| Name: |
SPEARFISHER
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Drug Testing
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 2:19:45 PM
|
Question for Lady, Hound, GF and others that have been called liberals.
Do you think it would be fair for recepiants of government benefits such as welfare, food stamps, unemployment benefits, WIC, just to name a few, to be subjected to random drug tests?
Just curious since the majority of the folks who pay in the taxes to support these programs are subjected to testing.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Drug Testing
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 2:29:49 PM
|
wow great question ... can't wait for their response. I think that would be great. Not only if they are using tax payers dollars to fund illegal activity, but also do they really want work or deserve tax payer funds.
EXCELLENT.
Obviously if they fail they should be denied funds.
----------
Separate but similar point ... This is no lie, it was in the NY Post. Michelle Obama went to dish out food at a food kitchen in Washington recently. Nice gesture. They had a picture of her doing it. In the same picture there were at least 5 people in line for food that all pulled out their cell phones to take pictures of her.
Gee ... how is it they can afford cell phones but need to get food from a food kitchen.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Drug Testing
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 3:30:09 PM
|
They can afford cell phones because they don't have to buy their own food. ;-) Sort of like my 18 year old except he knows the gravy train ends when he finishes college.
I would say that my son and I serve at a Homeless Shelter in downtown Atlanta (near the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception) four times a year and none of those men have cell phones (at least I have never seen them use one). What's funny is they all work (some in day labor jobs) but because of drug/alcohol/mental illness issues they just can't seem to maintain sufficient income to break the cycle. We have been doing this for 7 or 8 years and I recognize maybe 1/3rd of the men there. All good people overall and very appreciative of the help but they seem to be stuck in a rut. Maybe some get out and we just don't see it because we are only there every three months and aren't involved in any counseling.
|
| Name: |
TBird
-
|
|
| Subject: |
My two cents
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 4:38:09 PM
|
SF you ask a super question. Although I am not a liberal I think I can contribute. A family member stayed on drugs and alcohol and was always in the line at food banks, etc. I asked your question of his councilor and was told if we withheld benefits, food, money etc his family would suffer and that is why we don't ask. My feeling is that the family is suffering anyway.
|
| Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
My two cents
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 5:07:13 PM
|
"A family member stayed on drugs and alcohol and was always in the line at food banks, etc."
The help he is getting now is not helping him resolve his issues, perhaps more of a push instead of a hug would be more beneficial to the entire family.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
My two cents
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 5:18:10 PM
|
Exactly right ... the hug, while sounding nice, does not change behavior and makes others responsible for the problem.
|
| Name: |
TBird
-
|
|
| Subject: |
My two cents
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 5:20:45 PM
|
Thats the problem, he is not getting any help and he is not in my immediate family so I have been told to butt out.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Drug Testing
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 6:22:33 PM
|
I don't have a problem with the concept. I'm also in favor of limiting benefits for a set period of time.
I'm wondering how and by whom such a test would be administered -- the government?
And let's play this out -- supposed drugs were detected? Then what? Would it result in immediate suspension or would there be some kind of hearing or retesting? What about the potential for false positives?
The problem with these kinds of solutions is this -- it creates a seperate bureaucracy to administer it and deal with it. For every argument for this kind of restriction, there is another argument against it and plays on emotions like "poor innocent children".
I'm in favor for what people did before the advent of government sponored social programs. I think their families should deal with it. The problem is that families don't even want to deal with their elderly parents, much less down-on-their-luck or n'er do well relatives. That's why social programs were started.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Drug Testing
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 9:24:59 PM
|
If you can't afford a place to live but can get enough together to afford a cell phone doesn't it make sense to get one? After all many down and out people have friends and family who can't afford to support them but still need to keep in touch. In fact it is not out of the question that a few of these folks might need a cell phone to be available to a possible employer. Don't be so quick to criticize until you have walked etc etc.
