The Utter Contradiction Of The Conservative Religion Exemplified:-

No, they can have standards like public magnet schools if they want, they just cant discriminate on protected class. Just like food vouchers for example.

Rich kid able to go to any school, and poor kid stuck in your union education system is equal opportunity? For what?

The Democrats get massive funding from the NEA, the biggest lobbying group in America. Their main issue is lack of accountability to parents and students and forced taxpayer money for their pocket. That is why the left wont allow it. They need that big teacher union money.

So you care about the working man? Care enough to let them choose whether or not to pay union dues if they want to teach? Or must they be forced to pay?

So denying kids access to the best schools unless their parents have the cash helps equality? How? Equally low results?

No they dont. Again, public magnet schools.

Are you suggesting everywhere that doesnt take everybody is discriminatory? Like every college in America?

Why do you hate equal opportunity for black people? They are in the worst schools in America, nearly all run by hardcore leftist school boards. How many more generations should suffer while they watch the Harlem Success Academy kids trounce the natiobnal average? Picked by lotto, no discrimination. 1000s of black parents crying every time that their kid is now doomed to the public education system.

 

you do know the difference between wanting equal opportunity and wanting equal outcome. that is the difference between conservatives and liberals. we want to strive for equal opportunity but that isn't enough for liberals they want equal outcome

 

So every idea a conservative has is right wing even if everyone else on the right is against it and every leftist voted for it? Where do you get that logic, and can I ascribe the beliefs of any leftist to you?

Since you cant argue why every leftist hated something they voted for, and every right winger voted against something they were for... you go on to pretend you didnt have a post I replied to that dealt with equality of opportunity. It is OK, you dodged it well enough and still have your racial discrimination by law policies intact. One question though, will the left ever believe in equality under the law for the races, or must they always be treating unequally based on whatever discrimination happens to be popular?

 

Amen!!!

 

Now THAT (above) is surely nonsense.

The 'magnitude' of IN-EQUALITY is what has negatively affected our entire economy. And such inequality must ultimately be rectified.

I haven't seen ANYONE seriously suggest that everyone's financial stature be equal; simply that the amount of inequality is a serious problem. And they are correct about that.

 

Question, what do you think has increased the income inequality in the past decade? And, since you seem to think all anyone does is say there is a problem, as you yourself have done, just what do you think can be done to correct the problem? Please enlighten us.

 

I was applying what is commonly known as a metaphor. Obviously it went over your head. I'm quite aware of the passage. I was supplying "money" as a substitute for pearls. Something which you value as holy.

Perhaps you should argue that point with the Pope. I'm not a Catholic, but I'm pretty sure he has a good grasp of Christianity, and what it means. Personally, I don't subscribe to religion, but that doesn't mean I'm not informed on the Bible. Most atheists are. That's why they're atheists. The fact that the teachings of Christ are of a liberal nature is not my doing. Blame it on Jesus. One thing comes through with his teachings. Self sacrifice. NOT Self Interest. The very symbol of Christianity is the cross. It's the symbol of his own self sacrifice. There were no limits to his giving.

Oh please. Jesus Christ is not really known or remembered for his approval of capitalistic people making interest off their investments. Jesus was not interested in the material world. How many times did he tell you his Kingdom is not of this world. "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Making interest on your investments is not something that Jesus would consumed with. Not a high priority for him. His interest was in your spiritual life. Not your material wealth. Money is not supposed to be your God.

I think if you asked anybody what is the most memorable thing about Jesus, that's probably not high on their list of things. The symbol for Christianity is the Cross. Not the $. Christianity is about self-sacrifice. Not self interest. If you're any kind of Biblical scholar you must be aware of that.

You mean some Saint like Thomas Aquinas? Well...I suppose that if you aren't a Catholic, then you could care less what he said. Or the Pope for that matter. However it strikes me that the Popes idea of looking out for the poor is more in line with the teachings of Jesus then some argument about the "virtues of capitalism".

 

Scheming and plotting ANYTHING and ANY WAY which keeps working Americans from being compensated fairly.

That is what has been done, to exacerbate income inequality. And now to hold onto the manipulated money... the wealthiest ("Conservatives", they are typically called) want almost complete control over the Government.

