How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class?

You're a rare type of liberal. Even most liberals will grudgingly admit that the U.S. has one of the highest standards of living in the world. It would indicate that the ownership of slaves by some of the U.S. founders wasn't necessarily something they originated as part of U.S. foundings, as is always implied by liberals.

quote:

---

YES! Public education is for the only thing not in the above list! For Democrat teachers to brainwash children into liberalism and atheism!

---

That happens to be complete bullshit as usual and a total misrepresentation of the facts.Today's so called Republicans (every since the coup by the Christian Cult of Ignorance that installed the pathetic puppet known as Ronald Reagan in office) has totally abandoned the ethics and principles that made it the Grand Old Party. Today is is simply another way to move money out of the gullible, pitiful Christian Cult of Ignorance and hopefully pick the pockets of everyone else too.There is no issue of liberalism in the US and has not been for a half a century, the issue is between Conservatives and the Fascist Republican Party.It is not a matter of atheism, it is Christianity and everything else against the Christian Cult of Ignorance.Public education is at least an attempt to avoid the Avoidance mind crippling that is the hallmark of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and their avoidance schools.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

yes, they will. unfortunately, it doesn't seem that most liberals have been to canada. or europe.

---

אָרַח

One solution might be to stop taxing the Middle Class to pay for the EPA and start taxing the wealthy, rich, immoral assholes who profit from their companies' dumping toxic waste into other people's backyards...But that's just a fuckin' suggestion, ya know... you pro'ly won't take it too seriously. Too God damn funny! I think you'd have to drink your way to new fucking liver to even come close to spending enough money on booze to make the cost even a fraction of that of the tuition/fees of a public school. We already do!LOL.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

So Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, and Obama are all conservatives? If you told them that, do you think they'd agree? Sorry, but words have meanings - to effectively communicate they have to be used in ways that society generally accepts them.

So are you not actually going to provide the evidence needed to support your position? Who cares about the founders? They're dead.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Yes, very much conservatives, but not Facists.I been there, I remember Hubert Humphrey.I really can't help it if the Christian Cult of Ignorance is also ignorant of the meaning of words or the ethics that helped create the Grand Old Party.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Canada is a completely different country, crash, with hate crime laws vastly stronger than those in teh US. In the US, Fred Phelps can keep spewing his verbal feces legally; in Canada, he would be arrested for his hate speech.Canada is irrelevant if we're talking about the United States. I was.Thankfully, you provided other examples with greater relevance. This was a custody case between two divorced parents. This was not a matter of stripping parenting rights over racism from the parent. Custody battles in court follow the judge's determination of "the best interest of the child," which literally means (and has meant in the past) that custody can be determined on the basis of what the judge perceives to be a harmful religious belief. The only reason this case even came up was because the mother didn't like the racism, sparking the custody dispute. The mother was granted custody because the judge determined that arrangement to be "in the best interest of the child." The mother did not approve of the father's beliefs. Ergo, she used her rights as the custodial parent to get him to stop exposing the children to the beliefs she disapproved of.It's similar to if a divorced couple were of different religions. Say one is a Satanist (perfectly legal, but stigmatized) and one is a converted Catholic. The Catholic parent has full custody, and objects that the Satanic parent brings the children to Black Mass when he has visitation. The Catholic parent brings the matter before a family court. The court would then very likely issue an order against the Satanic parent, saying that the children are no longer to be made to attend the Satanic services due to the emotional stress of both parents trying to give them directly opposing views, and the judgment would by default be in favor of the parent with custody. It's not a matter of freedom of religion, it's not a matter of free speech, it's a matter of working out the parental rights in the complex situation of divorced parents and shared custody.It's not at all the same as CPS swooping down and taking your kids away because you used racial epithets. ...crash, did you even read the details?From the HuffPo article on the same story:

quote:

---

The court found that both parents were themselves victims of childhood abuse and said neither "have received adequate treatment for their serious psychological conditions."

​

Heath Campbell, 37, cannot read and Deborah Campbell dropped out of high school before finishing the 10th grade, according to court records.

​

In its ruling, the panel found the parents "recklessly created a risk of serious injury to their children by failing to protect the children from harm and failing to acknowledge and treat their disabilities."

---

The parents were both seriously physically and mentally disabled. The father threatened the life of the mother and took action to incite the children to violence:

quote:

---

"Hes thrend to have me killed or kill me himself hes alread tried it a few times. Im afread that he might hurt my children if they are keeped in his care. He teaches my son how to kill someone at the age of 3," the letter read in part.

