What conservatives mean by “traditional family.”

because humans are doomed while we're stuck on this planet

who needs knowledge or to explore? Science is vitally important.

besides, nasa has helped invent so many things we use in everyday life. NASA inventions will help 'this world,' for instance Solar Energy will be pivotal in the fight against green house emissions.

besides, a high NASA budget will bring us 1 step closer to the invention of the lightsaber

 

We need to use appropriate language when we are conveying some sort of an idea or a message in an effective manner in an ongoing debate. The type of language used, also gives the hint that there are higher processes of the brain at work , and ofcourse, it is self evident that in our society such notions lead one to greater successes at conveying his/her message. Therefore, Language when it comes to explaining phenomena in our lives, holds is a key to our success in our professional life. Also, it holds the key to your adversity and making you think that we are full of fecal matter.

 

Don't you miss the old days, when there were more civilized ways of ending a disagreement or a debate.
Jedi: this is the way.
Confronter: No.
Jedi: (lightsaber: ZAAAP , Zwong!) glad that you agree .

 

Yes, methinks so too.

Its all about fundamentalism. "There is one right way to do things and if society doesn't follow suit everyone will become poor russian communist heroin addicts living on a diet of canned spaghetti whilst sodomising each other. Pending this, not only do you need to be told how to think and what to do with your lives (as you obviously are too stupid to do so without ruining your country) but we will illegalise every opportunity you have to make a choice" - Typical fundie.

of course it doesn't work that way....I don't know how this myth of "everyone should do what is conventional or else they will suffer dire consequences" has become so ingrained in our culture...bourgeious convenience perhaps?

If we weren't so damn opnionated this thread wouldn't need to be so damn fierce and divided.

 

I need to make it clear, there is a HUGE difference between "Family Values" which is the "value" of caring for children, your lover ect, and "Traditional Family" which isn't and never has actually been the norm.

Again, I can see beyond the tip of my own nose. My dh and I live in a "Traditional Family." Dad at work, mom at home (albeit with a home business) four kids, a dog and a nice fenced yard. BUT we are quite aware that not everyone can live like this and many more don't want] to.

BUT the original post was "what is the gov doing about Family Values." We've lost the original thought here. The NeoCons go on and on about "Family Values" yet do NOTHING to help regular families, who would like to, be able to attain this goal. The present Administration talks "Family Values" till purple in his face, yet has done NOTHING to make it possible for more families to raise their own children. IF he really cared, there would be something done. There is ENOUGH money, hell, what are we spending a billion a week in Iraq for (which, of course, won't be paid for until a Democrat or third party gets into office) when our own CHILDREN aren't being properly cared for and properly raised? IF the Administration really cared about "Family Values" we'd have more ways to make it a reality for more families.

 

Well, let's see, I read yesterday in the Press Democrat that we're spending a billion dollars a week on the war and that if we took twenty-something minutes worth of that money, we wouldn't have to cut thousands of low-income elderly people off of their food assistance programs this year. So, it seems like funding the war is way more expensive then helping the poor.

Don't forget now that a lot of the people on Medicaid and food stamps and section 8 housing and stuff aren't young crack addicts popping out babies, they're older people who have been robbed of the pensions they were promised.

War costs way more than medicaid and welfare and education.

 

Honestly, how well do you know the system? Have you ever tried living on any state aid?

For a short period, my mother received subsidized housing, we had medicaid, foodstamps, and a bit of cash coming to us because my father wouldn't pay child support and my mother was in college (TRYING TO BETTER HERSELF).

Every month, she still had to pay part of her own rent, most of her bills, and buy extra food because nothing was covered. We lived in a very bad part of town in a house that didn't have good enough heating to keep us warm in the winter.

The car we had, she had bought long before we landed in this predicament. It was on it's last leg and mom had to struggle to keep it in repairs.

We didnt have enough money for school clothing, school supplies, anything "extra" (like cable, internet, going to the movies, etc). We struggled. And because of that time, my mom is still struggling.

