GOP Debate Thoughts

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Right, exactly, and thats the point im trying to make. Do you know anyone who is Mormon strangler? I actually happen to have a good friend of mine, who ive known a long time, who is mormon. Dont get me wrong, I like the guy, in fact hes one of the nicest persons ive ever met, I just told you he is my friend, but his views are so whacked out crazy, he has no sense of humor, cant take a joke, ect. God forbid you say anything PG-13 rated aroud him, he will simply leave the room, im not even kidding. Im not saying all Mormans are like that, but I could see this guy coming and knocking on my door trying to get me to convert to Mormanism. Mormons try to covertley get into the discussion of religion with you, challenge your views, then change them. Trust me, my friend does it to me all the time. The point is, Its stupid, and I dont have any respect for a religion that goes door to door trying to get people to become members. If I want to be Mormon, I will, I dont need to be convinced of that. Im not trying to push my religious beliefs onto others, and I dont want anyone doing that to me. And I do believe Mitt Romney would try to brainwash the American people, because thats what Mormans do.

But really Im not sure why im arguing this, Im voting Democrat for sure this election, because Im sick of the gas prices (among other things, of course)

1) Bond was pointing out how you misspelled Mormon... he wasn't agreeing with you. And not to throw stones, I misspelled it too.

2) You know a Mormon, and now your an expert on what all Mormons will do... wow, thats a special power you have. I guess if a black guy mugged you you'd think all blacks are criminals...

3) Voting democrat or not, its actually good to know the character and policies of the people who you refuse to vote for befre doing so. Otherwise, your decision is based on ignorance and apathy, and not thought or internal dialogue.

4) Really think that an INTERNATIONAL commodity, such as Oil, can have the the price changed by a President and not more powerful market forces? Do you know that America has one of the LOWEST level of gas prices in the WORLD right now? Do you know much of anything that you are basing your voted on??? Or are Democrats "good" and Republicans are "bad" and little else needs to be discussed?

This is why I become a prick when talking about politics, because of bigotted, ignorant and lazy views such as those presented here.

Favorite book and novel? Who the **** cares? I care about his views and policies, not his choice of lietrature. This is why idiots get elected, is because of questions like that from the media.

And KG, I think Bush is going to play a huge role in getting a Republican back in office, and it won't be because of anything Bush does, its because the Democrats can't seem to get their brains around the fact that Bush isn't running next election...

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by Professor S

4) Really think that an INTERNATIONAL commodity, such as Oil, can have the the price changed by a President and not more powerful market forces? Do you know that America has one of the LOWEST level of gas prices in the WORLD right now? Do you know much of anything that you are basing your voted on??? Or are Democrats "good" and Republicans are "bad" and little else needs to be discussed?

Yes, I honestly do believe that getting a democrat elected would lower gas prices. In fact, I would be willing to bet money that gas lowers by at least 50 cents, if not a lot more, within 3 months of a democrat getting elected. Bush and Cheney are in with the Oil companys. Higher gas prices means more money for them. Have you ever seen Farienheit 9/11? And, the fact that the rest of the world hates them (who can blame them), dosent help either. We need a democrat elected so the rest of the world will like us, plain and simple.

[Bond]

OPEC controls oil prices, not any oil company Bush or Cheney are "in with."

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Yes, I honestly do believe that getting a democrat elected would lower gas prices. In fact, I would be willing to bet money that gas lowers by at least 50 cents, if not a lot more, within 3 months of a democrat getting elected. Bush and Cheney are in with the Oil companys. Higher gas prices means more money for them. Have you ever seen Farienheit 9/11? And, the fact that the rest of the world hates them (who can blame them), dosent help either. We need a democrat elected so the rest of the world will like us, plain and simple.

You do realize that "Farienheit" 9/11 has been debunked about 1,000 times, right? I could post numerous links to information debunking just about all of Michael Moore's films, but I've already done so about 1,000 times and you obviously have little interest in any information that dares to alter your world view.

Your logic is so simplistic, it keeps you from having to think for yourself, which is a habit people like Michael Moore love. So what I'm aiming this information at is not you, but anyone else who has an open mind who happens to be reading this thread.

