RPVNetwork

Grassroots Network of the Republican Party of Virginia

I always think when I visit this site or attend Republican Party functions, if there is any room for moderate voices in the party? Although, I do have conservative values in most of my thinking, I am not totally entrenched in them. I believe that there is a time to raise taxes. I believe there is a time to limit gun ownership. I believe there is a time to allow abortion. I find it ironic that those who are fervently against abortion in all cases are way past their child bearing days and please understand that I am not making light of this issue as I am generally against abortion.
I thought that after the many recent defeats by the Republicans in local, state wide and federal elections we would start getting smarter, but sometimes I have my doubts.
I hear leaders in our party state that we are making strides in making this party a more diverse party and then I look around the room and feel I am in a corporate board room.
We have an opportunity with the upcoming elections to bring more people in the party with the election of candidates such as Bob McDonnell, but I wonder if we will find a way to screw it up.
I would like to see if others share my views on this or if I am a lone fish in a sea of sharks.

Views: 83

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Liberals like Brian actually think that it is the government's role to enforce equal opportunity as a right, and he has in fact stated in posts above that it doesn't deny anyone's rightful property to tax us all to fund and enforce massive federal schemes so as to perpetuate the endless bureaucratic agencies and legions of coercion that are the EEOC, the Dept. of Education, HHS, FHA, and so on...and he's studying to be a lawyer!! I guess the Constitution is just so 'old-school', eh...

Mark Collins said:
WOW. This has been quite the spririted debate while I was at work all day. Good job everyone.

Brian,

I came from a poor family. My father and mother both worked two jobs so that we could have it better than they did. My father grew up with 5 or 6 brothers and sisters living in a 1 bedroom house at any given time. The boys were shipped off to their uncles farm in the summer time to work. I am very happy to have had the struggles that I did as a child and I have it much better than my parents did. I did not afford college so I sometimes confuse my principles with my principals but I am now in the process of making sure my children have it better than me. It is no ones responsibility but mine to do that. The government has no place in helping me or anyone else realize their potential. It's not your true potential if someone else has to help you get there. Also remember that no government has any money to spend that is their own. The only money they have is that which they take. If a child is born into poverty than they should struggle to make sure their children have it better than themselves. And so on....
I worked and borrowed (and still repaying the loans) to put myself through 4-year college; the veteran's educational assistance program when I was going through was nothing comapred to today's GI bill, and I had to even repay much of the VEAP money back from the times I had to withdraw due to problems I had during my struggles to complete my degree...but oh boy, soon, with the efforts of Brian and Brokeback Hussein bin Laden, all will be entitled to "equal access to college" and taxpayer-funded tuition, room, board, condoms, cucumbers, hardcore porn in the lecture halls, plasma TV's, prescription drugs, implants, gender reassignment on demand, Ph.D.'s in Dialectical Relativistic Lesbian Congoloid Studies, green jobs, equal housing regardless of ability to make any payments at all, equal...equal....equal...

Donald Joy said:
Liberals like Brian actually think that it is the government's role to enforce equal opportunity as a right, and he has in fact stated in posts above that it doesn't deny anyone's rightful property to tax us all to fund and enforce massive federal schemes so as to perpetuate the endless bureaucratic agencies and legions of coercion that are the EEOC, the Dept. of Education, HHS, FHA, and so on...and he's studying to be a lawyer!! I guess the Constitution is just so 'old-school', eh...

Mark Collins said:
WOW. This has been quite the spririted debate while I was at work all day. Good job everyone.

Brian,

I came from a poor family. My father and mother both worked two jobs so that we could have it better than they did. My father grew up with 5 or 6 brothers and sisters living in a 1 bedroom house at any given time. The boys were shipped off to their uncles farm in the summer time to work. I am very happy to have had the struggles that I did as a child and I have it much better than my parents did. I did not afford college so I sometimes confuse my principles with my principals but I am now in the process of making sure my children have it better than me. It is no ones responsibility but mine to do that. The government has no place in helping me or anyone else realize their potential. It's not your true potential if someone else has to help you get there. Also remember that no government has any money to spend that is their own. The only money they have is that which they take. If a child is born into poverty than they should struggle to make sure their children have it better than themselves. And so on....
Brian W. Schoeneman said:
I am not a social conservative. I do not want others or the government making moral choices for me. God gave us all free will, not the government, and I think government should be extremely wary of interposing its morals on individuals. What do I believe in? I believe in fiscal discipline, low taxes, protecting personal liberty, smaller and smarter government, a strong national defense, American exceptionalism and the power of the free market. And, of course, I believe in protecting life, liberty and property.