As to drug tests for those receiving public assistance, I have no problem with it as long as it is not required if they give up assistance and if the get tested and turn up positive they get additional assistance in the form of treatment if requested, and a return of the assistance for which they qualify once they are clean. However, this idea will never get by Constitutional muster. In addition it begs the question of where to stop. Will you your mother or grandmother to be tested once a year to qualify for social security or medicare. Yeah yeah, I know S.S.and medicare are not public assistance on a par with welfare but they are insurance and like any insurance the many pay something knowing that at some point they may be one of the few needing much.
|
| Name: |
1DERWHY
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Architect
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 9:45:46 PM
|
How can you ever compare S.S. and Medicare, something that our parents and grandparents have already paid for, to Welfare and Medicaid. I think that the drug testing should be mandatory for all able bodied recipients of Welfare. That being said, I am not refering to all the elderly that currently recieve assistance. There is very little that makes me angrier than to see able bodied abusers of the system who are perfectly capable of getting out and getting a job, but would rather stand on the corner, and hang out.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Architect
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 10:08:28 PM
|
Social Security and medicare are insurance programs, not retirement or pension accounts. The SS and medicare you pay today pays the benifits to your parents. Your children are or will be contributing to the benefits you will or perhaps already receive. Like I say, its insurance and especially for midicare there is the distinct possibility that you will someday receive benefits far in excess of what you have paid in. Then sir you will be on the dole like it or not.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Drug Testing
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 11:46:10 PM
|
I have no problem drug testing welfare recipients. That is, if the Ditto Heads will agree to sterilize all single welfare recipients who have 4 children with 4 different last names.
Will a Ditto Head explain how you would clothe and feed the children after you cut off the funds?
Would a Ditto Head agree to allow a crack mother an abortion for additional pregnancies?
When I served on a school board, a teacher was stopped for speeding as he was returning from a Grateful Dead concert. The officer searched the car and found pot. The teacher admitted to the board he had pot with him and asked for a second chance. I supported removing him and that is what occurred.
A few moths passed and he went to trial. He was found guilty of speeding but the pot case was thrown out as the judge said there was no reason to search the car. The teacher appealed to the board for reinstatement and we said no. He appealed to the state Supt of Education and we were upheld. He was not rehired. I supported all issues relating to drug testing during the 3 years I served.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Drug Testing
|
|
Date:
|
3/28/2009 8:38:04 AM
|
you make them get a job. I know that is a odd concept for a liberal. Why is it the tax payers (not government) responsibility to feed and cloth every person that is irresponsible? Did you ever think they don't take responsibility for their actions and go find work because the government is there giving away other tax payers hard earned money. Maybe we should all live off the government ... then where does the dollars come from?
China is getting fed up with our irresponsibility and i perdict will stop buying US treasuries and then what will happen.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Drug Testing
|
|
Date:
|
3/28/2009 8:42:36 AM
|
Also, after hearing you were on a school board is exact why i am opposed to government education. I sent my son to private schools and i think everyone should have that choice through school vouchers. No one should be required to educate their children in government run schools.
Obama and his wife both went to private schools and they send their children to private schools (even before he was president) so why shouldn't everyone else have the same choice. That is how you fix our education system. Get government out of running it.
|
| Name: |
1DERWHY
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Architect
|
|
Date:
|
3/28/2009 9:18:20 AM
|
So you are still saying that welfare is the same as SS and Medicare
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Architect
|
|
Date:
|
3/28/2009 10:00:05 AM
|
If you're getting other people's tax money above and beyond what you have paid how it certainly a form welfare. Remember even those on welfare pay taxes every time they use that welfare money to purchase anything with sales tax applied. Most people on welfare today have paid income and FICA tax in the past and will again in the future.
SS and medicare are social and health insurance programs, The difference between them and private insurance as relates to payment is one is called a tax and the other a premium. I'm not defending welfare or those who receive it. I'm trying to point out that we should think it through before we condemn or condone.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Architect
|
|
Date:
|
3/28/2009 10:35:36 AM
|
Remember FICA is Federal Insurance Contribution Authority ( or possibly "act"). Social Security is not a retirement investment program. Whether it should be is another question. That is one area where this "liberal", as most of you insist on calling me, agrees with the responsible conservatives. I think that an additional Social Security system based on managed investments should be phased in along side the existing system. As the current contributors and recipients die off the new investment system could be phased in becoming a larger and larger share of the worker's contribution until it eventually completely replaces the old insurance based system. The problem is most supporter and opponents of private investment reform see it as an overnight event. I think it could happen if it were designed to happen very slowly over a period of years so that neither the young or the old need fear the change. Whether it includes a safety net provision to kick in at times as we are now experiencing is still another question. I say it must.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Architect
|
|
Date:
|
3/28/2009 10:52:19 AM
|
no .... social security should go away completely. what other nation has anything so foolish. Kepp all the money i paid in. start phasing it out and make retirement savings a requirement of business and individuals through personal accounts. Business will be happy to participate rather than the required matching to the government.