1) The government makes more money the higher gas prices go, not necessarily the oil companies. Oil companies generally keep a fixed profit (give or take a few cents per gallon) margin on their product by gallon, while our GOVERNMENT taxes oil on a percentage on every stage of production (especially US oil) from when it comes out of the ground (US) to when it arrives to the shore (foreign). The TAXES on gasiline from beginning to end account for nearly half the cost of gas, if not more. Oil companies have been reaping profits on VOLUME because of the skyrocketing demand, not price increases.

2) I'm surprised Jason1 didn't start screaming about "HaLLuBorton" and Cheyney's money from the blood of innocent baby cripples. The fact is that Cheyney has not been involved with "Halleeburtin" for years and the reason why they get no-bid contracts is because they are one of the few companies in the world that does the job that needs to be done, and by consensus among objective minded people, they are the best at it. Does that mean no shenanigans have ever gone on? No, but that has more to do with individuals making unethical decisions than a vast conspiracy.

3) Jason1's logic is specious at best. He says that the rest of the world hates Bush and Cheyney, so we should too (to paraphrase). There are plenty of reasons to dislike Bush and Cheyney, but that is not one of them. I have plenty of them if you'd like to hear them. Did your mother ever ask you "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you follow?" I know mine did, and the lesson I'm stating here is just as easy to follow. The rest of the world hates Bush and Cheyney, and they might have every right to, but the fact that they hate them is an idiotic REASON to hate them as well. If your going to hate someone, at least know why you do instead ofbeing a blind siccophant of those like Michael Moore.

[Xantar]

I don't have a problem with Mitt Romney's Mormonism, but unfortunately it's pretty clear that a lot of people do. When you ask likely Republican voters who they would never vote for, Romney gets the highest response by far. And many of them point to his religion as the reason they won't vote for him. It's kind of sad, but the fact that he's Mormon does actually work against Mitt Romney.

It's too bad because although I would vote for Obama or Edwards before him, I wouldn't mind having Mitt Romney as President and think he's much better than the other candidates. Part of this, of course, is because I think he's probably a lot more centrist than he's trying to portray himself to be.

Incidentally, how the hell is Hillary Clinton still leading the polls? If it came down to a contest between her and Mitt Romney, even I would hesitate to vote for her. Hopefully something changes before primary season starts because unlike her fellow candidates, Hillary Clinton has no room at all to improve in the general election.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Xantar

I don't have a problem with Mitt Romney's Mormonism, but unfortunately it's pretty clear that a lot of people do. When you ask likely Republican voters who they would never vote for, Romney gets the highest response by far. And many of them point to his religion as the reason they won't vote for him. It's kind of sad, but the fact that he's Mormon does actually work against Mitt Romney.

I agree that he does lead the polls in those that would never vote for, but keep track of that word never. Its deceiving, because it can make a minority look like a majority by using such absolutes so early in the game. Romne is still at the head of the pack with McCain and Rudy, and he also has more money as well.

Also think, if he can get past the primaries, he'll be up against what will be a pretty left of center Democrat. I think some bigotted attitudes would start changing if that happens...

It's too bad because although I would vote for Obama or Edwards

Alright, if anyone can do this, you can: Why would anyone vote for Obama at this stage? He sounds great, but when it comes to substance he has NOTHING, IMO. The Tony Robbins of politics, and I think he'll get eaten alive in the primaries. As for Edwards, I know his politics and they are a little to the left of Lenin, but at least I know where he stands.

But I'd love either of them to get the nomination, because in all honesty thats a guaranteed win for Republicans. Can you see Edwards going against Rudy or Romne and winning? Or Obama beating McCain? Those matchups are bad news for Dems.

Incidentally, how the hell is Hillary Clinton still leading the polls? If it came down to a contest between her and Mitt Romney, even I would hesitate to vote for her. Hopefully something changes before primary season starts because unlike her fellow candidates, Hillary Clinton has no room at all to improve in the general election.

Hillary is an election monster. By the end of the primaries all her opponents are going to be bleeding in a corner somewhere babbling to themselves. She is brutal, underhanded and takes no prisoners. Hell, I even think she has Al Sharpton in here back pocket.