That being said, I recognize that others may not agree with what I believe, and I am fine with that. I don't have any issues with your beliefs. I do have issues with what I perceive as your intolerance for others who disagree with you. In the end, we are all members of the same party. If you believe in basic tenets of the Republican creed then we're on the same team, even if we disagree as to which are more important.



Free will has nothing to do with it. Whether or not the state chooses to enact laws against something or not, as people with free will, we have the power to choose to obey the law or not. Saying people have free will is not an argument for or against enacting laws.

Since the government's power is supposed to come from *us*, the people, we have just as much right and obligation to decide what laws are right and good to have. That includes laws regarding abortion, euthanasia, laws regarding the sale of products of abortions, laws regarding new forms of life created by scientific means.

And don't even get me started on gun control. What a pattern for domination, oppression, slavery and death to anyone opposing the state. You don't have to take my word for it, history bears it out.

Oh and since we don't want government involved in those "personal decisions", are you opposing any law that would abridge the rights of doctors or medical personnel from opting out of participating in abortion?
As I read these blog entries I am reminded of one my favorite quotes that I believe fundamentally defines America, one which also I believe defines or should define our Republican Party.

" I may disagree with every single word you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it"

That my friends is America.
Brian- You remind me of some defense lawyers who represent clients they know are as guilty as sin, yet they come up with every excuse in the book to defend the guilty party. It's a matter of playing on the emotions of the jury, and convincing them that there was a good reason for this person to commit this crime. So far, your jury here has not bought into your arguments. Politics is about playing on the electorate's emotions, as much as playing on the emotions in a courtroom. Your argument for "protecting" those children of bad parents, is an attempt by you to make everyone feel "guilty" if they don't have compassion towards those poor poor children who didn't have a chance, or making sure that through Affirmative Action type programs, they too can get the best paying jobs or admission to the ivy league universities, even though they were not as qualified. That is attempting to make equal those that are not equal. It redistributes opportunities, and insures that the brightests and the best are not always the ones who will be rewarded. By doing so, we now have a dumbed down workforce, particularly with Union jobs. I worked for an automobile dealership many years ago that had a union forced on them by one individual who only cared about getting more pay and benefits even though he was one of the biggest slackers in the shop. With the advent of the union that he convinced other shop workers to support, he was safe and cozy with a job for life, no matter how bad a job he was doing. The dealership folded because of the high costs to the owner by the Unions demands. I'm sure as a union man Brian, you know that it almost takes an act of congress to fire a union employee. Think about all those thousands of union employees that had to do nothing more than show up, sit in a lounge all day playing games and chit chatting, and got paid union wages and benefits for that. Think about where Ford, Chrysler and GM are now with the Unions still demanding and not giving an inch. Most recently I read that a majority of Union workers would rather have less pay and benefits, but know they have a long term job, but, people like you who support this obnoxious intrusion into companies affairs would prefer to "be compassionate, and help the downtrodden, and insure that everyone is making as much money as you can squeeze out of companies, for the sake of the little man." Again, redistribute the wealth by taking from the business owners, and give it to the workers, because those evil greedy business owners should be limited on their profitability. Equal opportunity huh Brian.
Brian- If I am not mistaken the airlines you mentioned in your comment didn't "work together with labor and management", they filed for bankruptcy protection so that they had the ability to tell the Unions that they were no longer going to bow to their excessive demands that put them into bankruptcy to begin with, just as the Auto industry currently. Bankruptcy protection allowed the companies to renegotiate the excessive demands of the Unions. The Unions knew they had to lower their expectations or the companies would not have made it out of bankruptcy, and there would have been alot of unemployed union workers. The same path should have been followed by the 3 major Auto companies, but, alas the Union supporting Obama/Liberal administration will not allow that to ever happen this time around. Why do you think Gettlefinger is thuming his nose at the Auto companies? He knows he is going to get what he wants from the Libs. He would rather see the Government take over the auto industry, and get into the car manufacturing business, than to give up his cushy Chicago Thug style position as the head of the UAW. Because he is in favor with the current administration, he was never called to get a lashing from Congress, as the CEO's of the Auto companies have been put through numerous times. Because he refused to negotiate terms that the auto companies could have survived with, why wasn't he fired, just as the GM CEO was? And yes, a Republican president, Bush was the first to support bail-outs for what was already known to be not viable Auto companies. As I said before, they never should have gone crawling to the Government begging for money to stay in business, even though it is the very same government who forced unrealistic mandates for them to go "Green." They would have been much better off going into a regular bankruptcy case, rather than a Government controlled bankruptcy case where they will wind up now. Welcome to the world of Liberal Motors, brought to you by the successful thuggery of the UAW.

