indeed, and the line wasn't even that clear until recently. the shift first seemed to start around the Great Depression, but many republicans between then and the 70s were still fairly progressive compared to some of today's. the wikipedia article on the republican party is pretty extensive (how reliable is another question).

in truth, most republicans and most democrats are drawn from the same social stratum. both parties have a pretty robust history heated internal debate resulting in subgroups attempting to split off - until more recent history. these offshoots always either dissolved or reintegrated into the main party, but they attest to the fact that statesmen in the past had strong beliefs that they often stood behind. today's politicians fail for standing behind most beliefs, and voters now value compromise and "bi-party leadership." thankfully the quoted 'American Taliban' probably won't get into office - they can't compromise. but the unfortunate thing is that there's an increasingly narrow spectrum of debate. Michael Moore, for example, called Bill Clinton "the best republican since Regan" (whose term was separated from his by only 4 years, but that obviously wasn't his point).

i'm of the belief that politicians today are career professionals. they may care about certain causes, but their first concern is getting re-elected. since Big Business provides the largest portion of their campaign funds, there's only one party platform when it comes to business-related issues.

@dystopic

I'm thinking of getting A post graduate certificate in Education, which would allow me to teach secondary school ( 11 to 16 ) ( high school ) and Further education/sixth form ( 16 to 18 )

I don't want to go beyond a BA in Archaeology to M.A. and PHD because i don't have the passion for it.

You're right about the French, from what I understand, while Uni is open to everyone I believe, some of the public institutions are aristocratic. I think the term they most use ( on the quiet ) would be red, white and Blue, meaning, White and French. I read that there is a particular uni that prepares students for politics, and that every politician in France has attended.

In Germany, when you get funding, you can keep going to uni for as long as you like. They have a situation where they keep funding you until you pass. So many people keep failing by a small number of marks each year, while still earning credits. And end up making a 3 year course last about 6 or 7 years. Apparently it's causing a major problem in their Uni's and amongst government financing. In Wales, you are allowed to resit a year once, if you fail again, your funding is cut, and you have to pay a large chunk of the fee.

Within the UK however, some regions have a federated system. I myself am a graduate of the University of Wales, which is a federation of 6 or 7 of the biggest uni's with a number of smaller institutions associated. It creates common codes of practice, and grading standards. Not sure if they have similar things in England, or on the continent.

No, it was earlier than that. Republicans mostly voted against the New Deal, basicly killed Wilson's League of Nation. The shift was more likely to have been before Teddy Roosevelt's time.

hmm i guess i was wrong in saying that it started around the depression; perhaps it would have been better to say that the new conservative platform had crystalized by then?



many states over here are similar. the University of California is composed of 10 'federated' campuses (i've never heard that word used here, but it's apt). the California State University has over 30 federated campuses. there are similar systems of varying magnitude in many states here.

i've been told that UC San Diego is modeled on the English system even more closely. this one University has 6 undergraduate colleges with different philosophies and slightly different general education requirements, but students can still pursue any major offered by the university as a whole. i don't actually know if English schools are anything like that; it's just what i've heard officials say about the uni.

as far as funding, it's theoretically based on need here. students apply for federal aid based on their family's tax reports, and the federal (and usually state) government offer grants, loans, and work-study to fund the student's education and living expenses if the family can't. in reality it doesn't help those who need it the most. for those and other reasons, most of the students at the best 'public' unis here are from middle and upper-middle class families (and they're so annoying! they complain about paying so much for their education but fail to realize that their collective tuition wouldn't be enough to fund a single department or even the their professors' salaries).

there's no exact 'time limit,' but federal funding (if eligable) is only guaranteed for 4 years, and cut off completely after 6. during a 5th and 6th year, students can receive partial funding and sometimes even have the difference made up by their uni's discretionary funds. but uni's here typically establish their own time limits. for example, UCSD's is actually based on total credits (while maintaining a minimum GPA of 2.0); double majors get a higher max on credits, but in my case i had to petition for a higher max because i was double-minoring (which is more classes/credits than many second majors would be).



getting a teaching credential (as they're called here) is never a bad idea. i understand completely about lacking passion for further degrees in a discipline. i majored in sociology, and while i loved taking classes in it, i found that i don't have much of a passion for ethnographic field research. it's not totally distasteful to me, but textual/artifact analysis is more my style. i'd have probably made a pretty good archaeologist myself if the cultures that interest me most weren't still alive today. i guess my biggest hesitation is in wanting to avoid the research competition. i want to research because of my own curiosity, not because i want to advance in a career.

the overall system over here makes that difficult. most other countries have an explicit institutional division between vocational and scholarly education, but there's nearly so explicit here. many schools here are founded with differences like that in mind: the University of CA was designed to train researchers, while the CA State University was designed for vocational education. but all the colleges and univs here are ranked without such distinctions in mind, obfuscating any such distinctions. the UC gets multitudes of students who just want the "best" degree they can get because they assume that translates directly into the best job, and on the other hand the Cal State employs and trains plenty of researchers. the unfortunate reality many students face is having to pass an education that has little or nothing to do with their career goals; or drop out, apply to a school that's "not as good" in the rankings, and explain it all to their parents (who might not understand such distinctions in the first place).

i just like ideas. i want to work with them, share them, and never stop exploring them. teaching's probably the best bet i have.

No I d say that Goldwater is more the reason for today's conservative platform. Though I am getting curious when the Repulicans and Democrates switched the liberal and conservitive labels...

It may just be the way we think today. Is it more liberal or conservitive to want a powerful central government, or is it in how the government takes care of the people?
The U.S. once argued if the states came first or the federal government, nowadays it an arguement about how the federal goverment should get invovled in peoples live... from both sides of the aisle.

amen!



this partly sucks because of our terminology. 'liberal' and 'conservative' used to directly correspond to politico-economic ideology.

socialist: communist economy, unclear polity (1)
liberal: capitalist economy, democractic polity
conservative: feudal economy, varying polity (2)

1: Marx wasn't exactly clear when he described the shape of a communist polity, but it was certainly an organic outgrowth of proletairan sensibilities, anarchistic in some ways. i've always interpreted his words in a way that led me to think that once the proletarians 'woke up,' they'd all sponteneously know what to do to organize society. as you might imagine, i have some theoretical disagreements with Marx. Lenin argued for an autocratic state that would yeild to a democratic one once the people had been sufficiently de-bourgois-ified. Bernstein, on the other hand, believe that communism would evolve from democracy, as they had "the same spirit." but in general, any way in which the government takes care of its people's needs and desires can be called socialistic (under this terminological scheme).
2: while most feudalisms were monarchies, there were feudal republics as well (and probably other forms of polity, i just don't care to scan historical examples).

'liberal' means freed or freeing, thus "free market" capitalism. in this traditional schema, today's Democrats are liberals with strong socialistic tendancies, and today's Republicans are hyper-liberals with conservative tendancies--in cultural matters for the most part, but i personally see cultural policing is a mark of a (would-be) aristocracy.

I have always felt that Marx was not very good with his Roman history, cause of his use of the word proletairate. The Prol's were a class of free Roman that was considered only useful for the children they bared. He should have used the word Plebian instead thats the common man.



Hmm about six months ago a gay couple walked past a bar that I frequent, one of the regulars and a bouncer made kissing faces at them. I stopped going there and told the owners what happened those two are no longer alowed at that bar.... I m sure you would approve of my action... its also cultural policing. I think you should say you don t like how the culture is policed today instead of we should not police it.

yes, i should have been more clear, and i apologize. kudos to your decision and action, for sure    i was specifically thinking of government-enforced cultural policing, and yes, i know even that is a plenty vague articulation. a few contrete examples i would point to include the Mapplethorpe trial and the obscenity trial of Lawrence Ferlinghetti, head publisher in America of Allen Ginsberg's Howl. luckily both trials ended in favor of the defendants, however such trials serve as an example to the larger artistic community: watch what you do, or be prepared to defend it at major cost in court. i picked more obscure examples, but there are plenty more well-known and outside of the U.S.

It's sad to see so much prejudice in this world . Regardless of whether the person was a "sinner" or not, Jesus treated people with kindness and respect. He defended an adulteress (John 8), had dinner with a wealthy tax collector and "sinner" (Luke 19:1-9), hired a tax collector and "sinner" as a disciple (Matthew 1:9-13), and even a murderer and persecutor of Christians as a disciple (Acts 9:1-31).

Whatever happened to "love they neighbor as thyself," as Jesus taught and practiced? It's shameful - I've even seen people of my own religion engage in prejudice .

however differently we might view some things, i'm glad we can see eye-to-eye on issues like this, Cobra. and i mean, talk about a recurrent theme:

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Leviticus 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Mark 12:28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

Luke 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

Luke 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

I tried to love my neighbor, but her husband saw it differently! I Guess he was not very religious!


Lighten up, will you! This tread is just a big waste of memory space. If I wanted to be quoted matthew and Luke, I would go to church.

Hehehhehehe, I may start believing in God soon... what with the number of times this thread has gone through the resurrection.

I find it funny when people quote me the bible, especially people in the street. I ask them if they know what it means.... get the answer, then ask if it was what they think it means, or if it was what the local vicar told them it means.

They either stammer and wish you a good day, or look at you like you're winding them up and are already a lost cause.

Couldnt help it - that one cracked me up   


Well arent you?   (I am)

Its sad really, I do actively support the existence of Religious Faiths (ignoring the idiotic self seeking zealots) as they promote a good way of living in terms of moral standards - fine. I just wish the insecure so called "True Believers" would stop trying to ram it down my throat, I'm on their side dammitt, but most cant see that.

Its life, the Sun will still rise in the morning no matter the doom and gloom alternatives they keep warning me about.

Regards
Zy

LOL, is it just me that skips any posts with bible verses in them? I mean, its a lot of copy & pasting effort, but its all for nothing. Its completely meaningless to someone who doesn't already believe/care. Might as well copy the list of ingredients off tha back of a jar of curry sauce. It would make as much sense.

christ said through me not through the so called saints. christ said through me not through my mom.

People, please, let this thread die its natural death. It had been quiet for seventeen days before being brought back yesterday. Ten pages of off-topic ranting is enough for any topic. Furthermore, I don't think the OP even owns the game, or plays it if he does. Search for all posts by him sometime, you will see what I mean.

and having this post hurts you how

If only there was an option to delete posts from 'my replies' list. Today i opened my replies and find this one near the top again!

i am just to stupid to stop reading something i don't like to read

i am christian and i have seen and learned the faults of evolution,

i have 3 questions that are EXTREMELY hard to answer within the bounds of physics:

how do you explain fossilized JELLYFISH????

if evolution is true,then why did cells decide to stick together and become an organism?

how do you explain animal's capacity for kindness? (i.e snake and hamster friends,lion and duck,turtle and rabbit,etc)

aww shit i necrod lol