What do YOU think a liberal is?

[Charade]

As opposed to calling someone a traitor if they don't support a war?

I never did that and I don't think it's nice to do it either. However, if they do something to undermine the war, then it might just be that. I think Jane Fonda was a traitor when she sat on a North VN anti-aircraft gun that was shooting down our airplanes.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

But isn't it true that federal money only contributes 5% of any school district's funds? I learned that in an education class -- may or may not be true. There are some schools in the nation thumbing their noses at NCLB because it's no real loss with that 5%.

Not in the rural community I taught in. Seriously, without federal funding, I doubt those schools would even have had indoor plumbing. It was a very economically depressed area. Where I went to HS in the suburbs of Chicago, the tax base was immense and we had more than some private schools I've seen. Where we live now it has a healthy tax base, although the population is growing faster than the schools can manage to keep up. There will alway be communities which offer better schools, but every child deserves the right and opportunity to be provided with the basic necessities to succeed.

 

[crcormier]

I never did that and I don't think it's nice to do it either. However, if they do something to undermine the war, then it might just be that. I think Jane Fonda was a traitor when she sat on a North VN anti-aircraft gun that was shooting down our airplanes.

Just pointing out the problem with broad brush strokes and generalizations.

The whole thread proves that no-one can be categorized into one column or another.

The world is not black and white.

 

[DancingBear]

IMO, all students deserve what their state and local governments can afford to give them. Nothing more, nothing less. I see no basis whatsoever for the federal government becoming involved in the public school system. I don't believe that there is anyone in the federal government, at any level, that knows more about what local public schools need than the people that live in the communities where those public schools are located.

I don't know about the program Fitz is talking about specifically, but the Federal government is involved in the sense of regulating the telecommunications industry, and I think it's appropriate in that sense for the Feds to do something to spread the availability of internet access.

 

[BuckNaked]

I don't know about the program Fitz is talking about specifically, but the Federal government is involved in the sense of regulating the telecommunications industry, and I think it's appropriate in that sense for the Feds to do something to spread the availability of internet access.

I disagree - the government can and should regulate telecommunications, but I don't see how regulation includes paying for internet access for schools.

The federal government regulates the food industry too, but they aren't paying for my groceries.

 

[disneyfan67]

(And just FYI, I think affirmative action policies should shift from being race-based to being socioeconomically based)

That is something I can agree with you on and the country as a whole, would benefit from that. The more we as a society, can get away from race based preferences, the better it will be for all of us. This way we can have one simple scale for everyone who needs help in getting a higher education, regardless of color. Especially now, with the cost of college reaching beyond the levels of ridiculous. I could fully support a governmental program such as this and it needs to be implemented.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Again, why is education a federal responsibility?

you think your state and local taxes are too high now??? Take away all those federal programs like this one and the lunch program and see what happens then. Wait til the suburban folks really have to pay for the needs of the urban schools like we do in NJ-our property taxes are the highest in the nation already. I can't imagine what would happen if all the federal aid dried up. School funding is almost as much of a third rail as Social Security. No governor or state politician would allow for "the children" to suffer from reduced services, so state and local taxes would have to increase.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

I disagree - the government can and should regulate telecommunications, but I don't see how regulation includes paying for internet access for schools.

The federal government regulates the food industry too, but they aren't paying for my groceries.

They do provide free and reduced breakfast and lunch to those that qualify in the public schools. I'm guessing you don't agree that either though.

 

[BuckNaked]

I could fully support a governmental program such as this and it needs to be implemented.

I support the idea, however I do not support any kind of federal government mandate for instituting it.

 

[BuckNaked]

They do provide free and reduced breakfast and lunch to those that qualify in the public schools. I'm guessing you don't agree that either though.

I do, but only for the very poorest students, and I believe that ALL income, whether monetary or in-kind should be considered in determining whether or not a child receives a free or reduced lunch. If the government is going to provide food stamps, which provides food at home, then the logical extension is to provide food for the kids when they are away from home.

 

[wvrevy]

I'll get into the back and forth of this thread later, but for now here are a few things I think about "Liberals" and "Conservatives":

Conservatives believe in imposing their morals on others, since it is the only "right" way to live.
Liberals believe in holding their morals to themselves, and acknowledge that not everyone believes exactly the same as they do.