SS is a huge ponzi scheme. Now that you have less paying in than are pulling out it will fail. Plus people would have done much better if all the money they paid in went in to private accounts rather than a government fund.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Architect
|
|
Date:
|
3/28/2009 12:13:44 PM
|
With this response we see why so little positive change policy wise ever gets accomplished in this country. Both parties are controlled by the extremes at opposite ends of the spectrum and they refuse to compromise for fear of losing their "base" (when will we learn that America's "Base" is all the people rather than not a narrow slice that keeps certain people in office), the result is that neither can prevail. Water watcher both of us just confirmed we would like to be done with Social Security as we know it, Your option is impossible both politically and socially, mine under certain circumstances is possible if we can ever get back to the realization that sometime 65% of a loaf on the kitchen table is better than all the loaf on the trash heap.
By the way I hope you don"t really believe the USA is the only country with a Social Security program.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I Oppose Private Schools
|
|
Date:
|
3/28/2009 3:30:34 PM
|
And here is why. Children need to be educated with a cross section of the population. It teaches them how to get along with a large group of people, not just those in the socio-economic bracket of their families.
The world is not made up of just one kind of people and given the dirversity of the workforce these days, kids need to grow up knowing both the wealthy and the poor. If they don't, they really aren't prepared for what will eventually face them.
I understand that here in Alabama that many of the public schools are substandard. And that is too bad. Not all public schools are like that. Fairfax High School in Fairfax VA has one of the highest level of merit scholars in the country and it is a public school.
I guess that's were my social liberalism comes in. I think all children should have a right to a quality public education. If people here were not permitted to send their children to private schools, then the public schools would improve because they would insist on it.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Architect
|
|
Date:
|
3/28/2009 3:30:55 PM
|
Mine is not impossible polically or socially. The problem with your thinking is you believe once something exisits it can never be done away with. That is why government keeps getting bigger.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I Oppose Private Schools
|
|
Date:
|
3/28/2009 3:33:11 PM
|
You would accomplish that cross section of the population objective with school vouchers. you just give people the choice and scools are all run by the private sector and not government. governament can set the requirements and general testing .... but please take the role of teaching out of governments hands.
|
Could private schools survive on just vouchers -- and what happens to those kids whose parents can't afford to pay extra? I'm concerned that it would just lead to low quality public schools.
You know, I don't think schools should be responsible for raising, feeding or doing anything other than educating kids. I think Bill Cosby has been on the right track in speaking out about the values that are being instilled in kids and that parents have an obligation to see that their kids get a decent education. Because, it seems to be that when you are poor, the only chance you have to rise above it is through education.
When you want to do away with social programs. then you have to be sure that people are at least given a chance at education.
|
No they couldn't ... but local tax dollars would also be redirected. But isn't it interesting that only property owners pay scool taxes. maybe the concept of scool taxes need to be rethought with private sector education so people pay to educate their children.
|
But again, should a chance at an education be limited only to those children whose parents can pay?
Maybe we should keep public schools and have a sliding scale of payment for kids.... but, I'm betting you wouldn't like that either.
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
But
|
|
Date:
|
3/28/2009 4:02:10 PM
|
I saw a video on one of my treks across the pond about the school system in either Holland or Belgium (don't remember which). All students were given x amount of "money" to spend on schools. They could choose any school that they wanted.
The schools' budgets were based not on a set amount per year, but on the number of students they could attract (i.e., the students were "customers" on which the schools' revenue is based). Their experience in that country was that when the schools had to compete with each other, the quality of education was superb, and the cost of that education was cut significantly.
Alas, in the States it would never get past the NEA - another one of the unions that doesn't do what is best for their employers (in this case the students), but for themselves At the expense of their employers.
|
No, I think that is part of a parents responsibility in having children. I am sure there are exceptions and extreme cases ... but the general population should require to contribute a certain amount to education, taxes that already exist are allocated to schools on an independent rating system. that forces schools to maintain high standards. if that means paying teachers more great. but it is not just raising teachers pay across the board when many do not deserve it.
