Ward and June Cleaver

And the foundation I would prefer to build upon is self confidence and a good attitude.

I can't think of anyone I know that is successful and happy who doesn't have self confidence and a good attitude. I know several who don't have an education. And I know several educated people who are useless as teats on a boar hog.

I was simply addressing your comment that we were saying the same thing and keying it to education. At least for me...you missed it. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Good point....I was wrapping education and self confidence/attitude in the same blanket.

There are several componets that make a strong foundation....and even with those, one can lose their way. Nothing is forever.

Yes there are some educated dumbass's and some successful GED'ers. But on the whole, if your folks can give you the opportunity to an education , it opens up much more in this world in regards to money. Money affords you the opportunity to debate on a message board the finer things in life and how one can achieve them. Now that is another debate all in itself. Is that something to aspire to or not! lol

. That was the best thing either of us could have done but like I have pointed out, not everybody thinks like that since a great deal of people are more concerned with their material wealth rather than their Spriritual or family health. Originally Posted by LonesomeDove

Maybe....or maybe they want to save for their kids education. Maybe they need a two income household to do so. You sure assume alot.

I can't think of anyone I know that is successful and happy who doesn't have self confidence and a good attitude. I know several who don't have an education. And I know several educated people who are useless as teats on a boar hog. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Is that anything like a Tush Hog?

TTH,


There is no real way around the fact that since God is no longer in school, that the mere mention of God at high school football games or in the Judiciary such as with the posting of the 10 Commandments creates drama when it should not. There are any number of other examples which I could provide but essentially what I have provided as examples has lead to a breakdown in how people act, treat others or handle their affairs in this country since there seems to be no hard moral compass like there used to be. In addition to the foregoing Atheism is the idea that it has been a leading issue in the breakdown of the American home and family structure due to its pernicious nature. Originally Posted by LonesomeDove

When it comes to religion what you believe, and who you believe in is personal, and belongs in your home, and church.Not in an American public school where you are very likely going to find a melting pot of many different religions, and cultures.It really is just not possible to include prayer in school when someone is almost sure to feel singled out for having different beliefs other than the norm.

Being a good person does not necessarily need to be based on having a traditional religious belief .If it helps you to be a better person that is great, and you have every right to share your beliefs with others. But please keep in mind that we all have different ways of coping with the world, and as long as you are a good person one way is not better, or more moral than the other.

I can imagine that there are many reasons why family's in 2010 are not the same as they were 50 years ago.We can start with the fact that the world has become too over crowded in the last few decades.It is way too easy to get lost in a crowd, or hide on the internet. That has to have an influence on the way some people behave.The world has changed so much in the past 50 years some for the better, and some for the worse.We can still learn a lot from the past, but I do not think that we can ever go back there.

It seems like every generation thinks that their kids and grandkids are letting the world go to hell in a hand basket. I suspect if there were bulletin boards 30 years ago our grandparents would be having a similar discussion. Pulling up op-eds and the like from that era would be fascinating and I think illuminating.

It seems like every generation thinks that their kids and grandkids are letting the world go to hell in a hand basket. I suspect if there were bulletin boards 30 years ago our grandparents would be having a similar discussion. Pulling up op-eds and the like from that era would be fascinating and I think illuminating. Originally Posted by discreetgent

LOL
Our grandparents thought Elvis was the devil.

Conservatives hate change. Its just not in their DNA. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But it explains many of their fears and sometimes how they can be easily misled into believing how great the past was. Were you black or a woman, the past was not the great homecoming some seem to think.


LD, you read that book I recommended, you'll see (through science) how we humans misjudge the past.

As women become more successful in the business world, some men are now taking the job of house-husband. If a couple chooses that or vice-versa, it is no one elses business what they choose and everyone should respect their decision to make that choice.

Public schools scare the crap out of me when we see stuff like the drivel in the quotes below.

To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas... - Dr. G. Brock Chisholm, psychiatrist and co-founder of the World Federation of Mental Health

Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well – by creating the international child of the future. - Dr. Chester M. Pierce, Psychiatrist, address to the Childhood International Education Seminar, 1973

Teaching school children to read was a "perversion" and high literacy rate bred "the sustaining force behind individualism." John Dewey, Educational Psychologist

Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished ... The social psychologist of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at: first, that influences of the home are 'obstructive' and verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective ... It is for the future scientist to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen. - Bertrand Russell quoting Johann Gottlieb Fichte, the head of philosophy & psychology who influenced Hegel and others – Prussian University in Berlin, 1810

BTW, I read a lot. How many people do you know that read books like the DSM-IV without taking a psych class... LOL

Conservatives hate change.
Originally Posted by WTF

Change is okay, as long as it is incremental.

Change is okay, as long as it is incremental.

Originally Posted by ANONONE

Unless you are headed off a cliff!

Turn the wheel, hard. Flip the car, I'll take my chances. The path we were on was directly off a cliff.

