Why are you a Conservative, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Centrist etc..

has every republican been infected with the hate teachers virus?

has every republican been infected with the hate teachers virus?

No, I love teachers. Teachers are often people who have given up their lives or selfish goals to have great influence on the lives on hundreds of kids. I wouldn't be who I am today without all the fantastic teachers I have been fortunate to have throughout my life.

Any success I have in my future, I hope to not forget that it was all the teachers I have had that truly succeeded in helping me through my life.

On the other hand, if I could end all teacher's unions, I would in a heartbeat, then I would throw the biggest celebration anyone in the world has ever seen

No, I love teachers. Teachers are often people who have given up their lives or selfish goals to have great influence on the lives on hundreds of kids. I wouldn't be who I am today without all the fantastic teachers I have been fortunate to have throughout my life.

Any success I have in my future, I hope to not forget that it was all the teachers I have had that truly succeeded in helping me through my life.

On the other hand, if I could end all teacher's unions, I would in a heartbeat, then I would throw the biggest celebration anyone in the world has ever seen

because?

I am a liberal because conservatives are consistently on the wrong side of history. Conservatives, by definition, want to conserve the status quo, to keep the power w/ the current rich & powerful. The following battles were won by liberals vs. conservatives: The Magna Carta, slavery, segregation, child labor, 40 hr. work week, women's rights, reproduction rights, gay rights, Social Security, Medicare. What are the conservative victories that match these?

because?

Short answer:
I hate Teachers unions because they get in the way of every child-regardless of color, socio-economic background, or geography-getting an equal getting an equal education and equal opportunities to succeed in life.

I hate the ACLU because they put the the abstract idea of separation of church and state above the very tangible rights of economically disadvantaged children to an equal education guaranteed under the law.

Longer Answer:
This is not the only horrible thing teachers unions are responsible for, (there has already been a thread on here about "rubber rooms") but I do think it is one of the worst.

See teacher unions don't want the government to send kids to private schools for HALF the cost of what it takes to send the child to public school. Because school vouchers would cause maybe some of the bad schools to be shut down; which is bad because.....um....we need bad schools for our kids to go too

In the specific example in the video, 15,000 (fifteen thousand) tax payer dollars are going to be spent to send the poor children to a school that has 6% of its student's proficient in math. When the government could spend 7,500 (seventy-five hundred) tax payer dollars to send her to a much better private school.

There's really two equally terrible groups to blame for this.

Teachers unions

• "The AFT supports parents' right to send their children to private or religious schools but opposes the use of public funds to do so. The main reason for this opposition is because public funding of private or religious education transfers precious tax dollars from public schools, which are free and open to all children, accountable to parents and taxpayers alike, and essential to our democracy, to private and religious schools that charge for their services, select their students on the basis of religious or academic or family or personal characteristics, and are accountable only to their boards and clients".

That is the official AFT stance on school vouchers. I find it funny that they say public schooling is FREE. Public schools are definitely not free and in fact cost more than school vouchers under the D.C. program.

The truth is the AFT knows that they will lose money if parents are able to spend the money that the government is already spending on their children, to send them to a better school and give them more opportunities in life.

The second group is the ACLU.

The ACLU opposes school vouchers because the money may be spent on OH NO..parochial schools. Everyone knows that parochial schools are the biggest reason for our countrys demise. God forbid a child goes to a parochial school and receives a much better education at half the price the government can do it for.


The video I refer to is here
YouTube - School Vouchers Killed by Democrat Congress - All poor children to be left behind now - Glenn Beck

I believe the simple fact that there are so many political camps in itself is detrimental to humanity. Eighty percent of all political energy seems to go into furthering ones own political dogma regardless of the realities involved. I am utterly disgusted at all the bickering and drawing of lines and blame instead of actually getting things done. People who would rather do nothing then concede their political opponents might have a good idea are becoming the norm rather then the exception it seems. Each camp seems to be more and more of a dysfunctional, self serving cult then a relevant cog in society.

