Conservatism's Future

[JoeSchmo]

Well, assuming private means religious education, yes, it does in a way (in my opinion). Assuming that people who send their kids to religious schools also attend church, and teach their religion/faith at home, it seems to add another layer by sending their kids to religious school totally puts the child in a world of a very narrow focus. I fail to see how it would be "engaging" their child in the world around him/her, exposing them to people of other cultures, religions, belief systems.

Unless there's some educational benefit of religious schools that I'm not aware of. But from what I know, the people who I know who attended private religious school did not even come close to the offerings (both academic and non-academic) that I received in public school.

[GRDadof3]

Going to a private school - hardly checks you out of the real world. I attended a Christian school K-8 and a public school 9-12 and a public university. I do see your point in that the student does not get to engage daily with people with other faiths. However if you are a Christian parent and you want to have your child to have a Christian education and a deeper background of what he or she believes than you may choose to put them in a Christian school or teach them yourself. I do agree it can be somewhat of a dilemma, but not as clear cut as you make it sound.

I do not believe that grade school or high school is a very 'engaging' atmosphere in the first place. I cant think of anywhere else 'cliques' have been more present and people have disengaged themselves from everyone else. How often did you see jocks engaging with nerds???

[JoeSchmo]

It's just my opinion. I hear more people say they are sending their kids to private schools to "get away" from things, rather than for "getting something of value" for the thousands of dollars they are spending.

[GRDadof3]

- and I would agree that reasoning is a shame in itself. That isnt and shouldnt be the schools purpose.

As this topic has been sidetracked, I will restate the question.

Is conservatism regressive in thinking or progressive in thinking? Is it viable for our country to be conservative and still be a leader in our modern world? Thoughts?

[monsoon]

........

Is conservatism regressive in thinking or progressive in thinking? Is it viable for our country to be conservative and still be a leader in our modern world? Thoughts?

[Raildudes dad]

Very good point. I would have to say, however, that the biggest benefit to public education is that it is free (in a sense). Unlike private schools which charge tuition, public schools uphold the value that every child has a chance to be educated. I believe in that and will always support public education based on that principal. I think we are getting a little off topic with this thread, however, when we are talking about education and not the conservative movement.

[d8alterego]

I would have to admitt that you have a point in my inconsistency. Yet there are differences between paying for a road and paying for a school. It's great to have free roads/highways and free public schools in the sense that you don't pay for a toll or added tuition. Yet my problem with the roads/highways is that the government diverts HUGE amounts of subsidizes (in the $100s of billions) for the construction and maintainence of roads and yet our public education system is collapsing in on itself. What is more important in our nation? What are our priorities when we invest $100s of billions for highways across this country, yet we can't keep our school doors open? I'm sorry, but we spend way too much $ on our roads when some people in this country can't even read. I value a child's education over getting my ass to to the gas pump anyday.

As I said, by privatizing roads, there would be less roads/highways because private companies would not pay out that much capital to build and maintain them.

I'm not trying to debate just to debate. I think we all have good reason to disagree. I'm glad that you are willing to challenge my opinions because that gets everyone to think about our debate.

You reinforced my point though that the government pays for the highway. No PRIVATE companies said, "hey, let's share in the cost of building this highway." Every single road or highway comes from government funding. It doesn't matter what tax pays for it. It is ALL government.

QUOTE (Raildudes dad @ Apr 27 2009, 07:40 PM)

The interstate construction is funded by the federal fuel tax $0.40 on every gallon of fuel purchased in MI. Maintenance is funded by the state fuel tax $0.19 on every gallon of gasoline bought in MI. State, county and city roads are funded with their respective share of the State Fuel tax and vehicle registration. NO general fund money in MI is used for roads - check out the state budget if you don't believe me. Some cities and some townships put some general fund money into road work but it isn't the major funding source. The highway fuel taxes funds roads, the user pays .

/quote]

On the 27th government involvement for roads was bad, today government involvment for schools is good.

You remind me of my college roomate freshman year, debate for the sake of debate. What ever my (or anyone else's for that matter) viewpoint was, he'd take the opposite just to argue. Got real old fast, we were high school friends but we weren't roommates the second year

[crinzema]

I don't know the answer, but I will say this: any party or movement that requires people to show their proverbial card at the door, or adhere to a strict set of guidelines, will not gain the popular vote amongst the electorate. Too many people, when pressured, see the world more gray than black and white. This is a good thing. Otherwise, you get fascism.

Any time you hear a group say it wants to "return to its roots", run the other way. Return in itself means regressive. It means the hard-line fundamentalists have gained power positions.

[GRDadof3]

I think there are conservatives that are stubborn, just like some liberals, who can't see any validity in the other person's way of reasoning. I think that many religious conservatives feel they have a moral obligation to stop anything that does not aline to their religious beliefs. But there also other conservatives that like to hear what the other side has to say and believes in freedom. Just this past week, i've changed my stance on stem cell research after watching several Michael J. Fox videos on youtube. It's not because sympathy, but reasons that might need a whole separate thread. I'm not aware of the guidelines that come along with being conservative, could they be your prejudgements.

[NorthCoast]

^Those swings are not symmetric though. Roosevelt/Truman lasted for 20 straight years. Carter was there for only 4.