With your comment that "both sides need to work together" and the "current economic crisis" is proof of that, I ask you, does that mean that you hold no fault with what the Liberals did to begin the unravelling of the economy with the advent of sub-prime loans going back to Carters Community Reinvestment Act, Clinton's pushing it to the max, and having people in Congress like Dodd and Frank saying, "it's all cool, there's no problems with Fannie and Freddie, when they most certainly knew Raines was cooking the books? Even Bush and McCain had warned of an oncoming disaster if the problems that did exist were not corrected. Now, rather than a willingness to stand up and talk about the facts, and yes, point the finger in the direction where it belongs, you want to step back and say "Het guys, let's just all get along and work together." You know damn well that the Democrats/Liberals will never see things our way, no matter how right the Republicans are on some major issues. They can never give an inch on their desires for complete control, including defining the message about just how evil and wrong the Republicans are. If you have an R behind your name, even if you are a moderate and willing to work with them, you will always be the one running to their side of the isle, and giving in to their demands. Most Liberals have never even seen the right side of the isle on anything. I see you as being a fool's fool if you think you can "work together" with the now in control Democrats. You say we should not be focusing on the issues that we can't do anything about, but, how about the Republicans focusing fully on the major issues that are changing the country for the worse, instead of "reaching across the isle" into empty air.

In your latest comment you said-
Equal opportunity isn't about equality of outcomes. I don't understand why you and some of the others in this thread can't recognize the difference. No one is saying that people who are unqualified should get jobs to the detriment of the qualified. No one is saying that we should take opportunities away from people and give them to those who don't deserve them. The point of equal opportunity is to make sure that people are chosen based on merit and qualifications, not something they can't control like their race or how much money their parents have. Everyone deserves a fair shot at success. That's all I'm talking about.

You give no credit to the fact that those on this thread most certainly do understand the difference between equality of outcomes as opposed to equality of opportunities. You claim to be against Afirmative Action type programs, but, if an employer is left a free choice to hire those employees that he desires, he may not always hire a diverse group of employees, including a sufficient number of minorities. I believe that any company should not be mandated by the Government to hire based on race of gender, but rather based on qualifications. How then will you bring your utopian country vision around to insuring that everyone has an equal shot at opportunity? Just wondering how you would
resolve that issue, and be "fair" to everyone?

Brian W. Schoeneman said:
Sandy, go back and read what I wrote. I have already said, multiple times, that affirmative action is wrong and I'm opposed to it. It is unfortunate that there are so many Republicans who buy into the Democratic game of constantly worrying and wondering about what the other guy is making. Unions aren't perfect and there are always those who use the union to benefit themselves. I don't defend those kinds of workers. But because of them I don't oppose the the right of workers organize, either, because I believe that decision is fundamentally democratic. As for the issues with the Big 3 - it takes two to make a contract. Management is just as culpable as the unions. And no rational union is going to say "screw you, we'd rather all lose our jobs than take a pay cut." That's why you've seen pay cuts at companies like Boeing, Delta, United, and the automakers. Companies work best when labor and management work together. That was the model we had in the maritime industry and that's the future vision for the labor movement that I see. Both sides don't need to constantly be at each others throats. There is no reason why both sides can't work together. And the economic crisis we've seen is proof positive that some companies are just as capable of being lazy and greedy as the mechanic at your old auto dealership.