I am a conservative( the right end of the political spectrum.) I belong to the Republican party because the party is closest to my beliefs. As a conservative I believe:
? Government is best when it is closest to the governed.
? Government should exist to protect us from outside threats and keep the peace internally.
? Government must protect individual freedom and rights.
? Those rights are defined as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
? I do not believe government exists to tell citizens what to do with their property as long as that use does not adversely effect the neighbors.
? I do not believe tax dollars should be used to the benefit of one group over another; the government should instead insure a level playing field for all.
? I believe government should function openly and efficiently and only those tax dollars needed should be collected.
All governments, local, state and federal have exceeded their authority and have assumed functions not appropriate for government. The result is economic stagnation, runnaway deficits and huge government borrowing. The obvious cure is for all governments to return to their natural functions and get out of people's business. Taxes and spending would naturally decrease and the economy would naturally expand.
Some quotes that say it all:
Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets.
Ronald Reagan

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.
Ronald Reagan

Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.
Ronald Reagan

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Reagan

And my favorite:

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Ronald Reagan

hkem1,

why am I not surprised that your source is Fox News.
Maybe you can do a bit more research from some primary sources to get a more balanced view of things. I am sure your paper needs primary sources, doesn't it? What class are you writing it for?


It really doesn't matter what political party anyone belongs to...we all need to work toward making our country, including our schools and colleges, better than they presently are...once they were much better, even here in Florida.

We need the debate that comes from at least a two party system; however, a debate requires both sides to participate and it requires civility and accurate data. We haven't been having a debate lately.

Did you have a course in Civic Education, or Political Science, or Ethics, or American Government at South Walton?

I am a liberal because conservatives are consistently on the wrong side of history. Conservatives, by definition, want to conserve the status quo, to keep the power w/ the current rich & powerful. The following battles were won by liberals vs. conservatives: The Magna Carta, slavery, segregation, child labor, 40 hr. work week, women's rights, reproduction rights, gay rights, Social Security, Medicare. What are the conservative victories that match these?

Conservative principals gave birth to the country as a whole. Top that one. The principals that provide most of the bureaucratic social items you list are in direct opposition to our country's founding principals. Defend that.

Also, some comments -

Slavery / Segregation - Democrats fought against slavery a long side republicans. That was not a conservative vs. liberal issue, it was an individual freedom issue. You won't find a single true conservative or liberal today who wouldn't defend a man's right to individual freedom.

Magna Carta - Parts of the Constitution embody it's principals, and would today be considered conservative in nature. Limited central powers, individual freedom, individual rights.. these are not cornerstones of liberal ideology.

Child labor / 40 hr. work week - I'm not sure how this plays into the conservative vs. liberal ideology discussion honestly.

Women's rights - I honestly don't know the exact details of how each party felt on the issue of woman's suffrage, but I do know through a simple search that more Senate democrats voted against the 19th amendment than republicans.

FOR ADOPTION - 36.
Republicans - 36.
Capper, Cummins, Curtis, Edge, Elkins, Fall, Fernald, France, Frelinghuysen, Gronna, Hale, Harding, Johnson, (Cal.,) Jones, (Wash.,) Kellogg, Kenyon, Kayes, La Follette, Lenroot, McCormick, McCumber, McNaty, Nelson, New, Newberry, Norris, Page, Phipps, Poindexter, Sherman, Smoot, Spencer, Sterling, Sutherland, Warren, Watson.

Democrats - 20.
Ashurst, Chamberlain, Culberson, Harris, Henderson, Jones, (N. M.,) Kenrick, Kirby, McKellar, Myers, Nugent, Phelan, Pittman, Ransdell, Shepard, Smith, (Ariz.,) Stanley, Thomas, Walsh, (Mass.,) Walsh, (Mon.)

AGAINST ADOPTION - 25.
Republicans - 8.
Borah, Brandegee, Dillingham, Knox, Lodge, McLean, Moses, Wadsworth.

Democrats - 17.
Bankhead, Beckham, Dial, Fletcher, Gay, Harrison, Hitchcock, Overman, Reed, Simmons, Smith, (Md.,) Smith, (S. C.,) Swanson, Trammell, Underwood, Williams, Wolcott.

Modern History Sourcebook: Passage of the 19th Amendment 1919-20

One of our SoWal American history teacher's could probably fill in the blanks.

Reproductive rights - I think there are positive sides to this on each side of the ideological isle and there are darker sides in both positions. Balance is the net result, and I'm thankful for it personally.