[Jason1]

Just for the record, right now im hopeing Edwards wins, I like him a lot, as I did 4 years ago. Hes for a universal healthcare system which I totally agree with, he wants to Withdraw all troups from Iraq within 12-16 months which needs to be done, and he gets the fact that this country is going in the wrong direction, in which, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

But Obama would also be great. I mean, he said we were wrong to go to war way back before it even started, saying that Saddam posed no real threat to the United States, and obviously he was right because this war is totally pointless as there never were any weapons of mass destruction. People say that if we dont get that job done now, the war will come over here, and thats a load of garbage. This is nothing like WWII, and It never will be.

Honestly, if it was me, I think we need to tax the hell out of the rich, make them pay a much higher percantage than the poor. Use that money for the universal health insurance, and also medicare. I also think businesses need to be taxed more. And we need much stricter gun control laws. And I would raise the minimum wage to 8 or 9 bucks an hour.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

I can't argue your other points, but this one is totally incorrect. Yes, the rich are getting richer, but the poor are not getting poorer, they are getting richer as well. Just not as FAST as the rich. These numbers are off the top of my head so forgive me for any minor inaccuracies, but adjusted for inflation, the poor have gained about 30% more wealth over the last 20-30 years. The rich have gained 70% in the same time period.

This is why politicians like Edwards always talk about DISPARITY of wealth, and not a DROP in wealth by the poor. Everyone is making out in the end, but its just that the rich are making out better, which makes sense since they have more resources to invest and risk.

People say that if we dont get that job done now, the war will come over here, and thats a load of garbage. This is nothing like WWII, and It never will be.

No its not like WW2, and nothing like how we're fighting this warshould make you think anyone else thinks that way. BTW, the war is already over here and in Europe and especially Asia.

Honestly, if it was me, I think we need to tax the hell out of the rich, make them pay a much higher percantage than the poor.

They already do. We have a progressive tax system and the rich pay nearly half their income in taxes. Even with a flat tax, the rich would still pay much more, simply because they make more.

Use that money for the universal health insurance, and also medicare.

Once you can figure out how to do this without month long wait lists and personal choice, I'm all for it.

I also think businesses need to be taxed more.

Ah, so I see you love high unemployment rates. BTW, since you want to tax them more, do you know what they're taxed now? If you don't know what they pay now, how do you know they need to be taxed more?

And we need much stricter gun control laws.

Can't argue with you there.

And I would raise the minimum wage to 8 or 9 bucks an hour.

Once again, you must LOVE unemployment.

[Xantar]

I agree that he does lead the polls in those that would never vote for, but keep track of that word never. Its deceiving, because it can make a minority look like a majority by using such absolutes so early in the game. Romne is still at the head of the pack with McCain and Rudy, and he also has more money as well.

Also think, if he can get past the primaries, he'll be up against what will be a pretty left of center Democrat. I think some bigotted attitudes would start changing if that happens...

All very true, and the key here is for him to get past the primaries. You know who votes in Republican primaries? Fundamentalists. Lots of them. It's conceivable that Romney can pull it off. I'm just saying it will be an uphill battle.

Alright, if anyone can do this, you can: Why would anyone vote for Obama at this stage? He sounds great, but when it comes to substance he has NOTHING, IMO. The Tony Robbins of politics, and I think he'll get eaten alive in the primaries. As for Edwards, I know his politics and they are a little to the left of Lenin, but at least I know where he stands.

I should clarify here that I meant I would vote for Obama for President. Meaning if my choice in the general election was Obama or any of the Republican candidates, I would vote for Obama. Why? I'm a liberal. I understand that he'll probably never be your choice for President, and that's ok.

At this stage, I haven't decided who to vote for at all. It's way too early, and a debate with 10 participants is not the place to evaluate anyone's positions. The only real decision I've made is I won't vote for Hillary unless the only other option is Sam Brownback (sorry, anti-evolutionists don't get my vote).

But I'd love either of them to get the nomination, because in all honesty thats a guaranteed win for Republicans. Can you see Edwards going against Rudy or Romne and winning? Or Obama beating McCain?

Sure I can. A general election poll shows Edwards beating Giuliana. Of course, a poll this far away from Election Day is meaningless, but it shows that such a result is within the realm of possibility. Here's another poll showing Obama beating McCain in a general election. Again, it's totally meaningless as far as predicting what will actually happen. But it's not inconceivable at this point.

Originally Posted by Jason1

And I would raise the minimum wage to 8 or 9 bucks an hour.