---

The children were taken on those grounds, not on the grounds of any racism. Which defeats your own point, crash. If racist "brainwashing" is cause for the termination of parental rights, the mother would not have retained her rights either. The kids would have been removed from both parents, not only the physically abusive father. Since the courts were clearly aware of the mother's racism and that the girls would continue to sing in their (disgusting) performances, and since the court did not remove the mother's parental rights, don't you think that's a pretty clear sign that hate speech and neo-Nazi indoctrination were not in fact grounds to do so?I don;t have time to go through the rest right now, crash, but based on the above...let's just say you haven't made me change my mind.

So, you think there's no limit to a parent's prerogative to raise their children; but you think their rights are not absolute.Do you know what the word "absolute" means? Or maybe the word "limit" is what you're having trouble with. By the courts, presumably, who are already making these determinations. That which causes harm would be harmful; that which causes no harm would be harmless.These aren't difficult concepts to get a handle on, Jon. Determination of "harm" is already well within the purview of the courts and has been for hundreds of years. That doesn't answer my question (and indeed, public education is public, it's right there in the name!)

Crash, that's the most useless definition ever."What makes some things flammable, and other things not?""THat which causes fire would be flammable; that which does not cause fire is not flammable."What defines "harm," crash? Without that, the rest of your statement is meaningless.

Nobody's claimed that liberty doesn't exist in the US because Thomas Jefferson had slaves. Nobody's made that claim at all, and since you lied about not talking to me anymore I'd like to challenge you to show even a single place where a "liberal" in this conversation has asserted that.We're talking about parasite, welfare queen Thomas Jefferson because you brought him up as an example of someone who, I quote, "someone who didn't expect his living expenses to be paid for by someone else." Except that's exactly who Thomas Jefferson was - someone whose living expenses were paid for by someone else - his slaves.As always, what we're talking about is your incredible and stupefying ignorance of the subjects on which you hold forth. I'm sure that was a great comfort to the roughly 200 human prisoners he personally worked to death. In fact nearly every Western democracy with a national health care system is better off than the US; in terms of living standards, the United States regularly ranks behind those nations - tenth, worldwide, on the UN's Human Development Index, an objective measure of quality of life for residents of UN-affiliated nations. It's largely a function of the poor health of Americans in general, massive income inequality, and widespread poverty particularly of children.The US has not been anywhere close to the top of the "Quality of Life" list for some time, now. Despite what you may have heard from conservative propaganda outlets.

Courts arrive at that determination, just as they have for hundreds of years.I don't see any particular problem of ambiguity for the term "harm"; if there were, both criminal and civil justice would be completely impossible.

well, maybe not barney frank. but the rest of 'em, yes.words do have meanings. the united states of america does not have a true liberal party -- one that advocate progressive politics and liberty. instead, they have a conservative party, the democrats, that are now essentially advocating reagan-era conservative policies, compromise, and maintaining status-quo as much a possible. on the other hand, we also have a regressive party that is still battling on about issues they were actually on the other side of in 1860, and advocating policies that are essentially fascist: merging of state an corporate powers.it is a sad state of affairs that our "liberals" are actually conservatives, and our "conservatives" are just crazy.

---

אָרַח

That's what I've been talking about from the get-go:

quote:

---

I don't know what it's like where you live, but here in the US membership in racist organizations, a history of racist demonstrations, involvement in racially-motivated violence - all can be grounds for termination of parental rights.

---

If you've been misunderstanding me from the beginning, that would go a long way towards explaining why I was suddenly and inexplicably challenged on something I would never have believed was in any way contentious: that courts would look dimly (to say the least) on a parent's involvement in white supremacy organizations or their attempts to indoctrinate their children into racist ideologies, and that those might be justifications for the loss of custodial rights (as in several of the cases I presented.) Racism would certainly be unjustifiable. I think you're packing a bit more into "justifiable" than is meant to be there; for instance, a parent attempting to defend repeatedly calling their own child a "dummy" would not be justified by any evidence that the child was, in fact, not very smart. I'm sorry but that's simply not the case. Just as you enjoy the right not to be held against your will and inducted into loathsome ideologies that you detest, so do children. Children are not the property of their parents, and the parent's right to raise a child "in their image" is subordinate to society's interest in protecting children. Obviously there's a level of "racist uncle" racism that the law is simply powerless to interdict. But the law does not grant a sweeping and universal right for parents to parent as they see fit. Children are people to, and they have rights all their own, and one of those rights is the right not to be abused by their own parents.

Actually, I specifically said that I support a limit. Remember? You said quite directly:

quote:

---

Crashfrog in Message 197:

​

The parent's right to raise their child is not absolute

---

To which I replied plainly:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 200:

​

I never said it was.

---

I don't know how much more clear I can make it; I do NOT think parents ought to have limitless rights in how they raise their children. Well that's pretty meaningless... Unfortunately, 'public education' in the U.S. is not public; those who choose to opt out of it are free to do so in favor of avoidance educations (read jar's post above). A truly Public Education would be mandatoryall members of the public would have to attend the public institution for a certain number of years.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr