'm not responsible for them.

 

ScottJ...I am getting ready for work. I will address you tomorrow. But please...cite evidence that I am one of "you liberals". I have not voted for the liberal party in years. Even if I were, you did not "cite evidence". You just assumed and that is not cool.

 

That is up to you. Of course the NT tells us that if a man won't work he shouldn't eat. The Bible calls slothfulness, fornication, non-sobriety, violence, unfaithfulness, poor stewardship, and the like SIN. You apparently want the government in the name of "Christian values" to subsidize such behavior. </font>[/QUOTE]Now...would YOU please "cite evidence" that I want the government to subsidize "such behaviour"? Seein' as how you assumed. Thank you.

You said: "You liberals are amazing. You equate opposition to the nanny state with a lack of "heart for the poor"."
I say: Oh come on now. Do you see black helicopters chasing you constantly? You conservatives are amazing too. Only caring about yourselves and calling it being a Christian. Tell me dude...when Joseph gathered enough food for his people for a seven year drought was he the leader of a "nanny state"? I have yet to receive an answer from ANYONE when I bring up Joseph and the food. Why is that?

 

"People got a hand up, not a hand out."

You mean...like I've been talking about for days and people thought I was wanting a handout? hmm...

By the way, my head is out of the sand. I'd pull yours out for you but hey...do it yourself. (look at me...I should be a conservative)

 

There surely is "conspiracy" involved in using government schools to force teaching future generations the "proper" beliefs and there certainly are a lot of "theorists" in academia. </font>[/QUOTE]You may be right about that. But if you don't put your kids in there you have nothing to worry about. And...why is everything except for anything a conservative does...a conspiracy?

 

Hey Dragoon, thanks man. You have a great day too. Yes, we can disagree but you are still my brother. I will try to be respectful in how I disagree with everyone but I will still say what I believe. Off to my dead end job I go...

 

You're not making me feel any better.

Thank you. She's taken out a student loan, and I've taken out a home equity line of credit on the house. So now I have a sweatshirt that says "Cal State Fullerton Dad" that only cost me $22,000.

It depends on the subject really. But whether they're new or a few years old, used books are hard to come by. Part of it has to do with the fact that most of the books are now printed in softback and formatted for the student to write in and take notes. They still run about $40 a piece, but a comparable hardcover would run $90 or more.

 

Well come on Scott, what ya waitin for? Researching Joseph?

 

Thanks for your post Dragoon. But does that validate what Joseph did and release a modern day government from doing likewise?

 

Dragoon,

Thanks for the example re the Vietnamese. I remember during the summer I worked in San Antonio, 1979, that there were pockets of subdivisions that Vietnamese had moved into and there was a great deal of resentment by local folks. Of course, that was during the time of the boat people. It is wonderful hearing that they are another immigrant success story.

 

"I have supervised some of "the people" that have no skills. They literally think that work is beneath them and have no appreciation for the privilege of employment. They were uncooperative. They sought to find out what the minimum expectation was and do no more. At the same time, they complained constantly and had terrible attitudes.

These aren't "skill" deficiencies. They are moral and ethical deficiencies... that aren't going to be solved by gov't sponsored training."

This would not be me though. I am hardworking and the government sponsored training (which I earned the right to through my E.I. contributions) would have enabled me to better myself so I will have an excellent skill and will never have to depend on the government (while still contributing E.I. money to the thieves).

If your workers didn't want to work and had bad attitudes, then you get rid of them. You don't think in your mind that everyone is like that.