Democrats versus Republicans

[bubb2]

let us all remember ( if you are not a constitutional historian) the 3/5 was to appease the southern Democrats when the constitution was being drafted. the Grand Old Party righted the wrong.

[sck5]

Does it really matter what each party did two centuries ago? That makes as much sense as saying that the appeasement was for southern states and the Republican Party is the party of the southern states nowadays so it is THEIR fault.

While we are at the history, how about the first evangelical president? Jimmy Carter!

Another piece of trivia meaningless for today's issues.

[PBzeer]

At a guess, I'd say trivia is the best subject to be bringing up

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Chuck,
I'd obviously forgotten that very significant representational point. My error. My point, as I'm sure you know, was to the broader points of the Constitution's assigning man's rights as being Creator endowed not man given. Thanks for the correction.

Your point (re Creator endowed) is taken, thanks for the correction also.

[bubb2]

Originally Posted by sck5

Does it really matter what each party did two centuries ago? That makes as much sense as saying that the appeasement was for southern states and the Republican Party is the party of the southern states nowadays so it is THEIR fault.

While we are at the history, how about the first evangelical president? Jimmy Carter!

Another piece of trivia meaningless for today's issues.

would it be wrong of me to assume that you are not Africa American

[sck5]

"would it be wrong of me to assume that you are not Africa American"

I'm not but I think I am missing something. Most African Americans vote Dem, which is the party you noted had to be appeased back when the constitution was written. I would assume thats because they care about what the parties stand for TODAY, not what they may or may not have done two centuries ago. Most people care most about stuff they have experienced directly in their own lifetimes, or at least that is my impression. Few remember or care that the Dems were the party of the "solid south" until the 1960's or that the Repubs were once the party of abolitionists.

Personally, I lament the ignorance of history that seems prevalent among many but politically speaking it is today and tomorrow that matter, not far distant yesterdays.

[sailaway21]

It largely acknowledged that we have an educational crisis within the US. What is not commonly acknowledged though is that the problem is hardly confined to poor schools and under-qualified/over-paid teachers. What type of children are we sending off to school?

Well, in 37% of the cases we're sending children off who were born out of wedlock and too many of those being born to children themselves. While in some cases the parents do wed and provide a two parent home, it is hardly the norm. Five years thereafter we send the child off to school with a level of preperation that can only be considered abysmal. But, in a single parent household, bread on the table comes ahead of time with children.

Liberalism's answer to this problem has been to sound the call for daycare and other panacea's designed to cover up the problem. Removal of the stigma of out of wedlock birth may have been the correct action to take on a personal level, it's codification into the national ethos subsidized the problem.

It is the highest form of discrimination to contend that actions detrimental to child development are just not so, and if so, they should be ameliorated by post-natal remediation without making at statement on the undesirability of the actions that gave rise to the child in the first place. The best way to ensure that a child has two parents within the home is to ensure that the two parents are married at the time of conception. This did not used to be a controversial statement.

All attempts to help and aid the child from the single parent household are deficient compared to the natural advantages accrued by the two parent child. The emphasis on band-aid help to single mothers does nothing to curtail the occurence of the problem. For society to say that it is no big thing is to imply that there existing an equality of opportunity between the children born into either situation. We know this not to be true at the most fundamental level.

We know that it is in the child's best interest's to be born into a two parent home. Yet we shirk from calling for those conditions that promote the two parent home. We certainly would not call the actions of the parents immoral. That would be considered judgemental. Instead we'll leave the judgement to fall upon the head's of the only innocent parties involved, the children thus born. That's where moral relativism get's you in a society.

[Freesail99]

Most African Americans vote Dem, which is the party you noted had to be appeased back when the constitution was written.

There was no democratic party or republican party for that matter when the constitution was written. African-Americans didn't get the real right to vote until at least 100 years after the constitution was written.

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by sck5

Does it really matter what each party did two centuries ago? That makes as much sense as saying that the appeasement was for southern states and the Republican Party is the party of the southern states nowadays so it is THEIR fault.