The point is if we want the best education for our children then get it out of the governments hands and put in the private sector. Government is good at regulating and setting standards ... not running things. That is why i am also opposed to government run health care.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Architect
|
|
Date:
|
3/28/2009 4:54:13 PM
|
Your way is impossible politically because even with a republican majority when Bush tried a relatively minor Social Security change he got no where. Even the Republicans wouldn't support him. What do you think would have been the results if he had tried to scrap it? It is impossible socially because the people like it as it is. That doesn't mean its a good program, but it does mean a long term selling job is required to begin to change it. Of course no program should be considered sacred, but to change it you have to change the minds of the millions who do think it's sacred. MM man says compromise is out of the question when you are right. Sorry guys just because you say it's right doesn't make it so no matter how many time you say it if the majority say it's not right and express that opinion in the voting booth. Let me ask you a serious question...If you were able to place non-violently an authoritarian leader at the head of this nation's government who was in complete agreement with you on each major issue an was strong enough to enact and enforce those policies, would you ever consider that a good thing?
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Help me understand the logic
|
|
Date:
|
3/28/2009 11:45:01 PM
|
If parents can't take their children out of government schools exactly what is the mechanism for them to insist on a decent education?
Also, why should the government be able to dictate where I send my children to school? You are our resident Constitutional scholar, tell me where in the Constitution, the Bill or Rights or the Federalist Papers the government is granted the right to dictate that our children can't attend the school of their choice?
And lets be realistic here, school choice has always been a fundamental right even with the choice only being government schools. How is that you ask? Well, I see that in my own county in Georgia where parents specifically move into districts where they want their children to attend a certain school. Real estate agents advertise, "Walton High School" or "Timber Ridge Elementary" to entice people and it actually increases home values. That my friend is school choice.
It isn't insisting on improvements to existing schools, it is flight to good school systems. That is the dirty little secret to the much advertised "white flight" from inner city housing and school systems. In reality it was income flight regardless of the race. Middle and upper middle class blacks and hispanics fled to the suburbs right along with their white brethren in income brackets that could afford it. Unfortunately there were fewer of them in the income brackets that could afford the flight but when they could they did as quickly as they could. Believe me, they are my neighbors and friends and they didn't try to cahnge a corrupt system run by the government, they got the he!! out because they knew they coundn't change things and they could afford something better for their children.
Would you also propose that no one can move out of a poorly run district was well? And if not, explain to me why flight to a private school is any different than flight to a better run government school district?
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Talk about impossible
|
|
Date:
|
3/28/2009 11:52:25 PM
|
You are so quick to tell us that our desires are politically and socially impossible and then you pose an equally improbable hypothetical. The obvious answer is there is no such person, even myself, that should or will ever be placed in that position so what is the point of the question? Are you trying to paint us into some corner? I am not biting.
Ask a serious question. How about, if you had to choose between someone who agrees with 50% of your core beliefs and someone who agrees with 10% who would you choose? The answer is the former obviously. That is why so-called moderates are really sheep in wolves clothing. They claim to occupy the intellectual high ground of the middle but in reality just go with the conventional wisdom of the day and because they have inconsistent core beliefs they can always justify why they went in the direction of the current wind this time and in another direction the next time.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Help me understand the logic
|
|
Date:
|
3/29/2009 12:06:17 AM
|
I believe that this country owes a basic education to it's youth, regardless of a parent's ability to pay.
If we equally funded the school districts for a level quality of education, then children would at least have a chance. I used to find it appalling in DC that the DC schools could not open on time because the buildings were literally unsafe.
People I worked with had their kids "lists of needs" that they had to go out and buy. What about those kids whose parents couldn't buy the stuff?
How would you like to be that kid? How long would it be before you just gave up?
Teachers should be rated on effectiveness and paid on that basis and also by their continuing education. Not just getting a masters in education, but in new teaching methods.
If we had good public schools that met the same standards in every community, then people wouldn't be compelled to flock to a particular district or probably even to send their kids to private schools.
And I also feel that public schools give kids a chance to deal with a cross section of people, not just kids in their same socio-economic bracket or just their race or just their religion.