...Conservatives hate change. Its just not in their DNA. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But it explains many of their fears and sometimes how they can be easily misled into believing how great the past was. Were you black or a woman, the past was not the great homecoming some seem to think... Originally Posted by WTF

The change that I dislike as a constitutionalist is the change away from limited govt to total govt, i.e., govern by the consent of the people. If we do not study the past we are destined to repeat our mistakes or the mistakes made by other countries. WE THE PEOPLE covers all people regardless of race or gender. Since our lawyers like to mis-interpret the Constitution and rewrite definitions, how about we go back the the original intent with the definition as, "all people regardless of race or gender."

The change that I dislike as a constitutionalist is the change away from limited govt to total govt, i.e., govern by the consent of the people. If we do not study the past we are destined to repeat our mistakes or the mistakes made by other countries. WE THE PEOPLE covers all people regardless of race or gender. Since our lawyers like to mis-interpret the Constitution and rewrite definitions, how about we go back the the original intent with the definition as, "all people regardless of race or gender." Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

But as a representative democracy isn't our voting the consent of the governed?

But as a representative democracy isn't our voting the consent of the governed? Originally Posted by discreetgent

It's actually a Representative Republic, but I digress. Voting a politician in doesn't stop once they are in office. They are still supposed to represent their respective constituencies. If their voting district says no to a bill they will be voting on, they are supposed to represent their district in good faith. It doesn't happen that way everywhere and it is the reason Tea Parties are now getting larger and more involved.

The Re-pubic-ans are trying to co-opt the Tea Parties because they can't fix their party. Even the Demon-crats like Nancy Pelosi are now saying things like, "we share a lot of ideas with the Tea Party movement," after called the Tea Party movement, "astro-turf."

It's actually a Representative Republic, but I digress. Voting a politician in doesn't stop once they are in office. They are still supposed to represent their respective constituencies. If their voting district says no to a bill they will be voting on, they are supposed to represent their district in good faith. It doesn't happen that way everywhere and it is the reason Tea Parties are now getting larger and more involved. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

No, not really; once they are voted in they in theory make the best judgment on the merits of a bill taking into consideration their district - for the practical reason that they most likely will run for re-election. If they are really suppose to just represent their district's wishes they should poll before each vote and then vote the majority.

Do I have a daughter?...Well, yes I do...all growed up too.


However, she also has had the upbringing to know that, while she is not required to do so, the best relationships (at least IMHO) are fostered where the female looks to the male as the head of the household and the male looks to the female as the princess in his life. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

For those of you who say we all agree, we most definitely do not agree!!!!

And LonesomeDove, I'm firmly agnostic and treat religion as philosophy. And frankly the the Buddhists have it hands down on the Christians. And one reason that they do is that the Pauline epistles are so sexist.

As for Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Fannie Lou Hamer, Myrlie Evers, Shirley Chisholm and Bella Abzug, I'll stand with them any day before I'd stand with someone who say a woman has to be unequal and defer to someone else as the "head of the household" just because of her gender any day. Perhaps you should read up on Fannie Lou Hamer, who is said, "No one is free until everyone is free."

Thank you for clarifying your position TTH as I knew you were either an Agnostic or an Atheist, I just could not remember which from that thread last summer. You are correct in writing we all most definitely do not agree but I understand your position and that is enough.

Do I have a daughter?...Well, yes I do...all growed up too.


However, she also has had the upbringing to know that, while she is not required to do so, the best relationships (at least IMHO) are fostered where the female looks to the male as the head of the household and the male looks to the female as the princess in his life.
... Originally Posted by Rudyard K

One thing I would add to your post Rudyard K is in a Christian relationship the woman looks to the man and the man looks to The Lord since he is under His control while also loving his wife like Christ loved the Church. There is a chain of command and that fact is lost on a great many even though it is so very important. However, this is neither the place nor audience for this type of communication.

And WTF... I haven't forgotten about you. I have yet to read that book you suggested in that other thread but I will make it a priority to do so since you are so adamant about its contents having relevance to this thread.

No, not really; once they are voted in they in theory make the best judgment on the merits of a bill taking into consideration their district - for the practical reason that they most likely will run for re-election. If they are really suppose to just represent their district's wishes they should poll before each vote and then vote the majority. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."







Benjamin Rush, signer - a simple democracy … is one of the greatest of evils.

John Quincy Adams - The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.

Noah Webster - In democracy … there are commonly tumults and disorders … Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.

James Madison - Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

John Adams - Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

Fisher Ames, author of the House language for the First Amendment - A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and the ignorant believe to be liberty !!

Gouverneur Morris, signer and penman of the Constitution - We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate … as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism … Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to the level of folly and guilt.

Samuel Adams – … it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds …

Noah Webster - When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of a Republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good, so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a Republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect their divine commands and elect bad men to make and administer laws.

In the quote above, a key phrase is "if the citizens neglect their duty." They, the citizens, have been negligent. They are typically called the silent majority, but they are now making their voices heard and the mob doesn't like it.