Until you've lived in it, don't talk as if you know. Never once have I met anyone living like a middle-class person whilst on state aid. We struggle, and not only is it a financial struggle but an emotional and pride struggle as well. How would you feel receiving a government handout that basically told you you couldn't support yourself. "WHAT A LOSER I AM" always popped into my brain.

Honestly, you find me one person making above $15,000 a year including medical benefits off of the state, and I will find you 20 more not even making enough to make ends meet, including the job they're working along side the "benefits".

 

The middle class is quickly disappearing.

Also, there is no magical way for people to get all this fabled free money that you're imagining that people get, as I pointed out before. If you still think that, then it makes me wonder if you're not a bit sheltered.

If people accidentally conceive a child and decide not to abort it, then they may need some help. It is more responsible of them to accept some help so that that child's needs can be met than to not accept help and let the child go without. Once a child is in the picture, that initial lapse in responsibility that you're so riled up about is no longer the main concern. Now the focus needs to be about taking care of the kid, whether they were born to financially stable, married parents or not.

As a society, we need to be able to provide for the most vulnerable people. We need to make sure that even poor kids whose parents didn't plan their conception out ahead of time have access to healthcare and housing and food. That's compassionate, it's responsible, and it's sane. And if it helps you wrap your head around it, I think it's what Jesus would do.

 

I just want to say, too, that being responsible is not just about never making a mistake. Being responsible is also about the choices you make after you've slipped up, to deal with the consequences.
To think otherwise shows a lack of life experience, IMO.

 

I'm up on the tightrope , one sides hate and one is hope
It's a circus game with you and me.
I'm up on the tightwire , linked by life and the funeral pyre
But the tophat on my head is all you see.

And the wire seems to be the only place for me
A comedy of errors and I'm falling
Like a rubber neck giraffe, you look into my past
Well, baby you're just to blind to see.

I'm up in the spotlight, oh does it feel right
The altitude seems to really get to me.
I'm up on the tightwire linked by life and the funeral pyre
Putting on a show for you to see.

 

Why not do this: ask the people of the US a simple question. Do you want to be covered by a state provided healthcare/housing/whatever? Those who say yes agree to pay a very high tax rate. Those who do not, do not get access and pay a lower tax rate. Once you figure out who wants access, you can then figure out what % of income needs to be taxed so that everyone is covered. Those who opt out have to pay a % of income to cover things like the military, roads, government upkeep etc.

That is not only compassionate, it is more importantly JUST. What, too complicated you might say? Everything involving our government is complicated and surely the millions upon millions of Americans who could benefit would far outweight any small inconvenience.

 

The Rich will chose NOT to pay, as they can always afford the best health care, the best education ect. If one is Rich, then one has to expect to contribute more. Bear and I contribute more than a just starting out family, who makes 25,000 a year. We should. People help others. If a family could afford a huge tax rate, they could afford private health care, private schools ect. They wouldn't need to "contribute." NO, the Rich need to be forced to contribute. They have more, they can share more.

 

edit: bleh, the merits of taxation probably doesn't belong here.

 

plus
They use more and society creates their wealth. No one is a self-made millionaire or billionaire unless you are hermit.

 

does the 'poor man' owe the 'rich man' for giving him a job then?

 

The "poor man" is an asset not a liability.

The "poor man" doesn't need the rich man as much as he needs him. The "poor men" create his value.

Though the manufacturer has his wages advanced to him by his master, he, in reality, costs him no expense, the value of those wages being generally restored, together with a profit, in the improved value of the subject upon which his labor is bestowed.
- Adam Smith; The Wealth of Nations

 

edit:i'll send you my PM so we dont continue to get off topic

 

can't believe people see the welfare system as a way of life. losers

 

SpliffVortex II This is an Official Warning. Any more Off Topic posts, particularly, silly complete lyrics of songs, will not only be delted, but will result in a ban.

 

just to let you know, I didn't receive one.