I don't really care if you agree with me or not. This is one of my "core beliefs".
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Help me understand the logic
|
|
Date:
|
3/29/2009 6:52:27 AM
|
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the right to a good education regardless of a parents wealth. But having a choice that they do not have to send their kids to those schools in DC should be a right as well. The extreme is to turn education over to the private sector, rework taxes and the funding, mandate parent participation (funding) of education as a percent of income. Otherwise don't have the kids. Why should someone else pay to educate someone elses kids. Take responsibility.
Yes that is the extreme, but the concept of government run schools needs to change if we are going to improve education. Parents need a choice. School vouchers are a start along with an independent rating of schools and teachers. Can't do it on grades or pass rates for obvious reasons.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Help me understand the logic
|
|
Date:
|
3/29/2009 10:01:27 AM
|
But you never answered my question, is it right for the government to force you to send your children to one school over the other because that is what you said when you opposed private schools?
As for government funding, do you realize that Washington DC spends almost $26,000 per student per year (source: Washington Post piece by Andrew Cousen)? That is significantly more than I spend to send my children to an elite private school in Atlanta. More funding is not the solution. Ironically, under your scenario of "equality", D.C. would actually lose money and lots of it. Even the very best public school systems in Atlanta spend half as much as D.C. and get incredibly better results.
You see Hound, this is exactly what I mean when I say you believe so much that just isn't true. You truly believe (and I know your heart is in the right place) that equality in funding is the answer and it just isn't so. I agree about teacher's being rewarded for merit but not about new teaching methods. New teaching methods are one of the reasons we are in the mess we are in. Merit should mean results.
I agree that it would be ideal if all schools were equal but that is never going to happen. When you have school districts run by corrupt boards, incomepetent administrators, poor teachers and students from dysfunctional families you are never going to achieve the same results no matter how much you and I wish it were so. In fact, I am of the opinion that school choice like vouchers, charter schools, etc. will result in the overall improvement of the system because boards's and adminstrator's will understand that the better students with more involved parents finally have an option and will leave if they don't deliver. If they don't, then the local community should throw them out. And if they don't throw them out then they deserve what they get. Nothing you or I or Federal government do will change that fact as demonstrated so well in the D.C. school system.
As for the desire for socioeconomic integration, you need to come spend a day at my kid's school. There are all races and economic circumstances because we have a scholarship program and don't discriminate. Our school is ten times more integrated than many, if not most public schools. No one cares if a white guy dates a black girl or vice versa, when we have birthday parties we have white, black, asian, hispanic kids all over the place. Granted, schools like where the Obama's send their kids may not be so egalitarian (and especially won't in the future as the Messiah eliminated a scholarship program that allowed 1,700 kids in D.C. escape the rotten schools thanks to his slavish desire to please the teacher's union....so much for compassion). But painting a broad brush in claiming government schools are somehow egalitatarion and private schools deny children the ability to see what the rest of the world is like just isn't so. I would dare say that an inner city school in Atlanta is a heck of a lot less integrated and filled with different socioeconomic classes than our school.
I appreciate and generally agree with the desired outcome as your core beliefs but I hope this gives you some good ideas about why your prescriptions won't get the desired results. Are you open minded enough to at least consider other ideas?
|
| Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
My two cents
|
|
Date:
|
3/29/2009 10:11:20 AM
|
If he is not in your immediate family who asked you to butt out? Was it him or someone who "cares" about him?
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here are the numbers
|
|
Date:
|
3/29/2009 10:18:18 AM
|
Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education $4,917,325
DCPS (k-12 relevant items only, see below) $593,961,000
OSSE (k-12 relevant items only, see below) $198,277,000
Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization $38,368,800
Non-public Tuition** $141,700,442
Special Education Transportation** $75,558,319
Capital funding $239,033,000
Total DC k-12 budget $1,291,815,886
DCPS official total enrollment (incl. special ed.) 48,646
Total per pupil spending $26,555
That is $10K per year more than I pay to send my kids to an elite private school in a very expensive area of Altanta with absolutely zero local, state, federal or diocesan funding. They are on their own, have excellent facilities, many teachers with Masters and PhD's, decent sports programs, etc.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
And finally
|
|
Date:
|
3/29/2009 10:22:45 AM
|
It's not a matter of whether I agree with your core beliefs or not, its really a matter of whether they are based on the factual circumstances or not. No one would argue with your desired outcome, we just look at the reality of the situation and recognize that your approach to a worthy desired outcome won't provide the results you truly want. I think the problem you have with our proposed approaches (which have worked every time its been tried) is that it would be associated with the "right" or you might be labeled a "conservative". As for me, I am proud of both monickers. Off to mass.....