Equal opportunity isn't about equality of outcomes. I don't understand why you and some of the others in this thread can't recognize the difference. No one is saying that people who are unqualified should get jobs to the detriment of the qualified. No one is saying that we should take opportunities away from people and give them to those who don't deserve them. The point of equal opportunity is to make sure that people are chosen based on merit and qualifications, not something they can't control like their race or how much money their parents have. Everyone deserves a fair shot at success. That's all I'm talking about.

Sandy Cope said:
Brian- You remind me of some defense lawyers who represent clients they know are as guilty as sin, yet they come up with every excuse in the book to defend the guilty party. It's a matter of playing on the emotions of the jury, and convincing them that there was a good reason for this person to commit this crime. So far, your jury here has not bought into your arguments. Politics is about playing on the electorate's emotions, as much as playing on the emotions in a courtroom. Your argument for "protecting" those children of bad parents, is an attempt by you to make everyone feel "guilty" if they don't have compassion towards those poor poor children who didn't have a chance, or making sure that through Affirmative Action type programs, they too can get the best paying jobs or admission to the ivy league universities, even though they were not as qualified. That is attempting to make equal those that are not equal. It redistributes opportunities, and insures that the brightests and the best are not always the ones who will be rewarded. By doing so, we now have a dumbed down workforce, particularly with Union jobs. I worked for an automobile dealership many years ago that had a union forced on them by one individual who only cared about getting more pay and benefits even though he was one of the biggest slackers in the shop. With the advent of the union that he convinced other shop workers to support, he was safe and cozy with a job for life, no matter how bad a job he was doing. The dealership folded because of the high costs to the owner by the Unions demands. I'm sure as a union man Brian, you know that it almost takes an act of congress to fire a union employee. Think about all those thousands of union employees that had to do nothing more than show up, sit in a lounge all day playing games and chit chatting, and got paid union wages and benefits for that. Think about where Ford, Chrysler and GM are now with the Unions still demanding and not giving an inch. Most recently I read that a majority of Union workers would rather have less pay and benefits, but know they have a long term job, but, people like you who support this obnoxious intrusion into companies affairs would prefer to "be compassionate, and help the downtrodden, and insure that everyone is making as much money as you can squeeze out of companies, for the sake of the little man." Again, redistribute the wealth by taking from the business owners, and give it to the workers, because those evil greedy business owners should be limited on their profitability. Equal opportunity huh Brian.
OMG, he actually said it--he used the phrase "collective good"!! I told you all he's communist. Brian advocates the violation of our Constitutional right to private property on behalf of "the common good," just as his fellow socialists Hillary and Obongo do!

Taxing people out of their rightful property to fund operations of government that have no Constitutional basis or authority of function is theft, son.

There is no such thing as the "right" to an education, despite what leftists like you and your ilk say, nor is there such a right as the "right not to be discriminated against"(even though people like you insist that there is, while doing nothing whatsoever about the widespread and decades-old Jim Crow-esque employment, contracting, and admissions programs that discriminate against white males)...

You can prattle on about the will of the majority and all, but passing laws that violate Constitutional rights, such as the specifically enumerated basic right to private property through taxation, is illegal and amounts to theft.
And the marriage analogy/example, I must confess, is not mine--I borrowed it from noted economist and professor at George Mason University Walter Williams(who happens to be black), who points out that forcing whites to surrender their private property and/or work alongside, associate with, admit to clubs, etc., in order to improve the economic lot of blacks or any other "protected" group amounts to the same thing as implementing mandatory intermarriage between whites and blacks, because if there is any single cultural institution which improves the economic situation and prospects of "downtrodden" individuals in our society, it is marriage--and so by the same principle operating throughout all our contemporary government/social programs, whites should be forced to marry blacks so as to improve the overall lot of black individuals!