Gay rights - What have liberals done for gay rights lately? For that matter what have conservatives done? Florida is a moderate state, but we recently passed a gay marriage ban, as did one of the most liberal states in the nation, California. Our current (progressive) president believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. If government spent less time trying to recognize differences in people (a very liberal tendency) and instead simply treated everyone equally, this wouldn't be an issue.

To answer the original question, I lean conservative because I do not feel government has a right to infringe my individual liberty, regardless of the outcome. I'm a very independent persion, and I take issue with any government body that tries to dictate how I live my life.

Let's skip the Reagan quotes, the old guy had some clever ones during his lucid moments but it is well documented he also said some really stupid things. Let him rest in peace.

Short answer:
I hate Teachers unions because they get in the way of every child-regardless of color, socio-economic background, or geography-getting an equal getting an equal education and equal opportunities to succeed in life.

I hate the ACLU because they put the the abstract idea of separation of church and state above the very tangible rights of economically disadvantaged children to an equal education guaranteed under the law.

Longer Answer:
This is not the only horrible thing teachers unions are responsible for, (there has already been a thread on here about "rubber rooms") but I do think it is one of the worst.

See teacher unions don't want the government to send kids to private schools for HALF the cost of what it takes to send the child to public school. Because school vouchers would cause maybe some of the bad schools to be shut down; which is bad because.....um....we need bad schools for our kids to go too

In the specific example in the video, 15,000 (fifteen thousand) tax payer dollars are going to be spent to send the poor children to a school that has 6% of its student's proficient in math. When the government could spend 7,500 (seventy-five hundred) tax payer dollars to send her to a much better private school.

There's really two equally terrible groups to blame for this.

Teachers unions


That is the official AFT stance on school vouchers. I find it funny that they say public schooling is FREE. Public schools are definitely not free and in fact cost more than school vouchers under the D.C. program.

The truth is the AFT knows that they will lose money if parents are able to spend the money that the government is already spending on their children, to send them to a better school and give them more opportunities in life.

The second group is the ACLU.

The ACLU opposes school vouchers because the money may be spent on OH NO..parochial schools. Everyone knows that parochial schools are the biggest reason for our countrys demise. God forbid a child goes to a parochial school and receives a much better education at half the price the government can do it for.


The video I refer to is here
YouTube - School Vouchers Killed by Democrat Congress - All poor children to be left behind now - Glenn Beck

i did not ask you about the aclu. you seem to have an issue with the words private and public. many teachers do not belong to a union, and never have. public schools are tasked with taking everyone, and the mandates are endless. the feds dangle the money carrot and the states ignore their own employee's voices. it surprises me not in the slightest that such an underpaid and overtasked profession would organize. putting glenn beck into the discussion? i understand the scope of your reasoning. would the political affiliation of the unions have anything to do with your ire?

Conservative principals gave birth to the country as a whole. Top that one. The principals that provide most of the bureaucratic social items you list are in direct opposition to our country's founding principals. Defend that.

Also, some comments -

Slavery / Segregation - Democrats fought against slavery a long side republicans. That was not a conservative vs. liberal issue, it was an individual freedom issue. You won't find a single true conservative or liberal today who wouldn't defend a man's right to individual freedom.

Magna Carta - Parts of the Constitution embody it's principals, and would today be considered conservative in nature. Limited central powers, individual freedom, individual rights.. these are not cornerstones of liberal ideology.

Child labor / 40 hr. work week - I'm not sure how this plays into the conservative vs. liberal ideology discussion honestly.

Women's rights - I honestly don't know the exact details of how each party felt on the issue of woman's suffrage, but I do know through a simple search that more Senate democrats voted against the 19th amendment than republicans.



Modern History Sourcebook: Passage of the 19th Amendment 1919-20

One of our SoWal American history teacher's could probably fill in the blanks.

Reproductive rights - I think there are positive sides to this on each side of the ideological isle and there are darker sides in both positions. Balance is the net result, and I'm thankful for it personally.