Conservatives believe in government just small enough to make moral decisions for individuals, such as those on gay marriage.
Liberals believe in allowing individuals to live their life as they choose, including marrying someone of the same sex, if such is their natural preference.

Conservatives believe "America First" is something that should be respected by other countries at all times.
Liberals believe that other countries have their own interests, and only through negotiation can we arrive at mutually satisfactory endings.

Conservatives believe "they hate us for our freedoms" and other meaningless platitudes.
Liberals know that there are root causes for the world's problems, and treating the symptom without working to solve the root cause is a waste of time and resources.

Conservatives believe that stopping welfare and social security will somehow lead to a more prosperous society.
Liberals believe that not everybody is capable of pulling themselves up by the bootstraps, so help from the government is the least we - as a society - can do.

Conservatives believe that those born on third base have actually hit triples.
Liberals believe that even those that start with two strikes against them - born into poverty with little to no support structure to help them - deserve a chance to make something of themselves...but that requires help.

Conservatives believe nation building is in our interests.
Liberals believe that it never works and will only lead to further problems.

Conservatives believe the free market solves everything.
Liberals believe that corporations work in their own interests, not in society's.

Conservatives believe science is something you can and should play politics with.
Liberals believe facts are facts and not up for debate.

Conservatives believe dissent is the equivalent of treason.
Liberals believe dissent is the duty of every citizen that disagrees with his or her government...just as the founding fathers did, for the most part.

Conservatives believe in simple answers.
Liberals believe that there are no simple answers. We do not live in a black and white world, for the most part. Very rarely is anything so cut-and-dried as 9/11.


There is plenty more, but those are a few of the key differences. I'm more than willing to discuss / defend any of those statements, so fire away.

(Oh, and btw Brenda...West Virginia - a traditionally very blue state until recently - has the distinction of sending a larger percentage of her population to the military in times of war than any other state in the union...so I'm afraid I will most certainly have to disagree with your statement about liberals in the military.)

 

[BuckNaked]

(Oh, and btw Brenda...West Virginia - a traditionally very blue state until recently - has the distinction of sending a larger percentage of her population to the military in times of war than any other state in the union...so I'm afraid I will most certainly have to disagree with your statement about liberals in the military.)

You'll have to disagree with someone else - I never said that there weren't liberals in the military, I said that I had met very few of them during my time in the service.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

Liberals believe that there are no simple answers. We do not live in a black and white world, for the most part.

It sure sounds like you paint people that way.

 

[lovemygoofy]

Again, why is education a federal responsibility?

This is a very simplistic answer but I think the reason education is a federal responsibility is because we want our children and children's children to grow and be productive, educated citizens who run this gov't. I dont think just because someone lives say Mississippi where they have some of the poorest schools in the country they should be penalized. You can only keep taxing the poor so much to have better schools.

If you want a country ran by US citizens educated in this country then their educations need to be of some priority. That includes all students in all states.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

To me, a liberal is someone who spews vitriol about conservatives and a conservative is someone who spews vitriol about liberals. I think there are very few people who fit the stereotypes put forth by either side, and those who generalize according to those stereotypes just make themselves look uninformed.

Excellent point, and I think it's worth repeating. I agree with you 100%.

 

[BuckNaked]

This is a very simplistic answer but I think the reason education is a federal responsibility is because we want our children and children's children to grow and be productive, educated citizens who run this gov't. I dont think just because someone lives say Mississippi where they have some of the poorest schools in the country they should be penalized. You can only keep taxing the poor so much to have better schools.

If you want a country ran by US citizens educated in this country then their educations need to be of some priority. That includes all students in all states.

If you're of the mindset that the federal government knows more about educating students than the communities in which these students live, then I can see where you would agree with federal funding. I don't subscribe to that belief, so I would rather the federal government stick to its Constitutional mandates and leave the rest to the states.

 

[disneyfan67]

Yes, well obviously as an educator this is very near to my heart. I just believe that all of our children deserve a fair shot at becoming productive and contributing members of society, and I really don't see that realistically occuring if you remove all federal funding. I agree with Fitswimmer that there are more effective methods to achieving that goal. I just don't think you can yank it all away and then expect to move more away from a welfare state.