Yes, it is absurd, however it points out the absurdity of forcing people to hire and work alongside and spend most of their waking hours among those who, without coercive judicial decrees and mandatory affirmative-action/diversity agendas and so on, they might otherwise not naturally do so, and generally, historically clearly demonstrate the rightful personal prerogatives of racial discrimination along lines of identity with their own group.

Again, I'm just not impressed at all with your failure to see the egregious travesties done by liberals (instead you defend them!) and refusal to join in the Republican effort to stop all the runaway government usurpations of power and abuses of our private property and liberty. You think that calling yourself a Republican and giving lip service to the notion of "smaller government" and other token platform planks makes you one of us, as if you don't have to do any intellectual heavy lifting or critical analysis of your own Pelosi-esque positions...I'd suggest you read Atlas Shrugged for one thing, and Thomas Sowell, of course Walter Williams as I mentioned, some John Stossel perhaps, and Mark Levin's got a great new book out now, too, Liberty and Tyranny...

Brian W. Schoeneman said:
Your arguments are ridiculous, Donald. I'm sorry, but taxation is not "depriving people of their rightful liberty to their own products." This isn't a dictatorship. Taxes are passed through a democratic process. While taxes should be kept low to ensure economic growth and the creation of jobs, no one is arguing that we shouldn't have taxes to pay for public works, national defense, and the like. Education, like national defense, is a collective good that should be paid for by all the citizens, because we all enjoy it. A better educated population means a better citizenry, more capable of giving back to the community through work. There's nothing intellectually lazy or dishonest about recognizing that access to public education is critical to every aspect of our economic security.

The marriage argument is equally ridiculous. No one is advocating that kind of state action, because it fundamentally interferes with natural rights that have been enjoyed far longer than our Constitution has existed.

The responsibility and authority for ensuring equal opportunity rests with the democratically elected governments that you and I vote for. The people we choose the represent us in the government that we have established.

Donald Joy said:
And Jeez, "access to education," for crying out loud? I suppose you'd insist that forcibly taking property away from producers in order to fund public schools for everyone's children, regardless of their productive contribution or lack thereof, isn't depriving them of their rightful liberty to their own products? Come on, stop being intellectually lazy and dishonest.

What about marriage? Should the state be able, for purposes of "fairness" and "social justice" to require that economic opportunity be equalized through forcing members of characteristically more prosperous racial groups to marry members of typically less well-off racial groups, so as to even things out? Just with whom and where sits the authority and responsibility for meting out all this alleged entitlement to opportunity, anyway?
No kidding, Sandy, he spent so long as a union shill that he probably never bothered to realize that unions are essentially shakedown rackets that use the threat of force and actual force itself to gain a monopoly on one factor of production. They swoop in as followers after the fact of some entrepreneur busting his or her hump to build something up, then they claim the "right" to hold hostage the private property of the enterprise unless their demands are met, then they abuse their coercive power until their parasitical influence kills off or drives the host--the business itself--to more hospitable regions.

Sandy Cope said:
Brian- You remind me of some defense lawyers who represent clients they know are as guilty as sin, yet they come up with every excuse in the book to defend the guilty party. It's a matter of playing on the emotions of the jury, and convincing them that there was a good reason for this person to commit this crime. So far, your jury here has not bought into your arguments. Politics is about playing on the electorate's emotions, as much as playing on the emotions in a courtroom. Your argument for "protecting" those children of bad parents, is an attempt by you to make everyone feel "guilty" if they don't have compassion towards those poor poor children who didn't have a chance, or making sure that through Affirmative Action type programs, they too can get the best paying jobs or admission to the ivy league universities, even though they were not as qualified. That is attempting to make equal those that are not equal. It redistributes opportunities, and insures that the brightests and the best are not always the ones who will be rewarded. By doing so, we now have a dumbed down workforce, particularly with Union jobs. I worked for an automobile dealership many years ago that had a union forced on them by one individual who only cared about getting more pay and benefits even though he was one of the biggest slackers in the shop. With the advent of the union that he convinced other shop workers to support, he was safe and cozy with a job for life, no matter how bad a job he was doing. The dealership folded because of the high costs to the owner by the Unions demands. I'm sure as a union man Brian, you know that it almost takes an act of congress to fire a union employee. Think about all those thousands of union employees that had to do nothing more than show up, sit in a lounge all day playing games and chit chatting, and got paid union wages and benefits for that. Think about where Ford, Chrysler and GM are now with the Unions still demanding and not giving an inch. Most recently I read that a majority of Union workers would rather have less pay and benefits, but know they have a long term job, but, people like you who support this obnoxious intrusion into companies affairs would prefer to "be compassionate, and help the downtrodden, and insure that everyone is making as much money as you can squeeze out of companies, for the sake of the little man." Again, redistribute the wealth by taking from the business owners, and give it to the workers, because those evil greedy business owners should be limited on their profitability. Equal opportunity huh Brian.
Brian- You have made the following comment-

