The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Lots of straw men

You agreed, or sort of agreed, with about a third of the items. Are you a liberal, or do you not realize that this "test" is bullshit?

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You agreed, or sort of agreed, with about a third of the items. Are you a liberal, or do you not realize that this "test" is bullshit?

Shush. Spanky put a lot of time and effort into really engaging and wrestling with each of the questions on those lists. I am not sure what to make of Balt's engagement with Spanky's answers, however.

[cheval de frise]

Originally posted by ironweed
Shush. Spanky put a lot of time and effort into really engaging and wrestling with each of the questions on those lists. I am not sure what to make of Balt's engagement with Spanky's answers, however.

I conclude that both of them are unemployed.

CDF (hey, y'all)

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Do you believe the following?

I believe that you should blow me.

Does that make me a liberal?

S_A_M

[Replaced_Texan]

Present for Spanky.

Don't say I never gave you anything.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You agreed, or sort of agreed, with about a third of the items. Are you a liberal, or do you not realize that this "test" is bullshit?

I don't think I am an arch conservative. Or even a conservative. I consider my self a moderate. So I think it is fair. I think on many of them Balt just did not like to face the logical conclusion of liberal positions.

Most certainly racial profiling and the exclusionary rule. If you are against racial profiling you think that an old white women and a Saudi young male should get the same scrutiny. That is a fact he clealry does not want to face. He is trying to pretend the issue is how important racial profiling is in searching for terrorists. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not it is used at all and the majority of liberals don't think it should be used at all.

Same with the exclusionary rule. If you favor the exclusionary rule then you favor a system that will let clearly guilty murderers and child molesters go if their rights have been violated.

I am against school vouchers and so it Balt. However, he does not want to accept thefact that if you are against school vouchers you are against letting poor people choose to send their children to private schools.

Every position you take does has negative consequences. Balt seems to get angry when these obvious consequences of liberal positions are exposed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am against school vouchers and so it Balt. However, he does not want to accept thefact that if you are against school vouchers you are against letting poor people choose to send their children to private schools.

Most school-voucher programs do not provide enough money for poor people to choose to send their children to private schools. They give enough to help middle-class families pay the tuition, but not a full ride.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Most school-voucher programs do not provide enough money for poor people to choose to send their children to private schools. They give enough to help middle-class families pay the tuition, but not a full ride.

Most of the proposed voucher programs I have reviewed provided enough money for anyone to afford to go to Catholic School. Since the Catholic church manages to spend much less per pupil on education, even in such a system there is money left over for the public school system even though the kid isn't using it. In other words the money currently allocated per student for their education would only be half used to enable all kids to go to Catholic school.

[Spanky]

The Republican Majority for Choice is outraged by the act of South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds signing a bill this week that outlaws abortion even for victims of rape and incest. By showing total disregard for the most vulnerable of crime victims and enacting a law that would put doctors behind bars for attempting to help these victims, proponents of this law have finally shown their true colors as fundamentalists with a single purpose.

Click here to read RMC's Op-Ed featured Wednesday in the Philadelphia Inquirer denouncing Governor Rounds' action and calling for the Real Republican Majority to reclaim our Party as one of compassion, inclusion and limited government intrusion.

This week, we have seen how the women and families of America suffer when good Republicans allow this far right faction to use our Party as a vehicle to promote these most extreme and outrageous laws.

Unfortunately, there are several other state legislatures considering similar bans -- Real Republicans cannot sit by and let this injustice continue. We are committed to stopping the further erosion of victims' rights and protecting our personal freedom.

WE NEED YOUR HELP in standing up for victims' rights.

As compassionate Real Republicans we must ensure that no other Governor will disregard protections for victims of rape and incest and ignore the basic right to privacy and personal freedom. Please make a donation today and help us spread our message of hope, care and compassion nationwide. Please click here to join our Real Republican Team and take action today.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Spanky
If you are against racial profiling you think that an old white women and a Saudi young male should get the same scrutiny.

Another easy example of why the "liberal test" isn't "fair"--Isn't that Racial, Age and Sex profiling? Isn't the fair comparison whether an old white woman and an old Arab woman should get the same scrutiny?

In any case, it should be easy enough to justify scrutiny for Yemenis or Pakistanis or whatever without relying on overbroad "racial" profiling.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Another easy example of why the "liberal test" isn't "fair"--Isn't that Racial, Age and Sex profiling? Isn't the fair comparison whether an old white woman and an old Arab woman should get the same scrutiny?

In any case, it should be easy enough to justify scrutiny for Yemenis or Pakistanis or whatever without relying on overbroad "racial" profiling.

The problem with the stupid test is that it totally ignores the central tenent of liberalism: We're wishy washy and can't articulate any particular policy position because we tend to overthink everything and then try to incorporate the various points of view that we've duly considered into the policy position so it turns into this long, drawn out mess that no one really agrees with entirely but it was sorta kinda a consensus and we stopped arguing (loudly anyways, cuz there's a group in the corner muttering about our selling out) when we got to this vague, not entirely clear policy point that people stoped listenting to after "we're wishy washy."

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The problem with the stupid test is that it totally ignores the central tenent of liberalism: We're wishy washy and can't articulate any particular policy position because we tend to overthink everything and then try to incorporate the various points of view that we've duly considered into the policy position so it turns into this long, drawn out mess that no one really agrees with entirely but it was sorta kinda a consensus and we stopped arguing (loudly anyways, cuz there's a group in the corner muttering about our selling out) when we got to this vague, not entirely clear policy point that people stoped listenting to after "we're wishy washy."

You forgot to mention the hand wringing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
You forgot to mention the hand wringing.

better to have left that out. some people could have been offended.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Most of the proposed voucher programs I have reviewed provided enough money for anyone to afford to go to Catholic School. Since the Catholic church manages to spend much less per pupil on education, even in such a system there is money left over for the public school system even though the kid isn't using it. In other words the money currently allocated per student for their education would only be half used to enable all kids to go to Catholic school.

How much do they pay their teachers?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
Most of the proposed voucher programs I have reviewed provided enough money for anyone to afford to go to Catholic School. Since the Catholic church manages to spend much less per pupil on education, even in such a system there is money left over for the public school system even though the kid isn't using it. In other words the money currently allocated per student for their education would only be half used to enable all kids to go to Catholic school.

So those Catholic schools, they've got enough extra capacity to take anyone who knocks at the door? And they will take anyone who knocks at the door? And, like, if the kid isn't Catholic, they're all like cool and stuff with the kid not doing the religious stuff?

Or is religious freedom only for those who can afford it?