The minimum wage was a nice issue for the Democrats in the last election, and I didn't oppose raising it. Nor would I necessarily oppose raising it even more. But both you and Strangler overestimate its effect. Less than 1% of the total work population actually works at the federal minimum wage. Many states have mandatory minimum wages higher than the federal one anyway. To have a really big effect one way or another, you would have to jack the federal minimum wage up to something like $12/hour.

What we need is a better education system and a healthcare system that's affordable for all (I happen to think universal health care will do it, but that's a whole other issue).

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Xantar

Sure I can. A general election poll shows Edwards beating Giuliana. Of course, a poll this far away from Election Day is meaningless, but it shows that such a result is within the realm of possibility. Here's another poll showing Obama beating McCain in a general election. Again, it's totally meaningless as far as predicting what will actually happen. But it's not inconceivable at this point.

Xantar, I have plenty of links to polls that show both McCain and Guiliani beating Obama and Clinton in the general election, and I'm sure you've seen them. It depends on the pollster and the poll taken. To isolate on only those that back your opinion is dishonest.

The minimum wage was a nice issue for the Democrats in the last election, and I didn't oppose raising it. Nor would I necessarily oppose raising it even more. But both you and Strangler overestimate its effect. Less than 1% of the total work population actually works at the federal minimum wage. Many states have mandatory minimum wages higher than the federal one anyway. To have a really big effect one way or another, you would have to jack the federal minimum wage up to something like $12/hour.

All that raising the minimum wage will do is eliminate those 1% who have those jobs. Why pay a clerk $12 an hour when you could just have a touch screen instead? The only reason why those positions are available (mainly for students and retired) is because its cost effective. Remove the cost effectiveness, and kiss those low skilled jobs goodbye. It changes nothing except eliminating jobs for those that need them to supplement income or create expendable income. Raising the minimum wage is an issue that has no business being an issue, because it solves NOTHING.

What we need is a better education system and a healthcare system that's affordable for all (I happen to think universal health care will do it, but that's a whole other issue).

Our education system is only as good as those that are in it. We keep on saying how out schools are now garbage, yet I can't see anything that we have removed from them? We've added course after course, we've expanded curricilum, changed it constantly to keep up with the latest and greatest fields, and yet it is failing.

So what is the REAL problem?

This is why I can't buy into the leftist view of the world, because I feel they have everything upside down. Government is the cure-all, when increasing its size has only wasted money and fixed NOTHING. The war on poverty? Failure. The war on drugs? Failure. The IRS? A failure that has turned into a an intimidating gestapo-like agency.

In the past, many European countries have moved to policies like the one's mentioned above, and they have also been massive failures. France just elected a CONSERVATIVE, PRO AMERICAN president. YES, FRANCE. Germany did the same years earlier. There is a reason why the rest of the world is slowly moving away from socialist policies.

The reason... failure (and in France, riots and self-hatred).

The answers are not in our stars, or in the government, they're in ourselves. We all have every opportunity in the world to succeed, even though some have an admittedly haarder time than others. The opportunity is still there because so far no one can stop us from pushing ahead but our own doubt and fear. Until we stop pointing fingers at everyone else for our own inadequacies, no amount of government involvement will fix anything. In fact, it will just enable our own addiction to apathy and blame.

[Xantar]

Xantar, I have plenty of links to polls that show both McCain and Guiliani beating Obama and Clinton in the general election, and I'm sure you've seen them. It depends on the pollster and the poll taken. To isolate on only those that back your opinion is dishonest.

Well yeah. I myself said that the polls I cited were meaningless. All I said was that Obama or Edwards winning against a Republican is within the realm of possibility. It's way too early to actually make a prediction on who will win.

You asked me if I could imagine Edwards beating Giuliani or Obama beating McCain. I said yes, because some polls show that it could happen. That's all.

All that raising the minimum wage will do is eliminate those 1% who have those jobs. Why pay a clerk $12 an hour when you could just have a touch screen instead? The only reason why those positions are available (mainly for students and retired) is because its cost effective. Remove the cost effectiveness, and kiss those low skilled jobs goodbye. It changes nothing except eliminating jobs for those that need them to supplement income or create expendable income. Raising the minimum wage is an issue that has no business being an issue, because it solves NOTHING.