My point has been and still is that people should have the opportunity to gain advantages over others, and be free from unfair impediments to doing so. I'm not talking about wealth transfers or welfare. I'm talking about fundamental things like access to education, freedom from racial discrimination, etc. How can anyone be opposed to those things? They harm no one. They take nothing from you, me, or anyone else.

Whose policies (mainly) have and continue to imped the freedom of choice in education? Who also has been screaming about recent racial discrimination, when at one time the country as a whole had backed away from that practice, and made great strides in believing that everyone is born with equal opportunities, no matter your race or gender? Yet, you believe that we can all hold hands (Democrats and Republicans) and work for the good of the country, while the Liberals laugh in your face when they force you to come to their views or be damned. I seriously doubt that any of us here do not agree that if you are the most educated and qualified for the job, you should be rewared with that job whether you are white, black or brown, male or female. Unqualifieds come in every color. I don't understand why you, as a self proclaimed Republican, feel the need to reach out to those that are unreachable. I don't understand why you even bring "equality" up as a talking point when "equality" is a Liberal concept, manufactured to play with the emotions of the voting public. The Republicans are supposed to be the party of ideas and freedoms, not the party that is on it's knees, begging the Liberal majorities to "just give us a crumb, please." Don't you think you would have a stronger voice, much more support and the opportunity for electoral victory if you talked about the dangers of the Socialists agenda which the Liberals are bringing about? Why is it wrong to talk about history and facts, to talk to the public about what is happening right before their eyes? You would show alot more spine and principle if you recognized the dangers of Political Correctness, and got on the soapbox with the truth.
Brian,

I think your last paragraph is especially true and i know many who feel the same way but are basically afraid to say it out loud lest they be branded Sandanistas. As for who is a conservative and who is a true Republican, I was in the Coast Guard with some guys from the UP of Michigan who would consider every person on this board to be a flaming liberal. It's all relative. There will always be those more conservative on some issues and some less. The fact is if Republicans don't get together as a team and a brand we will be banished to the wilderness of no control for decades. There are times when i think that some actually prefer this because it's much more fun to sit in the stands and throw rocks than to get into the ring with the lion.
Okay Brian, please explain to me how you are going to enforce the concept of "equal opportunity" without violating anyone's right to private property and liberty.

The Constitution specifically enumerates the sacred rights of liberty and property as those that governments are supposed to exist in order to protect, yet our country and people like you have twisted and corrupted the very notion of government and rights, and have perversely brought us to the point where mob-voted theft of private property and liberty is seen as a legitimate function of public administration in the interest of rights which are neither enumerated in our Constitution nor having any basis in the fundamental principles of natural rights philosophy. Your imagined right to equal opportunity is based instead on communist collectivism which subverts and destroys individual liberty and property.

I shouldn't have to hire someone I simply don't like, and using your own example, yes, if someone has long hair or is a Republican, and it happens that for whatever reason I just can't stand to be around or deal with long-haired people or Republicans, then for crying out loud it is my own God-given liberty to freely associate with whomever I choose NOT to hire them. But you would deprive me of that right and say that I am denying them an opportunity for no good reason. I say, my liberty and freedom of association is so far beyond being a good enough reason, based on the right given to me by none other than GOD--and that there absolutely does not exist your imagined and spurious 'right' to not be discriminated against. For that matter, personal discrimination is one of the most primary and precious exercises of the free will a human being can possess and use, and often saves people's lives and property when they use it well.

