Dean wants to be the candidate for those flying the Confederate Flag

[Al B. Sure!]

Bush stands next to Clark, the ladies pick clark

huh? and how would you know this?

Clark is fairly economically conservative, his social views are liberal.

this is a bad thing in these times. social conservatism has been on a rise for some time and, especially after Sept. 11th, social conservatism seems to have been the driving force that got so many republicans into power in state gov'ts and in Congress last election.

economics, however, and the sad state of the economy and the controversial tax cuts are what would get voters to vote for someone besides Bush. If anything, americans would want an economic liberal and if Clark is conservative in economics and liberal in social issues, clearly, he has no chance of winning as he is opposing the present trend.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sikander


Are you German perchance?

Yes -- and now that you mention it, the motives for German-Americans to vote Republican in the 1850s and 1860s were mixed.

Most Germans in America did not care one bit about the slave issue unless they were of the Protestant-activist orientation.

The rest were likely to have voted Democrat, since the Republican party was tarred with past association with the Know Nothing party beore its members became Republican. Also of course, the controversy over prohibition which many German immigrants resented as well.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Let's not kid each other. The primary intent of vouchers is to allow public tax money (most of which is not paid by the parents of school age kids, their tax contributions are only a small part of the per-kid cost) to be diverted to private religiously based schools.

The voucher movement sprouted right out of the ashes of the "Committee for Excellence in Education" a religious right group which tried to gain stealth control of public school boards all over the US.

MtG, since we are not kidding each other, let's look at the facts. The Supremes have already ruled on this and have agreed that vouchers may be used to send kids to religious schools so long as the kid has his choice of both religious and non religious schools. So, saying one opposes vouchers because this "diverts" money to religious schools either is pure anti-religious bigotry or hate, you decide the right word, or a shameless lie.

Also, here is a post from another thread on vouchers.

"Mostly from state governments, although there is increasing support from the Feds.

Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away, public schools were financed solely by local property taxes. When that was the case, the schools were generally a lot better. But it was felt that such funding made the "rich" schools better. Thus funding was taken up by the states to "level" funding. As a result, funding in poorer districts has gone way up, but parent influence on the schools has decreased.

All this shows is that parents are much more important that money.

But what also happened is that the rich turned to private schools across the boards as the quality of public schools fell. The only people who now send their kids to public schools in the US are those who cannot afford a private school. These are the poor, the working man and the minorities.

Now, one would think that the Democrats would favor expanding equal opportunity for the downtrodden. But they are the one's who are blocking vouchers. Why?

For one, vouchers would mean the end of public schools who could not compete with private schools on quality. It would mean a return to the bad old days of parent input and influence. It would mean that people could send their kids to religious schools - an anathema to the atheist socialist.

But the bottom line is that the elite Democrat sends his kids to private school even while opposing vouchers that would enable the poor, the working man and the minorities to enjoy good education."

[Kuciwalker]

But what also happened is that the rich turned to private schools across the boards as the quality of public schools fell. The only people who now send their kids to public schools in the US are those who cannot afford a private school. These are the poor, the working man and the minorities.

Very very wrong. Extremely, insanely wrong.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Theben

Originally posted by Ned
The Democrats strut and puff that they are the party of equal rights. But it was the Republican Party that passed the civil rights legislation in the 50's and 60's. It was Eisenhower who sent in the troops to support Brown v. Board of education.

Yes, and I realize how often the name Eisenhower comes up when the repugs mention their favorite presidents.

The slanders and smears of the Democrats are shamless.

Without sham? So you're saying they're honest?

It is amazing than any minority supports that party since it is the Republican Party that truly is the party of equal opportunity.

Yeah, the equal opportunity to be dirt poor!

I apologize for my typo, Theban, but the slanders by Democrats are "shameless."

And as to the minorities who, against their best interests, support the Democrat party, they are more and more realizing that socialism brings permanent poverty for them while free enterprise brings wealth and opportunity for all.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
Whoever thinks the abolition movement was part of the religious right is a tad bit delusional. Civil rights are the province of us lefties.

Ramo, if you really believe that, you are woefully undereducated. The Republican party was born with the religious right as an intregral member, brought forth the original civil rights amendments and civil rights acts, passed the civil rights legislation in the 50's and 60's and enforced Brown v. the Board of Education with troops.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
I was responding to GF.

For the most part I agree with you. But abolitionist churches also typically alligned themselves with the lefty free soil, free labour, free men coalition - the original Fremont era Republican coalition before Lincoln and his protectionist, corporatist policies hijacked the party.

Well, left-right crap. The Democrats of that era were the religious "right's" foremost enemy. Also, Whig Lincoln's primary focus was not using the power of government to support economic progress (as that has become the cornerstone of Republicanism since), but his focus was on slavery, the primary issue of the abolitionists.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Also, Whig Lincoln's primary focus was not using the power of government to support economic progress (as that has become the cornerstone of Republicanism since), but his focus was on slavery

Ned, did you receieve a deficient US history education?

Lincoln's focus was never on slavery. More like keeping the Union together by any means necessarily. Chances are, if the South hadn't left, Lincoln wouldn't have done anything with slavery.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MrFun


Yes --

No wonder you don't get sarcasm.