[GR_Urbanist]

No, I'm talking about the recent mantra of the Republican Party saying that its going to "return to its roots" of social and fiscal conservatism. I can see going back to fiscal conservatism and curbing the large amount of spending brought on by W, but to say that Republicans are going to get more socially conservative (aka why they brought on Palin), that's a recipe for disaster and that's where I get off. It's just like hardline Christians who adhere strictly to the bible's teachings, and feel it is their moral obligation to convert the entire world into Christians (I'm saying this as a Christian myself). I think it's wrong and stinks of dogmatism/fascism, which contradicts many of their own beliefs of personal liberties (waving the American flag). How can you be a card-carrying NRA member, who supports personal freedoms and abhors the government, and at the same time believe that all non-Christians should be converted or they're going straight to hell? And that we should be a free country, and at the same time believe that we should be a theocracy (all under God or get out!)? That to me smacks of hypocracy and just plain stupidity. They want to insert themselves as everyone's parent; the same thing they complain about the government doing.

If you don't believe that is the narrative coming out of the Republican fundamentalists, you're not paying attention.

I'm glad you can see things from both perspectives. I too hold viewpoints that straddle both sides of the aisle (chasm) that has been created by fundamentalists and blowhards that benefit by keeping Americans separated. But no Democrat has ever told me I need to think a certain way. Until things change, that's where I'm hanging my hat.

[GRDadof3]

Democrats dont?

You need to be swallow ever aspect of the "green" agenda or you hate the earth.

You have to believe in global warming.

You need to accept ever part of someones culture or you are racist.

You have to believe in abortion or you hate women.

Dont support racial quotas? Well you hate blacks.

For school choice? Then you hate teachers.

You have to support government-run health care or you want old people to die and kids to get sick.

You have to support open borders or you hate Mexicans.

Either you support unions or you hate workers.

Try holding the opposite of the views held by Democrats and see how much they love you afterwords. Go ahead and try. You already see how some here just view folks who just go to church regularly. Just imagine what they say when they are in friendly company.

I do know. It aint pretty.

And as to why someone can be a "card-carrying NRA member, who supports personal freedoms and abhors the government, and at the same time believe that all non-Christians should be converted or they're going straight to hell"? Why not? It's their view. Someone's personal thoughts don't impede on my rights, and as long as they keep it there then everything's cool.

I mean how can someone be for a green world and drive a car that runs on GAS or use regular light bulbs? How can you run around shouting "Free Tibet from the Chinese occupiers" while listening to an iPod that was made IN CHINA?

How can you be against sweatshops while shopping at the GAP?

[NorthCoast]

Ummm...who edited my previous post? Was it a mod? I don't know what happened but post #35 is not what I wrote. If someone had a problem with it/if it wasn't on topic I understand but please let me know. I was merely trying to point out that even ofter long durations of one party holding the presidency the country has allows swung back the other way.

[GRDadof3]

Ummm...who edited my previous post? Was it a mod? I don't know what happened but post #35 is not what I wrote. If someone had a problem with it/if it wasn't on topic I understand but please let me know. I was merely trying to point out that even ofter long durations of one party holding the presidency the country has allows swung back the other way.

[GR_Urbanist]

Are you saying you don't believe in global warming?

[crinzema]

Are you saying you don't believe in global warming?

[droonus2000]

I don't believe in Global warming. I think the earth goes though natural cycles and Humanity doesn't have a lot to do with it.

[GRDadof3]

So did humans cause the Ice Age too?

[droonus2000]

we may be speeding up the cycle a bit, but I don't think humans are the sole reason it's happening, there are natural sources of Co2 as well. so, no, i cannot explain the correlation.

[NorthCoast]

Not I said the blind man. Didn't you have a list of Presidential winners over the years?

[monsoon]

Ummm...who edited my previous post? Was it a mod? I don't know what happened but post #35 is not what I wrote. If someone had a problem with it/if it wasn't on topic I understand but please let me know. I was merely trying to point out that even ofter long durations of one party holding the presidency the country has allows swung back the other way.

[GRDadof3]

Yeah, I did. Huh...maybe its a glitch in the forums?

[NorthCoast]

I apologize. I was responding to your post and hit the wrong button and didn't notice. Unfortunately there is no way for me to get it back now or I would put it back. Please feel free to repost it if you still have it.

[torgo]

Global temperatures have certainly fluctuated over time, and I think we are currently in the midst of a natural upswing in temperatures regardless of our actions here. However, when you consider all the polluting humans have done since the industrial revolution, it seems pretty insane to think that we aren't a very substantial contributor to that upswing.

Back to the original topic. The future of conservatism, if you want to call it that, is going to have to be a true "less government" approach, especially by the federal government. Kind of a mix of current current conservatism and social liberalism. The GOP's current stance of being a party that advocates "less government", yet spends all its energy trying to regulate on social issues it disagrees with (or just thinks is icky) is asinine, not to mention completely unsustainable.

[Raildudes dad]

I would have to admitt that you have a point in my inconsistency. Yet there are differences between paying for a road and paying for a school. It's great to have free roads/highways and free public schools in the sense that you don't pay for a toll or added tuition. Yet my problem with the roads/highways is that the government diverts HUGE amounts of subsidizes (in the $100s of billions) for the construction and maintainence of roads and yet our public education system is collapsing in on itself. What is more important in our nation? What are our priorities when we invest $100s of billions for highways across this country, yet we can't keep our school doors open? I'm sorry, but we spend way too much $ on our roads when some people in this country can't even read. I value a child's education over getting my ass to to the gas pump anyday.

As I said, by privatizing roads, there would be less roads/highways because private companies would not pay out that much capital to build and maintain them.

I'm not trying to debate just to debate. I think we all have good reason to disagree. I'm glad that you are willing to challenge my opinions because that gets everyone to think about our debate.