But Marxists like you think that I and anyone else should be prevented from exercising my right to free association, and should be forced to associate and deal with whoever your Soviet politburo deems deserving of my personal economic goods--all in the name of your wielding some kind of tyrannically myopic, centrally-planned version of "fairness."

And while we're at it, just how exactly does an opportunity differ from an outcome, anyway? Upon close consideration, they are in fact essentially the same thing. If I work hard and save and buy books and spend time carefully seeing to it that my 1 year-old son can, by the time he is of school age, read and write far ahead of most of his his peer group, I have invested my own property and liberty so as to give him an advantage over others in the developmental and competitive sense as pertains to educational advancement and later economic opportunities. So at the outset of life, when we would normally think of the situation as merely falling into the category of "opportunity", I have nonetheless achieved an outcome for myself and my son, a personal exercise of will and creativity completely outside of governmental interference, coercion, confiscation, collectivism, voting, taxes, legislation, and so on.

Yet, people like you arrive on the scene. You observe that some childrens' parents, many childrens' parents in fact, do a relatively poor job providing for and tutoring and nurturing their kids along the path of literacy and intellectual aptitude. Many of the kids' parents are in jail, addicted to alcohol and/or drugs, or otherwise are just irresponsible, absent, unknown, or otherwise just limited in abilities. You decry the fact that the children will clearly suffer, immediately and over time (due to various factors that involve not only parental resources and involvement but also genetics, nutrition, hygeine, etc.) disadvantages compared to my son in the arenas of education and work and so on; they are in jeopardy of not having "equal opportunity" as you like to call it. Such a situation is in fact an outcome, however it obviously directly impacts the immediate and future opportunites for the children in question.

You argue for legislation that passes requiring property owners like me to fork over exhorbitant amounts of my personal income in order to pay for buildings, teachers, materials, technology, and all manner of means by which the average students and those who fall far behind my own son in development are to be brought along as a cohort in a public laboratory which amounts to the collective means by which all these children are to be afforded "equal access to education" and engineered toward the egalitarian ideal of a "level playing field" where relative advantages are erased, where privileges and opportunities are not to exceed the limits of whatever the committee decrees, where my own private property is seized by force and put at the disposal of the self-appointed wards of the products of those who couldn't or wouldn't be troubled to devote the same kind of care and breeding that I did with my own procreative decisions.

I begin to protest. I say that outcomes and opportunities are two sides of the same coin, and that the government's proper role is not to interfere in the microeconomic prerogatives of free citizens, as is clearly the case with Fairfax County seizing my property for the (mis)education and homosexual brainwashing and Marxist anti-American indoctrination of my child and other children of strangers to me in my extended community in the bloated, inefficient, dangerous, and derelict public school system. I say that I want to home school my kid, or enroll him in a private school, and thank you very much but I'll keep my income and good luck with funding your public schools.

You say, "Donald, how could you? You're denying these other children equal opportunity to the kind of development and education that you've given your son, or at least a bare minimum of what our community has voted is desirable and fit for all children around here!!"

I say, "No, Brian, their parents, or genetics, or God, or fate, or whatever factors that came to bear on the fact that these other kids are behind my son in literacy, are the ones denying these other kids their so-called "equal opportunity"--I'm not the one doing as you allege. I didn't pressure their unmarried reprobate biological forbears to fornicate, give birth, and bring onto the scene a child whose future is markedly less promising than that of my own toddler here, and while I certainly will volunteer in the community to tutor any of these kids who demonstrate the willingness and ability to learn, and who doesn't stab me and others who are trying to help him or her along, and I most cheerfully will and do donate some of my income, free time, and abilities to the local church and volunteer groups in the efforts to spread literacy and the common well-being, foster the culture, etc., I refuse to accept that any law can compel me to surrender the fruits of my creative labors and time, my freedom, so as to engineer an opportunity(which is, after all, nothing more than an outcome itself) for the kid of some illegal alien all the way across the county whom I've never met and really don't want to meet nor help in any way."

Limited government means exactly that, Brian: Limited government.

Make up your mind about whether you want to be a Republican or a Democrat.