You missed my point. I was saying that the wage increase enacted by Congress is little more than a meaningless token gesture. Maybe you're right and raising the minimum wage destroys jobs. But to really have an appreciable impact on the job market, you have to do a lot more than raise the minimum wage by a few dollars. Just like to really raise people out of poverty (if it can be done by raising the minimum wage), you would have to raise the minimum wage drastically high. Going from $5 to $7 isn't going to cut it.

Our education system is only as good as those that are in it. We keep on saying how out schools are now garbage, yet I can't see anything that we have removed from them? We've added course after course, we've expanded curricilum, changed it constantly to keep up with the latest and greatest fields, and yet it is failing.

I take a much more expansive view of education reform than people typically understand when they hear the term. Public schools in middle- to upper-class neighborhoods are actually pretty good. It's the ones in poor neighborhoods that are failing, and that doesn't mean just the inner city but also many rural areas.

I'm sure you would agree that a big part of this is parental involvement. In rich neighborhoods, if kids are ending up with gaping holes in their knowledge, then the parents raise hell until the school fixes itself. In poor neighborhoods, schools are basically a place to park your kid while you go to work.

So here we have a problem of culture and attitude. Parents aren't looking after their kids properly. But then how do we fix that? In these kinds of neighborhoods, the parents (or very often, single parent) are struggling just to make ends meet by working overtime or working two jobs. They don't have the time to go over the kids' homework. So part of the problem also seems to be economics.

And while we're talking about economics, I'll just say incidentally that teachers aren't paid nearly enough. It does matter. My old high school, which actually pays fairly decently, still can't hold on to a decent math teacher.

Also on economics, it doesn't help that so much of the work force is jailed and then ostracized for possessing drugs. This is especially a problem in poor neighborhoods. I think you and I generally agree that we ought to legalize drugs, so I won't get into that any further.

The point is in just this brief time, I've linked problems in our education system to our culture, economics and criminal system. Give me a few hours to research the subject and I could probably draw in immigration and health policy too (kids who get PE are likely to do better academically). I'm not deluded into thinking that the government can fly in and fix such a massive, systemwide problem. Giving more money to buy more books and computers is not going to fix anything. But at the same time, the government does have a role to play in these issues.

Bad education causes people to feel out of control of their lives because they don't understand the forces shaping their world. This leads to disillusionment and despair as they blame the system because they don't understand how they can get it to work for them (a large segment of the population doesn't even understand how interest rates work). And they pass this attitude on to their kids who similarly give up on achieving anything great for themselves. And on and on the cycle goes. So yeah, doubt and despair holds us back. It's created by a confluence of failed policies across the society and government. We can at least do something about the government part, and I find that much more appealing than just telling everybody to get together and fix their own poverty already.

The war on poverty? Failure.

Because it was just a narrowly based initiative rather than a serious look at the whole system (as I've outlined above). Oh, and we haven't been conducting a serious war on poverty for the past several years.

The war on drugs? Failure.

Wait wait wait. The war on drugs is the result of a leftist view of the world? In which solar system?

The IRS? A failure that has turned into a an intimidating gestapo-like agency.

What did they fail at? I wasn't aware that the IRS had any particular agenda other than collecting our taxes. Now tax policies are a different matter, but the IRS doesn't create those.

In the past, many European countries have moved to policies like the one's mentioned above, and they have also been massive failures. France just elected a CONSERVATIVE, PRO AMERICAN president. YES, FRANCE.

France went too far. Even liberal economists here in the U.S. think so. They made it almost impossible to fire someone from his job, and their education system sets people on a path in life that's almost impossible to get away from once you've fallen into it. This created a society that was extremely rigid, classist and unequal which is ironically the exact opposite of what a socialist society wants. Marx would have been horrified.

None of that means liberal theory is wrong. It just means you have to implement liberal policies that are smart and constantly evaluate how they are working. You're always railing against the evils of liberal policy which raises taxes and inflates the government, but that's a straw man argument. Modern liberals generally regard that sort of stuff as an outdated idea from the 60s. Liberals these days are more likely to try to leverage the power of the marketplace to achieve their goals rather than create brand new, unwieldy government institutions and programs.

We'll leave that to President Bush.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Xantar

Well yeah. I myself said that the polls I cited were meaningless. All I said was that Obama or Edwards winning against a Republican is within the realm of possibility. It's way too early to actually make a prediction on who will win.