Yes, there will be a fight; hopefully, it will be a political one.

 

So you are going to try to equalize income? Like a Marxist? Will you do it by tearing down the rich or bringing up the floor? How would you do it specifically?

- - - Updated - - -

No Christian is called to give more to your rulers. They are called to give charity and recognize lefterism is evil because they kill babies. That is all.

 

And you're reading it backwards. I'm not saying there that the minimum wage is wrong because "Marxism", I'm saying the minimum wage was proven so wrong to Sowell that it killed his Marxism.

You accused me of using "Guilt by association", and you were wrong. That's all there is to it.

Which is a good thing, a non-entity minimum wage means its meaningless and not disrupting employment. Unemployment rises each time we raise the minimum wage, fact.

"Unemployment among 16 and 17-year-old black males was no higher than among white males of the same age in 1948. It was only after a series of minimum wage escalations began that black male teenage unemployment not only skyrocketed itself but became more than double the unemployment rates among white male teenagers. In the early twenty-first century, the unemployment rate for black teenagers exceeded 30 percent." - Basic Economics, 3rd Edition

Except of course for those who are let go, or whom are never hired in the first place.

You yourself must acknowledge that you are making a trade off here (for other people), you are saying that it's okay to have a higher unemployment rate, so long as some people are getting a higher paycheck. I can only say that the people out of work would seriously disagree, and especially in todays market where we already have high unemployment, and an ever heightening trend of people dropping out of the labor force.

But beyond that, you then go on to broad brushing this by insisting its collective wages across the entire population that matters, instead of each individual person.

Individual people would lose their jobs and their incomes, thus, their income would be ZERO, the true minimum wage. That's a 100% loss for them, and you're saying it doesn't matter.

That's an argument not to raise it. Those jobs pay little because they're not designed to be lived on, and employers know all too well that they have high turn over (yes, even now).

If people are going to leave the job anyway, there's no point in giving them wages to convince them to stay.

That's what you're supposed to do, this is a good thing. Thomas Sowell himself did this, he worked three jobs at one point in the 1950s, and was happy that he finally got to both eat breakfast and use the subway to his day job.

Which since SNAP will spend quite over $800 Billion in that time, is not even 5% of the program. And the people they're cutting, don't have families, nor were even eligible for Food stamps under its own rules. They're single, young, and able-bodied, the very people who need assistance the least, and who should be motivated the most to go find work.

[quote[On top of that, Republicans would like to repeal Healthcare[/quote]
Do you mean Medicare (which would be a "no they don't") or the ACA (which doesn't do as you say)?

This is how the last stimulus was spent, additionally, this is a video explaining the trend between increased Government spending and Economic output. So forgive me if I take your endorsement with a grain of salt.

If all it took to fix an economic slump was for the Government to employ people, every State Public sector would encompass 50% or more of their economy. Instead, it's the states with the largest % public sector (still quite south of 50%), like Michigan or New Jersey, that are struggling the most.

"Parasite" is unfortunately still in play. It doesn't take very many public sectors jobs or projects until you're simply adding fat.

Try Walter Williams then.

But let me make this clear, you cannot hand waive evidence, either you counter it with your own, or I'll just take it that rhetoric is all you have.

And if that's the case, I frankly don't care what you have to say.

 

Do you mean Medicare (which would be a "no they don't") or the ACA (which doesn't do as you say)?


This is how the last stimulus was spent, additionally, this is a video explaining the trend between increased Government spending and Economic output. So forgive me if I take your endorsement with a grain of salt.

If all it took to fix an economic slump was for the Government to employ people, every State Public sector would encompass 50% or more of their economy. Instead, it's the states with the largest % public sector (still quite south of 50%), like Michigan or New Jersey, that are struggling the most.

"Parasite" is unfortunately still in play. It doesn't take very many public sectors jobs or projects until you're simply adding fat.


Try Walter Williams then.

But let me make this clear, you cannot hand waive evidence, either you counter it with your own, or I'll just take it that rhetoric is all you have.

And if that's the case, I frankly don't care what you have to say.[/QUOTE]

Well Washingtons unemployment rate is 6.8 and we have the highest minimum wage. So I guess that leaves your post dead in the water.