Gay rights - What have liberals done for gay rights lately? For that matter what have conservatives done? Florida is a moderate state, but we recently passed a gay marriage ban, as did one of the most liberal states in the nation, California. Our current (progressive) president believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. If government spent less time trying to recognize differences in people (a very liberal tendency) and instead simply treated everyone equally, this wouldn't be an issue.

To answer the original question, I lean conservative because I do not feel government has a right to infringe my individual liberty, regardless of the outcome. I'm a very independent persion, and I take issue with any government body that tries to dictate how I live my life.

slavery/segregation, all those conservative dixiecrats became blue collar republicans after the the civil rights bill was passed, comparing the magna carta to a document crafted by a constituency of slaveholders implodes your characterization.,reproductive rights, is not an issue to be argued by any male, much less a conservative who wishes to federally control the womb, gay rights in florida...see bill mccollum or the criminal ceo r scott leading the polls....please try not to use democrat, republican labels of more than 45 years ago. your fellow rednecks will appreciate it.

hkem1,

why am I not surprised that your source is Fox News.
Maybe you can do a bit more research from some primary sources to get a more balanced view of things. I am sure your paper needs primary sources, doesn't it? What class are you writing it for?


It really doesn't matter what political party anyone belongs to...we all need to work toward making our country, including our schools and colleges, better than they presently are...once they were much better, even here in Florida.

We need the debate that comes from at least a two party system; however, a debate requires both sides to participate and it requires civility and accurate data. We haven't been having a debate lately.

Did you have a course in Civic Education, or Political Science, or Ethics, or American Government at South Walton?

Thank you for your post,

First, I would never use Fox News as a primary, or even as a secondary, source for an academic assignment. The Fox News video I posted was in reference to Bob asking me why I have a negative view of Teachers unions.

My school allows ambitious students to design a course in something they are interested in, and complete that course, over the course of the year under the supervision of a faculty member. And, for my senior year I am doing an independent study of the evolution of modern political parties and ideology (essentially how we got from the Federalist and old Republicans to modern Republicans and Democrats.

This initial assignment I have designed is to find out if different people have different views of the same political party. My hypothesis for this assignment is that I will get liberals and Conservatives saying essentially the same things. The point of this initial assignment I'm doing is to find where "average" Americans, who are not historians or politicians, believe they fit in the political spectrum.

I believe South Walton has an American Government course for seniors. I did not take it during my only year at South Walton and next year I am taking Constitutional Law.

i did not ask you about the aclu. you seem to have an issue with the words private and public. many teachers do not belong to a union, and never have. public schools are tasked with taking everyone, and the mandates are endless. the feds dangle the money carrot and the states ignore their own employee's voices. it surprises me not in the slightest that such an underpaid and overtasked profession would organize. putting glenn beck into the discussion? i understand the scope of your reasoning. would the political affiliation of the unions have anything to do with your ire?

Normally speaking I wouldn't take Glenn Beck and put it to back up my point. But this video was much more about the poor students than it was about Glenn Beck.

You turn this into a political issue, what I don't understand is why we can't just stop focusing on the politics and do what is fair for these students. Every year that we spend talking about how "hard" public schools have it, is another year of students not being prepared for the challenges life will presnt them.

Rather than make fun of Glenn Beck or tell me how hard public schools have it, will someone please just answer me this one question:

Do you think that the government should keep those girls in the failing schools for $15,000 or send them to the much better school where they will have infinite possibilities for $7,500?

Thank you for your post,

First, I would never use Fox News as a primary, or even as a secondary, source for an academic assignment. The Fox News video I posted was in reference to Bob asking me why I have a negative view of Teachers unions.

My school allows ambitious students to design a course in something they are interested in, and complete that course, over the course of the year under the supervision of a faculty member. And, for my senior year I am doing an independent study of the evolution of modern political parties and ideology (essentially how we got from the Federalist and old Republicans to modern Republicans and Democrats.

This initial assignment I have designed is to find out if different people have different views of the same political party. My hypothesis for this assignment is that I will get liberals and Conservatives saying essentially the same things. The point of this initial assignment I'm doing is to find where "average" Americans, who are not historians or politicians, believe they fit in the political spectrum.

I believe South Walton has an American Government course for seniors. I did not take it during my only year at South Walton and next year I am taking Constitutional Law.