Government, laws, public policies and programs are illegitimate and illegal in nature--even if voted for in referendums by clear majorities--if they exceed the Constitutional authority specified in the founding of our republic.

It certainly is not for a just government to socially engineer and micromanage the myriad economic opportunities of a would-be free people. Government is supposed to secure our inalienable rights, that is all.

Liberty and property are essential and inalienable, even by those like yourself that claim there is such authority as to seize the property and livelihood of some in order to afford opportunities to others. Nowhere is it evident that the business of government is to mete out and manage a never-ending cornucopia of imaginary and ever-expanding entitlements such as education, housing, food, health care, union strikes and sabotage and work slowdowns, taxpayer-funded abortions and "gender reassignment," daycare...

Brian W. Schoeneman said:
Sandy, that's not how bankruptcy works. The union still had to agree to the new contract.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2...
The unions weren't making excessive demands. Most of the problems that the UAW and the big 3 are dealing with now are the long-term results of the companies being profitable. The biggest cost to the companies is the cost of the pension and health care obligations made thirty years ago, not the Union's contracts now. The UAW had just signed a deal with GM before the market crashed that would have seen significant changes in their contracts to help GM compete. And they've already been willing to reopen discussions during this latest go around. You can't blame the Unions for everything. It's not black and white. Gettlefinger isn't thumbing his nose at the companies - he's been right beside Waggoner and the others arguing in favor of the bailouts and making clear that the union is ready to compromise in order to keep the companies going. He's not an idiot - if GM fails, all of his members are out of work. Unions aren't inherently good, but they aren't inherently evil either. Neither are corporations. Both sides need each other to balance things out.

When Chrysler went begging to the federal government back in 1979 to help them stay afloat, they got their loan, and it was repaid by 1983. The company went on to be successful. We've been through this before. I don't support giving GM or Chrysler any more money, though, and I think a structured bankruptcy is in their best interests. But I don't blame the Union for everything because there's more than enough blame for both sides.

I don't care about whose fault the current economic crisis is. I agree with you that the Democrats played a large role, but I don't believe we were entirely blameless either. The point isn't about assigning blame, it's about fixing the problem. And Obama's policies aren't going to fix the problem. That's why I oppose them. We owe it to the American people, though, to present our ideas and to provide alternatives to Obama's plans, not simply opposition. We won't win elections if we don't give people a reason to vote for us. And "because the other guy is bad" isn't a reason.

In terms of Unions, I believe that on regular, day-to-day issues, labor and management should be working together instead of against each other. We live in a global economy now, and we aren't just competing with other American companies. We're competing with foreign companies, with different standards of living and governments who are willing to subsidize them. That's our true competition, not each other. If our companies are going to stay competitive, both sides need to cooperate and work together.

I am 100% for opposing Democrats on issues where they are wrong and, especially on the economy, I believe we need to be fighting as hard as we can to win the argument. Obama's plans will not fix the economy, and we can't leave this kind of crushing debt for our children to repay when we're gone. Uou and I seem to be in agreement on many of those issues, even if we disagree about unions. The larger point I've been trying to make is that right now is not the time to be arguing about social issues - it's foolish to argue about what color carpet you should put in the house when this house is on fire. You put the fire out first. We've got more pressing issues to worry about. So why are we choosing our candidates based on their stance on abortion or gay marriage? I want candidates who are willing to fight and who understand what our economy needs to right itself. Those are the criteria we should be looking at when choosing candidates today.

Sandy, it's hard for me to give credit to you and Donald when you misconstrue everything I say. I am not saying we need quotas or that an employer shouldn't be given a free choice to hire the employees that he desires. I am simply saying that he shouldn't be permitted to exclude people for no good reason. Not being qualified is a good reason. Having long hair or being a Republican is not a good reason. If an employer hires the best people for the job and they're all white, I could care less. But if he's turning away others who are as well qualified or more qualified, that's wrong. I want all of these decisions made by merit.

That's what equal opportunity is fundamentally about - making things a meritocracy where you aren't judged by anything other than your qualifications.

RSS

****************************

 

U.S. DEBT CLOCK

****************************

 


 

 

(sales help fund this site)

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2021   Created by Tom Whitmore.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service