It should matter to every African-American in this country, because, if your Democrat Party had it's way, it would have either continued the institution of slavery, or seceded, formed a new nation and continued the institution of slavery. Many of my Republican abolitionist ancestors shed their blood fighting your rich Democrat slave-owning ancestors, to free the slaves. Now, a little over a hundred years later, your party wants to use my tax money to pander to the slaves' descendants to compensate for your party's evil acts, and you want my president to apologize, ON MY BEHALF, for the sins of YOUR ancestors.

With a perfectly straight face, you vilify conservatives and Republicans, calling them racists. And yet, even now you continue to allow Sen. Robert Byrd to enjoy an honored positon in your Democrat Party. Your Sen. Byrd not only wore the sheets of the KKK, but was a recruiter for the "Bed Sheet Bandits" of West Virginia, and, as recently as the year 2001 he twice used the "N" word on a broadcast of Fox News Sunday. He never publicly apologized for the use of that word, instead sending a written apology to the network. Your Democrat Party allowed him to return to his position of honor, where he remains to this day.

In contrast, your Democrat Party vilified Strom Thurmond as a racist, but Thurmond never donned the sheets of the Ku Klux Klan. On the occasion of his ninety-ninth birthday, you condemned Trent Lott for pandering to him with an insincere complimentary remark. Sen. Lott did publicly apologize for his pandering compliment to an old man, and your Democrat Party nevertheless hounded Sen. Lott out of office.

History matters, because racism continues to exist in your party to this day, and your party tolerates it. History matters because it sheds light on the hypocrisy of your party, when it attacks decent, honorable men who don't bear nearly as much shame as the still-honored members of your own party.

While we are at the history, how about the first evangelical president? Jimmy Carter!

You're right! Thanks for pointing out that the Democrats were the first party to try the racist (according to you) "Southern Strategy." Your Democrat Party was the first to run a candidate who appealed to the Christian right. Your southern strategy wasn't racist and just plain wrong when you tried it, but it became racist and wrong when Ronald Reagan used it to defeat President Carter.

[chucklesR]

Sway,
I personally can't say whether a child is better off or not in a two parent home. Why? Because my home was a one parent home. I think I'm doing alright by most standards.

My childrens home was largely a one parent home (my wife - these are step kids). Three out of four have graduated college cum laude, the fourth is on the way to her degree now. We married when the youngest was 11, oldest 17.
My daughter grew up with her mom and step-dad in a traditional 2 parent home. She (at 23) is essentially trailer trash, living with her grand monther because he mom kicked her out. I took her in, sent her college and kicked her out after a year of trying to 'fix' her upbringing - she had 2 parents except for a 6 month period.

Look to the parent, not the number of them - quality can never be replaced with quantity.

One major difference I suppose is not one dime of money was ever received into my house from federal or state sources to help with raising kids. Not one of these kids was born out of wedlock.

Should I have stayed married to my ex when she ran off with a boyfriend 5 months into a 9 month Navy cruise?
Should my wife have stayed with her ex after his cousin gave birth to his child?
I don't think so.

Abstininence (i.e. the moral method) is a valid method of stopping out of wedlock birth; though IMHO a silly method as a simple condom or birth control pill is far more effective.

No preacher or preaching has ever stopped a single spermatoza from swimming upstream once launched. Expecting young adults to behave like mature adults is perhaps morally right, but just not realistic. Expecting them to abstain while the priest is buggering them is just fantasy. Shall we put blinders on the kids so they don't know what's going on around them? Yeah, yeah that'll work - they will be real ready for the outside world when they 'grow' up then. Morality doesn't work when the kids see that what is preached isn't followed, even in their own family, church and social group.

Giving a male child a condom is not saying "Here Johnnie, go out a screw something" it's saying "I love you and understand you, I would prefer you wait until you are an adult. If you can't I at least want you and your partner to be safe".

You want to stop out of wedlock birth, implant contraceptives in females at 11 and don't take 'em out until they are legally married (not realistic, but a there you are). Or - tie the tube on the boys at birth and require a marriage certificate to untie it