I am glad to read this; sounds much more responsible than what you originally posted. Also glad that you are not using Fox News or any other popular cable news program as a primary source.

It will be interesting to see what you find. I would hope that you approach the research with an open mind--a study of history, particularly the Civil Rights era will shed quite a bit of light on why we have the Republican Party we do today, IMO. And the reasons for some people making the switch from one D to R. Further looking into the so-called Southern Strategy by the Republicans will define the current conservative label.

A look into the women's movement of the sixties will no doubt be enlightening as well if you keep an open mind.

While many so-called conservatives these days like to rant against the ACLU, it serves a purpose for individual rights...if you ever found yourself in a situation where your felt your civil or individual rights had been violated--sexual harassment on the job; lack of equal pay; a woman's right to choose; a divorce without a fair lawyer or judge...identify theft because some cop got the wrong person's information; wrongly convicted of a crime you never committed because the DA was on the take;
had your child kidnapped by his other parent who had tons of money...or picked up in another country on drug charges "just because you look like a rich American" or a female or a gay person in the military whose superior officer is making inappropriate demands...the list is endless...I'd wager that you would be glad that you had someone who was willing to go to bat for you for your day in court and your right to justice.

Not sure where your rage about teachers' unions comes from. Many teachers do not belong to unions, especially here in the South. Others do and I would surmise that many of them joined the union after an unsuccessful effort to have an injustice righted by the school administration. It is a well known fact that athletics are given much more support (and coaches offered higher salaries than teachers) by most school districts in the South than academics are...IMO it would be even worse if the teachers did not have an organized group behind them. Having spent many years working in the legislature of Florida and other states and Washington, I know it is almost impossible to get any legislation passed without a unified, funded lobby group behind the proposals.

I think that your premise may be on target: many people these days label themselves one or the other without giving much thought to what it means. The premise I dislike the most is: I am a Christian so I am a Conservative.
Not only is that offensive to all those who are Christian and have a more liberal or progressive point of view; it is insulting to those conservatives who might not believe in any religion...and, it violates the idea of the separation of state and church. Our country was founded by a group of people who were fleeing from state-mandated religion...

Good luck with your project. Perhaps you will post some of your results when you have it completed.
I hope that somewhere along the way you get an opportunity to study Civic Education. We need more people, especially bright people who are willing to explore ideas, to be involved in our government.

I'm not a conservative because I consider conservatism to be Fascism lite. If I had to choose, I would choose anarchy or death over Fascism. I think the ideal conservative society would be a place like North Korea with greater military might. Conservatives have this attitude of "bow to tradition" or "worship my god" or "get in line and be like us" and I say screw you!

Normally speaking I wouldn't take Glenn Beck and put it to back up my point. But this video was much more about the poor students than it was about Glenn Beck.

You turn this into a political issue, what I don't understand is why we can't just stop focusing on the politics and do what is fair for these students. Every year that we spend talking about how "hard" public schools have it, is another year of students not being prepared for the challenges life will presnt them.

Rather than make fun of Glenn Beck or tell me how hard public schools have it, will someone please just answer me this one question:

Do you think that the government should keep those girls in the failing schools for $15,000 or send them to the much better school where they will have infinite possibilities for $7,500?

their parents can vote with their feet....you don't enhance public education by defunding it. the glenn beck reference is pandering. my wife is a teacher of nearly thirty years in a school with wildly varying demographics. we are both registered republicans. she has never been a member of a union. i am very aware of the challenges educators face trying to educate students from wildly varying socioeconomic backgrounds. try teaching physically or emotionally abused kids. challenge a child who has no parents to pay attention. get a child to excel whose single meal is the one provided at school. now consider how could we ever fairly connect student achievement to teacher pay? you may want to turn off the tv and volunteer.