 

No. Stop talking like a blinded extremist.

 

Do you mean Medicare (which would be a "no they don't") or the ACA (which doesn't do as you say)?


This is how the last stimulus was spent, additionally, this is a video explaining the trend between increased Government spending and Economic output. So forgive me if I take your endorsement with a grain of salt.

If all it took to fix an economic slump was for the Government to employ people, every State Public sector would encompass 50% or more of their economy. Instead, it's the states with the largest % public sector (still quite south of 50%), like Michigan or New Jersey, that are struggling the most.

"Parasite" is unfortunately still in play. It doesn't take very many public sectors jobs or projects until you're simply adding fat.


Try Walter Williams then.

But let me make this clear, you cannot hand waive evidence, either you counter it with your own, or I'll just take it that rhetoric is all you have.

And if that's the case, I frankly don't care what you have to say.[/QUOTE]

It is fun to talk at the left, but you should realize they believe their talking points and propaganda like it came down from the mountain etched in stone. Data, trade offs, consequences have no meaning to the left. Until they have managed to take a 50% or more indenture or more from the people they will not be satiated and they may want more even then.

 

Stop ripping-off the WORKERS in this society.

The nation WILL literally flourish.

 

I don't think you know what the word "discriminate" means.

As opposed to your religious education system? I'll take the Union system. At least I'll know that the earth is more the 6,000 years old. Public school education IS equal opportunity. Everyone can go to it. They don't discriminate. A rich kid is able to take advantage of whatever opportunities his family can afford. Many rich kids attend excellent public schools. Not every kid goes to Harvard or Stanford. A lot of them go to Alabama or Illinois.

That's horse crap. First of all they aren't the biggest lobbying group in America. The top spender is the US Chamber of Commerce. They spend over $1 Billion. Here's your top spenders. They aren't even in the top 20.

US Chamber of Commerce $1,018,910,680
General Electric $297,960,000
American Medical Assn $295,057,500
American Hospital Assn $249,433,008
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America $246,386,420
National Assn of Realtors $245,760,858
AARP $229,932,064
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $220,956,832
Northrop Grumman $202,685,253
Exxon Mobil $193,022,742
Boeing Co $183,432,310
Verizon Communications $183,090,043
Lockheed Martin $181,643,954
Edison Electric Institute $180,356,789
Business Roundtable $179,640,000
AT&T Inc $162,630,644
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $155,650,000
Southern Co $155,070,694
Altria Group $145,815,200
National Assn of Broadcasters $143,540,000

In fact, when it comes to the top interest groups, education comes in at 35th.

Dems get support from the NEA because they support the NEA. They don't cut education funding. Republicans do that. They don't 'attempt to get things like creationism into science classes. Repubs do that. Without a union, any teacher could be a target for firing over their political or religious beliefs, or their even their race. I can imagine a very right wing school board or administration taking a dislike to a teacher that was a Democrat or a liberal. The union protects them from being dismissed over their political views.

Enough to know that by being in a union he can't be fired for his politics. There is strength in numbers. The substitution of collective bargaining for individualized bargaining directly reduces the market vulnerability of those selling their labor power and thereby helps to prevent exploitative exchanges that would otherwise threaten basic opportunity and/or the value of basic liberty.

In almost any capitalist society strong unions are necessary to achieve a balance of interest representation in the political process and thereby help to secure the enactment of legislation that might be vital to basic opportunity like minim8m wage laws, or wage councils, state -sponsored training programs, welfare programs, health, and safety legislation.

Policies to promote basic opportunity and protect the value of basic liberty must not only be adopted and well designed, but must also be properly enforced. In certain areas, like health and safety, where it is almost impossible for the state itself to effectively supervise employer compliance with relevant legislation, unions can perform an essential supervisory function so as to improve compliance. Unions can perform educational functions that serve the basic opportunity and basic liberty commitments. They can, for example, educate their members against racial or gender discrimination. Of the can help their members come to appreciate the value of training, and so help to maintain their employability. Unions can and historically have been vehicles for resource-pooling among poorer individuals. They can, for example, organize insurance against costly contingencies such as poor health or unemployment, or pool members' resources to help finance education and training. They can pool their members to get low cost healthcare. They can negotiate through collective bargaining for raises and better working conditions. And individual can accomplish none of these things. He's totally at the mercy of his employer. He can be fired for the way he combs his hair.