You asked me if I could imagine Edwards beating Giuliani or Obama beating McCain. I said yes, because some polls show that it could happen. That's all.

To be honest, I think I confused my points here. My belief that Obama and Edwards would get killed have more to do with their weakness in experience (Obama) and debating (Edwards) rather than premature polls. The polls threw me into another tangent all together, and as we know, I'm never prone to tangents...

...

You missed my point. I was saying that the wage increase enacted by Congress is little more than a meaningless token gesture. Maybe you're right and raising the minimum wage destroys jobs. But to really have an appreciable impact on the job market, you have to do a lot more than raise the minimum wage by a few dollars. Just like to really raise people out of poverty (if it can be done by raising the minimum wage), you would have to raise the minimum wage drastically high. Going from $5 to $7 isn't going to cut it.

Think beyond the immediate effects of the economy and think long term. If those jobs are eliminated, how will it affect the youth? Growing up is a learning experience, and we learn ethics and the value of work all along the way. We can already see how the increased affluence of young people is beginning to affect their view of the world and many argue it is extending childhood well into people's 20's. Now take away jobs from the one's that want and need to work in order to pay for a used car, insurance or just for movie tickets, and not only are you removing that opportunity to develop life skills but your doing it to the people who need it the most.

And I just think raising the minimum wage to fix poverty is rediculous (not saying that you believe it would fix it), especially with the increase in illegal immigration providing a nice source of cheap labor (and a ready made lower caste, but thats another thread) that doesn't need to be reported. Either that or even more employers will pay citizens under the table, reducing their overhead for not only wages, but disability and unemployment expenses. So you'll have more low skilled labor that will be leeching from our healthcare system because they aren't covered adding to the leeching being done by the increase of illegals due to the demand for underground labor. Meanwhile you'll have many workers not contributing to Social Security, which will damage that albatross even more.

Its nice to think that raising minimum wage will help, but its possible reprocussions greatly ourweigh any improvements.

I take a much more expansive view of education reform than people typically understand when they hear the term. Public schools in middle- to upper-class neighborhoods are actually pretty good. It's the ones in poor neighborhoods that are failing, and that doesn't mean just the inner city but also many rural areas.

I'm sure you would agree that a big part of this is parental involvement. In rich neighborhoods, if kids are ending up with gaping holes in their knowledge, then the parents raise hell until the school fixes itself. In poor neighborhoods, schools are basically a place to park your kid while you go to work.

And don't forget that those that have higher levels of eductaion tend to have a higher value on education, and also instill that in their children.

So here we have a problem of culture and attitude. Parents aren't looking after their kids properly. But then how do we fix that? In these kinds of neighborhoods, the parents (or very often, single parent) are struggling just to make ends meet by working overtime or working two jobs. They don't have the time to go over the kids' homework. So part of the problem also seems to be economics.

We attack the increase in single family homes. Remember, it was social programs that CREATED this increase, especially in the black community. For those that don't know, during the depression the NRA (RECOVERY, not RIFLE) started supporting working families, BUT, they also gave familities more money that did not have a father in the home... so the fathers tended to LEAVE so they could get more for their work, creating a generation that grew up not having a father in the home. As we can see, its had devastating effects.

I won't even get into the redlining of districts that created ghettos in major cities...

Philisophically the government is anti-family, because the larger the government and its presence in our everyday lives, the more it tries to replace the family. The more government grows, the more the family crumbles.

And while we're talking about economics, I'll just say incidentally that teachers aren't paid nearly enough. It does matter. My old high school, which actually pays fairly decently, still can't hold on to a decent math teacher.

I actually think that all funds for education should be pooled by the feds and the redistributed to allow for equal pay regardless of district to help attract good teachers to inner cities, but that isn't a fix either. In Philadelphia the public school system was taken over by Edison, a private company, and given rediculous funds by the state to fix the schools... and failed miserably.

Also on economics, it doesn't help that so much of the work force is jailed and then ostracized for possessing drugs. This is especially a problem in poor neighborhoods. I think you and I generally agree that we ought to legalize drugs, so I won't get into that any further.

I don't disagree that drugs should be legalized, at least soft ones, but the law is the law. You don't want to go to jail, don't break the law. Once again, a respect for law isn't something that the government can instill, thats the job of the family and to a lesser extent society.

