what useful purpose do republicans serve?

[WalterMitty]

The only issue WalterMitty agrees with Democrats on from what I can tell is gay marriage, and that's only if you accept the position that Democrats are for gay marriage, which they don't.

i oppose the death penalty.
i oppose the republicans never ending attempts to push religion on everyone (although im not as extreme as opebo)
i support affirmative action
i support gun control. (to a reasonable extent)
i oppose school vouchers

[danwxman]

The only issue WalterMitty agrees with Democrats on from what I can tell is gay marriage, and that's only if you accept the position that Democrats are for gay marriage, which they don't.

i oppose the death penalty.
i oppose the republicans never ending attempts to push religion on everyone (although im not as extreme as opebo)
i support affirmative action
i support gun control. (to a reasonable extent)
i oppose school vouchers

I pretty much agree with everything here except I actually support the death penalty! You should be in the Democratic party.

I have to say, and maybe I'm in the minority after this election, but the real thing that keeps me away from the Republicans is their conservative social agenda.

[phk]

The DLC folks oughta be shot.

So you support the Death Penalty then?

No I'm against the Death Penalty, I just like being both at the same time.

[A18]

The only issue WalterMitty agrees with Democrats on from what I can tell is gay marriage, and that's only if you accept the position that Democrats are for gay marriage, which they don't.

i oppose the death penalty.
i oppose the republicans never ending attempts to push religion on everyone (although im not as extreme as opebo)
i support affirmative action
i support gun control. (to a reasonable extent)
i oppose school vouchers

Republican attempts to push religion on everyone are nonexistant.

As for opposing school vouchers, that is definitely disgustingly statist, and might be enough to put you in ther Democratic Party.

[phk]

The only issue WalterMitty agrees with Democrats on from what I can tell is gay marriage, and that's only if you accept the position that Democrats are for gay marriage, which they don't.

i oppose the death penalty.
i oppose the republicans never ending attempts to push religion on everyone (although im not as extreme as opebo)
i support affirmative action
i support gun control. (to a reasonable extent)
i oppose school vouchers

if your pro-choice, you could be enough to tip you over.

[Gabu]

The only issue WalterMitty agrees with Democrats on from what I can tell is gay marriage, and that's only if you accept the position that Democrats are for gay marriage, which they don't.

i oppose the death penalty.
i oppose the republicans never ending attempts to push religion on everyone (although im not as extreme as opebo)
i support affirmative action
i support gun control. (to a reasonable extent)
i oppose school vouchers

And you think that Massachusetts is a great state filled with great people.  I think that puts you at odds with most Republicans.

[minionofmidas]

I think that line refers to the people who's pictures he's got up.
I don't know who the young Mafioso is, but the faintly Lewinskyish woman is Jane Swift, who is a Republican and is from Massachusetts.

[WalterMitty]

it is henry cabot lodge.

[minionofmidas]

That's what Lodge looked like? He looks...younger than I imagined him. Or maybe the photo was taken early in his career.

[WalterMitty]

i think that photo was probably taken when he served in the senate.  he was defeated by jfk in 1952,

of course he rose to fame as nixon's running mate in 60, and later as lbj's ambassador to vietnam.

[??????????]

The only issue WalterMitty agrees with Democrats on from what I can tell is gay marriage, and that's only if you accept the position that Democrats are for gay marriage, which they don't.

i oppose the death penalty.
i oppose the republicans never ending attempts to push religion on everyone (although im not as extreme as opebo)
i support affirmative action
i support gun control. (to a reasonable extent)
i oppose school vouchers

You support AA? Yep you belong in the party of hypocritical racists. AKA the DNC.

[phk]

David Horowitz wants AA for conservatives in colleges.

[PBrunsel]

That's what Lodge looked like? He looks...younger than I imagined him.

This is the Henry Cabot Lodge you were probably thinking about:



Wilson's main oponent to the League of Nations.

And another great MA Man.