I'm not the one denying their kids access to the best schools. The parents are. If they can afford a private school, then go for it. If they can't, don't expect the public to finance it for you. Aren't the results up to the kids and their parents? Are you expecting equal outcome? I thought you opposed that kind of thing. I attended public school. We had kids going to Harvard, Northwestern, Stanford, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, MIT, Air Force Academy, Univ.of Illinois. We also had the last man to walk on the moon (Eugene Cernan) and the first black female billionaire ( Sheila Crump Johnson, co-founder of BET...she beat Oprah..and attended U of I) It wasn't a school filled with rich kids. It was very blue collar. Grammy winner John Prine went there. Basketball coach Doc Rivers went there. Actor Dennis Franz went there. NBA All-Star Michael Finley went there. We didn't have the economic advantages of some of the other schools, but we did well because our families were involved.

You're saying the public schools don't have to take everyone?? You know of course, that you're wrong about that. Nobody gets denied a public school education in this country.

Everyone in this country is guaranteed a public education through high school. Nobody is guaranteed a college education. The promise ends with secondary schools. College (post-secondary) is on you assuming that you meet their requirements and can get accepted.

Why don't you get your head out of your racist butt? Is this supposed to be exclusively for black people? Aren't vouchers applicable to everyone? Your question assumes that this is simply something for blacks. So your vouchers don't apply to other races? That may be the most revealing thing you've said so far.

You've already demonstrated your own racism, so don't attempt to show me your concern over blacks.

As if you give a crap.

 

I also want to lower taxes. Why do you keep voting democrat?

 

You are of course wrong on the constitution and have no case law otherwise. Wrong on what discrimination under the law means. Wrong on not letting kids go to better schools of their parents choosing and wrong about donations:

http://followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=382&ext=5

Why would they give to federal elections and not the ones that handle schools? See why the election you pointed to is meaningless and they buy the politicians that gve them power? Speaking of power:

[video=youtube;WdqQTIQhn5A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdqQTIQhn5A[/video]

It should be no surprise you are wrong about unions too. Unions only hurt the rest of people for the benefit of their workers. Consumers, in this case students and taxpayers, are harmed by the unions. When NY has to have a "rubber room" for bad teachers they cant fire because of union rules but no one would put around children, there is something wrong. Additionally the union no accountability model has lead it to get away with hiring the bottom 20% of the college class to educate our children. Accountability changes that. Vouchers bring accountability. Works in Sweden.

Try again.

You accused me of being a racist. Common thing for white liberals to do to make themselves feel superior - do you have anything to base that on? Please post, or admit you are just using common leftist demagoguery. So why don't you care that thousands of black families every year have to console their child because they know they are doomed to unsafe below standards education?

[video=youtube;l7FS5B-CynM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7FS5B-CynM[/video]

Speaking of racist, look at your union history. Vile! Or look at their present:

[video=youtube;0Yt2SwDuhQ4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yt2SwDuhQ4[/video]


Leadership conference, that is the people running the show spouting the N word like they are Chris Rock - but they are white and they aren't saying it nicely. Here, even Anderson Cooper can't even spin it, 9 days and she is back to work:

[video=youtube;PYy85FmVzBI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYy85FmVzBI[/video]

 

I don't remember writing anything about making money or valuing it as "holy"---perhaps a Strawman fantasy of yours. The Scriptures do value work---not laziness, and not greed. There is nothing wrong about being wealthy. Also, the "eye of the needle" is believed to be by some a small gate of a city. That passage too was not to be taken literally.

I have only been to Catholic services a few times---but I don't agree, at all, with having a Pope or believing what he or other church leaders say is as important as whats in the Bible.

As far as the legacy of Jesus and the cross---it's not self-sacrifice---it's something called salvation. You can look that up sometime.

Now about you and your socialist ideals. Do you support our government giving welfare and handouts to the lazy who can work, but won't? Lenin said, "No work, no eat." Why should a young woman stay in high school and wait to have a family after she's married, when she can can get something like $40,000 a year in benefits from having a welfare baby and dropping out?