The point is in just this brief time, I've linked problems in our education system to our culture, economics and criminal system. Give me a few hours to research the subject and I could probably draw in immigration and health policy too (kids who get PE are likely to do better academically). I'm not deluded into thinking that the government can fly in and fix such a massive, systemwide problem. Giving more money to buy more books and computers is not going to fix anything. But at the same time, the government does have a role to play in these issues.

You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. Our children are not thirsty, and the government can't make them be. If we help to fix the family as a SOCIETY, we'll take the biggest step toward fixing our schools culturally and economically as household income will increase as well as parental support. Saying that the problem is multi-faceted doesn't mean that all the facets are of equal importance or that the solutions can't be multi-faceted as well.

Bad education causes people to feel out of control of their lives because they don't understand the forces shaping their world. This leads to disillusionment and despair as they blame the system because they don't understand how they can get it to work for them (a large segment of the population doesn't even understand how interest rates work). And they pass this attitude on to their kids who similarly give up on achieving anything great for themselves. And on and on the cycle goes. So yeah, doubt and despair holds us back. It's created by a confluence of failed policies across the society and government. We can at least do something about the government part, and I find that much more appealing than just telling everybody to get together and fix their own poverty already.

Because it was just a narrowly based initiative rather than a serious look at the whole system (as I've outlined above). Oh, and we haven't been conducting a serious war on poverty for the past several years.

I hate to break it to you, but we've never had a serious war on poverty.

Wait wait wait. The war on drugs is the result of a leftist view of the world? In which solar system?

I was referring more to governmental policies, not just leftist ones, sorry if I confused the two.

What did they fail at? I wasn't aware that the IRS had any particular agenda other than collecting our taxes. Now tax policies are a different matter, but the IRS doesn't create those.

You should look up some of the horror stories of abuse and intimidation by the IRS. The power of the "random" audit can be devastating. And the IRS can be seen as a reflection of that tax system failure, which I was referring to.

France went too far. Even liberal economists here in the U.S. think so. They made it almost impossible to fire someone from his job, and their education system sets people on a path in life that's almost impossible to get away from once you've fallen into it. This created a society that was extremely rigid, classist and unequal which is ironically the exact opposite of what a socialist society wants. Marx would have been horrified.

You mention that the War on Poverty would have made Marx horrified, and thats absolutely right. Marx was a great societal critic, but as a policy maker he was a clown. His criticisms were dead on, but his solutions forget that human beings are... well... human. His policies demand a fundamental loss of self, and thats something we as a race will NEVER conform to.

In fact, I would hope that Marx himslef would have abandoned his own beliefs after the estimated 100,000,000 people who died trying to adopt his dehumanizing philosophies. The very act of doing so reduces human life to a cog in a machine. Marxist philosophies have been proven unworkable over and over, and the reprocussions of their attmpts leave enough of a trail of blood that we should NEVER try to walk down again. At the very least, the human race is not ready to implement them, and I doubt we ever will (at least not until we evolve into beings of pure light and thought).

None of that means liberal theory is wrong. It just means you have to implement liberal policies that are smart and constantly evaluate how they are working. You're always railing against the evils of liberal policy which raises taxes and inflates the government, but that's a straw man argument. Modern liberals generally regard that sort of stuff as an outdated idea from the 60s. Liberals these days are more likely to try to leverage the power of the marketplace to achieve their goals rather than create brand new, unwieldy government institutions and programs.

And by leveraging you mean dictating profit margins and product costs, right? Because that what your Presidential candidates want to do to the oil and pharmaceutical industries respectively. The list of reprocussions from either of those actions could run as long as your arm. In the end, you would have the government controlling how private organizations run their businesses and watching them like a warden watches an inmate... how is that so much different in the end from traditional socialist philosophy? Its socialism by proxy.

We'll leave that to President Bush.

And I have any love for that man? Just because I agree with his philosophy of the wear on terror doesn't mean I agree with his execution of it or his economic and social policies.

And for the record, I think we should have a political talk show. We could be an intelligent Hannity and Colmes.

[Professor S]

By the way, everyone should know that if you mention the name Marx, expect a several paragraph long rant from me regardless of subject

Sorry, Xan, didn't mean to imply you were a Marxist.