I have to say Sherri, well done. Years ago I might have disagreed with you on this, but with the ever growing changes happening to our country we really need to focus on better education. The United States has been moving away from a manufacturing/ product producing country for the past decade or so. The days of high paying factory jobs with benefits is quickly becoming a thing of the past in this country. Countries like China are quickly becoming giants in that industry and it's damn near impossible to compete with them, due to brutal, but effective conditions they sadly force upon their workers. America is becoming a much different country than it was even 30 years ago and education is has to be ramped up to much higher levels than it is now. By removing the Federal government from the equation isn't going to help with that goal. How can you teach a person to fish for life, when the lake isn't availible to them? I don't like the Federal Government getting any bigger or more bloated than it is, but sometimes you have to dance with the Devil to get what you need. Sad but true.

 

[wvrevy]

It sure sounds like you paint people that way.

How do you figure? This whole thread is about discussing generalities, which is how I approached the question. I'm sorry, but most people that call themselves "liberal" or "conservative" hold the beliefs that I outlined. Was there anything in them that you disagree with, or did you just want to attack me in a more general sense?

 

[alldiz]

I'll get into the back and forth of this thread later, but for now here are a few things I think about "Liberals" and "Conservatives":

Conservatives believe in imposing their morals on others, since it is the only "right" way to live.
Liberals believe in holding their morals to themselves, and acknowledge that not everyone believes exactly the same as they do.

Conservatives believe in government just small enough to make moral decisions for individuals, such as those on gay marriage.
Liberals believe in allowing individuals to live their life as they choose, including marrying someone of the same sex, if such is their natural preference.

Conservatives believe "America First" is something that should be respected by other countries at all times.
Liberals believe that other countries have their own interests, and only through negotiation can we arrive at mutually satisfactory endings.

Conservatives believe "they hate us for our freedoms" and other meaningless platitudes.
Liberals know that there are root causes for the world's problems, and treating the symptom without working to solve the root cause is a waste of time and resources.

Conservatives believe that stopping welfare and social security will somehow lead to a more prosperous society.
Liberals believe that not everybody is capable of pulling themselves up by the bootstraps, so help from the government is the least we - as a society - can do.

Conservatives believe that those born on third base have actually hit triples.
Liberals believe that even those that start with two strikes against them - born into poverty with little to no support structure to help them - deserve a chance to make something of themselves...but that requires help.

Conservatives believe nation building is in our interests.
Liberals believe that it never works and will only lead to further problems.

Conservatives believe the free market solves everything.
Liberals believe that corporations work in their own interests, not in society's.

Conservatives believe science is something you can and should play politics with.
Liberals believe facts are facts and not up for debate.

Conservatives believe dissent is the equivalent of treason.
Liberals believe dissent is the duty of every citizen that disagrees with his or her government...just as the founding fathers did, for the most part.

Conservatives believe in simple answers.
Liberals believe that there are no simple answers. We do not live in a black and white world, for the most part. Very rarely is anything so cut-and-dried as 9/11.


There is plenty more, but those are a few of the key differences. I'm more than willing to discuss / defend any of those statements, so fire away.

(Oh, and btw Brenda...West Virginia - a traditionally very blue state until recently - has the distinction of sending a larger percentage of her population to the military in times of war than any other state in the union...so I'm afraid I will most certainly have to disagree with your statement about liberals in the military.)

Kinda hits the nail on the head....
Kerri

 

[Oreo Cookie]

I agree with you, but where I get frustrated is when anyone says they want stricter controls on government programs to reduce that fraud and waste they get accused of hating poor people. Can't we have the programs and try and control the waste? If we do a better job of controlling the waste, we have MORE money available for folks that actually need it. How is that not better for everyone??

I work with a federal program that funds schools for internet service. We have 2.5 billion dollars to give out each year. When we toughen up and catch people who are goldplating and ripping off the system, we have more money to help the schools that truly deserve it.

I agree with you. I do think we need stricter controls on social programs, and we need a way or monitoring the success/failure of the programs. I don't consider anyone who looks at things this way as hating the poor.