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Believe it or not
|
|
Date:
|
3/29/2009 12:24:33 PM
|
I do see you point. And I realize that some private schools do have scholarship programs. One of my executive assistants had a son that received a scholarship to an exclusive private school in Georgetown.
You talk of corrupt school boards and such, but how will you assure that private schools won't also become corrupt when they have public dollars floating to them?
I don't think new teaching methods are a problem. Why do you think they are?
I have a friend in VA who teaches art in a very exclusive private school. They have wonderful and varied programs and ways that they teach the kids, not just in art, but in all their subjects.
I'm just curious though -- how many national merit scholars does you exclusive private school turn out every year?
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Believe it or not
|
|
Date:
|
3/29/2009 4:54:19 PM
|
I think private schools have the same potential for problems but the good news is you can vote with your feet. That's the beautiful thing about having a choice. If my child brings with them public funds and the school gets out of whack I take my funds to another private school that is performing or back into the government school if that works.
As for teaching methods, I don't think the problem is with new methods per se. It's when new methods replace the tried and true. For example, you remember when we were kids, how did we learn multiplication and division....rote memorization and it worked. Our kids today don't get that drilled into them the way we did. New methods replaced tried and true and our kids are suffering as a result. There may be new methods that add value but it seems like the emphasis is on innovation more than using what works best, old or new.
As for national merit scholars, I'm not sure how many they turn out. The high school is relatively new but does pretty well on college admissions. It is no Westmninster or Lovett but it is building a very good reputation and is one of the top 50 Catholic schools in the country. We are actually there for the spiritual formation as much as the academics.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Believe it or not
|
|
Date:
|
3/29/2009 5:51:11 PM
|
My niece attends a Catholic School in NJ.
Are there a lot of wealthy Catholics in Atlanta?
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Talk about the possible
|
|
Date:
|
3/29/2009 6:25:30 PM
|
MM you have said you never compromise when you are right. Well if you are "right" but most of your fellow citizens who have the same electoral franchise as you disagree that you are "right", there only 2 ways that your opinion can completely prevail: One is through selling it to the nation, The second is through a dictatorial means. I hope you agree that this latter will never and must never happen in this great nation. It's just that based on some of your previous posts comments of the decisions of the electorate you make me wonder if you might prefer the former.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I really don't get
|
|
Date:
|
3/29/2009 8:50:05 PM
|
your point. You talk about what the American people want as if what they did in the last two cycles is forever. Obviously those of us who view the world from a conservative perspective have to win the hearts and minds of enough Americans that vote so we can regain majorities in congress and the white house. Its been done before and will be done again.
All we need are true leaders like Reagan and Newt Gingrich that were able to articulate conservative principals and the electorate will flock to them because we are a center-right country. Unfortunately Bush did a lot of damage just like Clinton did in his 8 years.
Maybe I am missing your point. But no, I obviously don't want a dictatorship. I believe in freedom.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Nope
|
|
Date:
|
3/29/2009 8:56:54 PM
|
We are about 5% of the population right now although it is growing as Catholics migrate south from the midwest and northeast. But no, there aren't a lot of wealthy Catholics in Georgia, some, but not a lot. We actually have a decent perecentage of non-Catholics that attend our school, maybe 15%.
Having grown up in an area where everyone was Catholic, I actually appreciate being in the minority. It gives you the opportunity to explain the faith to Protestants that have never met a Catholic. I read a funny story from the late 1960's where a priest was sent to rural Georgia as a missionary. The kids would lift up their cassocks to look for a tail because they were taught that all Catholic priests were devils and they wore cassocks to hide their tails. Our Archbishop (Wilton Gregory) is black and is a pretty good guy.
My kids go to an independent Catholic school which means it isn't owned by the Archdiocese.
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
R.E. Bob Woodruff Reservoir
Login
|
Home