The Republicans: What's wrong with America's right | The Economist The Republicans at the moment are less a party than an ongoing civil war (with, from a centrist point of view, the wrong side usually winning). There is a dwindling band of moderate Republicans who understand that they have to work with the Democrats in the interests of America. There is the old intolerant, gun-toting, immigrant-bashing, mainly southern right which sees any form of co-operation as treachery, even blasphemy. And muddying the whole picture is the tea-party movement, a tax revolt whose activists (some clever, some dotty, all angry) seem to loathe Bush-era free-spending Republicans as much as they hate Democrats. Egged on by a hysterical blogosphere and the ravings of Fox News blowhards, the Republican Party has turned upon itself (see article) the issues facing public education are fully political because my party has turned into this mutant organism devoid of any semblance of it's former self.

thanks for posting. Good summary of the situation

their parents can vote with their feet....you don't enhance public education by defunding it. the glenn beck reference is pandering. my wife is a teacher of nearly thirty years in a school with wildly varying demographics. we are both registered republicans. she has never been a member of a union. i am very aware of the challenges educators face trying to educate students from wildly varying socioeconomic backgrounds. try teaching physically or emotionally abused kids. challenge a child who has no parents to pay attention. get a child to excel whose single meal is the one provided at school. now consider how could we ever fairly connect student achievement to teacher pay? you may want to turn off the tv and volunteer.

I don't know what you were suggesting at the end of that posting; but I will say I would never support merit pay based on any type of test score for all the reasons you listed.

I do think though, that there need to be programs that would get the best teachers working in the situations you described. Those children are the most at risk for being left behind and need top teachers who can try their hardest to keep the students afloat.

Although I don't support merit pay based on test scores; I do think that, if there was a way to incentivize top teachers, who are probably teaching in suburban areas, to go to urban and rural areas and work there for extra incentives, I would support that.

Overall I think it is pretty obvious why merit pay based on test scores is a bad idea: Some teachers have much tougher jobs than others so they cant possibly all be thought to have kids perform on the same level.

What I don't understand though, is how you jumped from me being for school vouchers in D.C. to me being for merit pay based on test scores.

I'm not a conservative because I consider conservatism to be Fascism lite. If I had to choose, I would choose anarchy or death over Fascism. I think the ideal conservative society would be a place like North Korea with greater military might. Conservatives have this attitude of "bow to tradition" or "worship my god" or "get in line and be like us" and I say screw you!

Fascism is another form of totalitarian style government much like communism and socialism, The Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Anarchy would in fact be "far right."
A true conservative believes in limited government and personal freedom. What is often confusing is the statement that America was founded on judeo-christian principles. While this is true it is also true that one of those principles is the defense of every person's right to think and worship as they choose within the law.
North Korea is the exact opposite of the type of society any conservative would want.

their parents can vote with their feet....you don't enhance public education by defunding it. the glenn beck reference is pandering. my wife is a teacher of nearly thirty years in a school with wildly varying demographics. we are both registered republicans. she has never been a member of a union. i am very aware of the challenges educators face trying to educate students from wildly varying socioeconomic backgrounds. try teaching physically or emotionally abused kids. challenge a child who has no parents to pay attention. get a child to excel whose single meal is the one provided at school. now consider how could we ever fairly connect student achievement to teacher pay? you may want to turn off the tv and volunteer.

Bob, ever hear of throwing good money after bad? When parents who are financially able "vote with their feet" you wind up with low performing schools eating up huge amounts of money and students who want a real education having no hope.
Merit pay tied to a test is not the answer and tests such as FCAT have a negative impact on education IMHO. But vouchers are a good way to allow low income parents to "vote with their feet" too.

hkem1, when you get a chance watch the movie Enemy of the State with Will Smith...

their parents can vote with their feet....

Well bob, alot of their parents cant vote with their feet. And I don't think it is equal opportunity, when a child has to go to a failing school because his/her parents can't afford it.

The fact is there are many children born to all socio-economic backgrounds who are not very ambitious and don't really care about school. For them, they don't need this voucher program.

The children who are very ambitious and were lucky enough to be born to well off parents often (but not always) either have access to better public schools or Private schools.

The kids I think need to be helped are the ambitious ones without the resources they need to improve. It is not there fault who they were born to. And quite often they have extremely hard working parents just trying to keep a roof over their heads. Those are the children who are missing out on this voucher program while some democratic members of congress need teacher union money to get elected.

And when those kids miss out, we as an entire society miss out on all the great things they could have accomplished, if they had greater access to resources.

I recieved this quote today from a friend and thought it fit perfectly.

Conservative, n. - A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
-- Ambrose Bierce