[Bono]

The only issue WalterMitty agrees with Democrats on from what I can tell is gay marriage, and that's only if you accept the position that Democrats are for gay marriage, which they don't.

i oppose the death penalty.
i oppose the republicans never ending attempts to push religion on everyone (although im not as extreme as opebo)
i support affirmative action
i support gun control. (to a reasonable extent)
i oppose school vouchers

Republican attempts to push religion on everyone are nonexistant.

As for opposing school vouchers, that is definitely disgustingly statist, and might be enough to put you in ther Democratic Party.

School vouchers are a terrible idea. Bcause the payer is not the consumers but the state, the schools can still have high prices, since the state would only have to raise taxes to pay. If there was a true free market, schools would have to reduce prices in order to                                          increase their market share. Voucherswould basically have teh same effect in schools costs as Medicare has in health care costs, ie, driving up the prices, and liberlas would use it as a way to tell people the market doesn't work. I hate things which use freedom rethoric to increase state controll.

[minionofmidas]

That's what Lodge looked like? He looks...younger than I imagined him.

This is the Henry Cabot Lodge you were probably thinking about:

No, I had been thinking of the right descendant of John Cabot...but I don't think I'd ever seen a picture. Guess I just had a mental picture in my mind.

[minionofmidas]

School vouchers are a terrible idea. Bcause the payer is not the consumers but the state, the schools can still have high prices, since the state would only have to raise taxes to pay. If there was a true free market, schools would have to reduce prices in order to                                          increase their market share. Voucherswould basically have teh same effect in schools costs as Medicare has in health care costs, ie, driving up the prices, and liberlas would use it as a way to tell people the market doesn't work. I hate things which use freedom rethoric to increase state controll.

Some interesting thoughts here...what you say about parallels Medicare and vouchers sounds very true.
But have you ever been to a school that had to compete in a market, as I have?
Or at least read an account of how European schools were when they still had to?
Because, believe you me, you wouldn't want it anymore.
Of course, the real reasons people send their children to private school (in the West) are much more to do with preserving class barriers than with the, perceived and/or actual, failings of state schools. Which means vouchers, when used on a large scale, would probably lead to the creation of private schools that didn't accept vouchers.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Over here Public Schools (as Private Schools are amusingly and confusingly called. What's called a public school in the U.S are called State schools over here) exist to re-inforce class barriers and not a lot else...

[minionofmidas]

Over here Public Schools (as Private Schools are amusingly and confusingly called. What's called a public school in the U.S are called State schools over here) exist to re-inforce class barriers and not a lot else...

It's a little more complicated here in Germany...there are some private schools of that type here but they're very much out of the realm of most people's experience.
Then there's reform schools, Waldorf etc.
And then there's private schools with a certain snob appeal, but with some new ideas to cover their tracks nonetheless, such as Frankfurt's Anna-Schmidt-Schule with its strong emphasis on arts...
And then there's the Danish minority schools in Schleswig-Holstein, which are technically private...

[J-Mann]

Republican attempts to push religion on everyone are nonexistant.

They're not quite as harsh and widespread as some would have us believe, but they're definitely existant.  Conservative Republicans in Kansas are adamant about forcing creationism into the science cirriculum in public schools.  Several candidates won their elections based on that issue alone, including one new member of our state school board.  There are instances where they're trying to push religion on everyone.

[Bono]

Republican attempts to push religion on everyone are nonexistant.

They're not quite as harsh and widespread as some would have us believe, but they're definitely existant.  Conservative Republicans in Kansas are adamant about forcing creationism into the science cirriculum in public schools.  Several candidates won their elections based on that issue alone, including one new member of our state school board.  There are instances where they're trying to push religion on everyone.

Or ACLU is trying to push creationsim out of the books. It all depends if you're wearing right-wing glasses or left-wing glasses.

[J-Mann]

Or ACLU is trying to push creationsim out of the books. It all depends if you're wearing right-wing glasses or left-wing glasses.

Creationism shouldn't be taught in public school.  It has no place there and would cause massive problems.

[Bono]

Or ACLU is trying to push creationsim out of the books. It all depends if you're wearing right-wing glasses or left-wing glasses.

Creationism shouldn't be taught in public school.  It has no place there and would cause massive problems.

Why?

[opebo]

Or ACLU is trying to push creationsim out of the books. It all depends if you're wearing right-wing glasses or left-wing glasses.

Creationism shouldn't be taught in public school.  It has no place there and would cause massive problems.

Why?

Because it is nonsense. 

[J-Mann]

Or ACLU is trying to push creationsim out of the books. It all depends if you're wearing right-wing glasses or left-wing glasses.

Creationism shouldn't be taught in public school.  It has no place there and would cause massive problems.

Why?

In Kansas, conservatives are quick to want creationism taught as an alternative to evolution in public schools, but they have repeatedly failed to answer the tough questions about such a demand.  There are many, many problems with teaching it as an "alternative" in public education.

1) Whose creation do we teach?  Many Kansas conservatives are so blind as to think there is only one creation story out there - the Biblical Christian creation.  But what about that one Hindu student who isn't having his creation story taught?  Or the Buddhist?  Or the [insert religion here]?  Nearly every Native American culture has a unique creation story; do we teach them all?  Surely not; then a science course would turn into a class on comparative religion.  And don't think that just because the Hindu or the Buddhist is in the minority that they wouldn't take issue with a Christian creationism being taught in the classroom.  All it takes is one lawsuit.  All it takes is one angry parent.  This is what I don't understand; conservative Christians are angry because the theory of evolution is being "forced" on their children in the classroom, but they want to turn around and do the same thing.  Don't tell me they don't want to do that - I'm watching this debate in my own state.  I know what they want, and it's to force - FORCE - a religious teaching into public education.

2) Religious education is a matter to be taught at home and at church.  Most of these parents who are worried about evolution being taught in the classroom have already taught their children creationism at home and through religious education.  Then why does it have to be carried on into the classroom?  Should it be someone else's job to teach religion to these kids?  I don't think so.

3) Public school teachers already have enough on their plates without having to teach religious beliefs as well, thus becoming embroiled in a controversy that I'm sure they'd rather stay out of.  Do you really want your high school biology teacher instructing class after class of students in creationism?  Are these teachers qualified to do that?  Or should you bring in outside sources to teach it; undoubtedly you'd have to pay them, too.  And again, if a science teacher is familiar with Biblical creationism, he may not know Hindu beliefs, or others.  Does he have to be trained to teach them?  How much extra would that cost the state?  And how much time is being sucked away from real scientific study?  No one asks these questions, because no one cares; all the conservatives in Kansas and elsewhere want is Christian belief taught in public schools one way or another.

4) Still with me?  I doubt it, but finally: where is the drive to teach science in Sunday School?  They are separate for a reason.  Trying to insert religion into a biology class crosses the separation of Church and State.

Teachers do not need the extra burden of religion, comparative or otherwise, to be thrown into their lesson plans.  Parents are treating the public school system more and more like a daycare, where teachers are expected to pick up the bulk of basic education that parents no longer do themselves, yet they've completely deprived our educators of the means to discipline unruly behavior.  Now they want our teachers to take on religious education, as well?  It's ridiculous.  Sure, you may say, "this is only creationism compared to evolution...a second option, an alternative," but where does that end?  Kids should get their Christian morals from home, their religious education from actual religious educators, and a decent secular education from public schools.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I strongly believe that creationism and intelligent design should at least be given a place at the table when it comes to public education.

It is not the responsibility of educators to teach the truth, but rather to teach the students how to find the truth for themselves.

From a practical standpoint, I would almost prefer if the origination of life were left out of school altogether.  The last thing that we need to go teaching adolescents is that they are descendants of apes and that they are not special in the eyes of an almighty God.  Maybe evolution is best left to a post-adolescent curriculum.

*notes the irony of J-Mann, a social conservative, promoting the teaching of evolution vs. me, a social libertarian, promoting the teaching of creationism*