[Purple Haize]

It's an advertisement, for Liberty, featuring one of the biggest names in the news at the moment, who happens to have a relationship with the school. I don't see that this is really an issue. It's not an endorsement, it's publicity.

Yep. Our great PR people are at it again! I mean how could anyone conclude that Newt in an ad with Liberty would be anyone endorsing anyone! I mean it's not like you could go out and vote for the guy in VA or anything. Where in the world do people get such crazy talk from

[BJWilliams]

apparently you conveniently ignored the statement that I posted (a few people have I think). Was it a good idea...no but at least after reading that it made some sense

[Purple Haize]

No. I read it. I'm just mocking the whole situation.

[adam42381]

apparently you conveniently ignored the statement that I posted (a few people have I think). Was it a good idea...no but at least after reading that it made some sense

The statement was typical PR spin. No more, no less.

[jbock13]

Do we really want Gingrich to endorse Liberty? lol think about it...

But on the other side it annoys me because the NY Times is just upset because of who we are the influence that we have. I guess I just wish LU wouldn't do little gestures to all but endorse candidates. We all know who's side they're on. Often it's the same as ours.

[Liberty4Life]

question when did they shift form Evangelical Christian School to Conservative Christian School?

Around the time they had Glenn Beck, a Mormon with no university degree, as its graduation speaker. Banning the LU Democrats didn't help.*

Hey, speaking of Mormons, isn't it funny that Mormons Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney have had fewer wives combined than Liberty fav Newt Gingrich?

* Not saying it was the right or wrong decision and I don't want to open that can of worms, but it certainly didn't help.

[Purple Haize]

Soi guess we take Huntsman off the list. Cain, Bachman and Huntsman down. Who is next? I say Perry followed by Santorum. Newts ego may be too big for him to leave and if Santorum leaves early he will have a better shot at a cabinet post.

[jbock13]

I hate to say it but Perry has got to go. His comment to bring troops back to Iraq was stupid.

Huntsman pulling out helps Romney a tad.

Perry's supporters will probably split among who's left.

Romney probably wins the nomination the same way McCain did, the conservatives divide themselves.

[FigurinItOut]

question when did they shift form Evangelical Christian School to Conservative Christian School?

Around the time they had Glenn Beck, a Mormon with no university degree, as its graduation speaker. Banning the LU Democrats didn't help.*

* Not saying it was the right or wrong decision and I don't want to open that can of worms, but it certainly didn't help.

Did you miss the Moral Majority era? (Last time I read LU's vision/mission statement, it clearly said that LU is unapologetically socially conservative. They have a right to be.) And Liberty never "banned" the LU Democrats. They were permitted to meet on campus but, because they supported candidates who were pro-abortion, they could no longer receive financial support from the LU Student Activities budget or use the name "Liberty" in their name.

[From the class of 09]

Being socially conservative is ok I guess but I'd rather just focus on being Christian. Especially when those government social programs we are supposed to be against are attempting to solve problems left by a church not doing its job.

How's that for stirring the pot?

[jbock13]

Being socially conservative is ok I guess but I'd rather just focus on being Christian. Especially when those government social programs we are supposed to be against are attempting to solve problems left by a church not doing its job.

How's that for stirring the pot?

Yeah, except we've already argued about this a thousand times. lol.

[From the class of 09]

Not with the new guy jbock we can do it all again.

[jbock13]

Whose's the new guy?

[From the class of 09]

I thought figuringitout was but I guess he's been around for a while too.

[jbock13]

Well let me ask you this, is it considered charity when the government forces you to pay taxes to "help" others?

[From the class of 09]

Well let me ask you this, is it considered charity when the government forces you to pay taxes to "help" others?

I wouldn't say it’s charity but that it is an imperfect solution to a problem that is better handled by the church. I also think the government will continue its attempt to fill this role until someone better suited meets these needs (aka the church). So until the church fills this role saying that government shouldn’t be caring for the sick and poor, while true, is inconsequential and a necessary part of this will be higher taxes.

So the solutions is to give lots of $$$ to your church encourage others to do the same. Then get involved in how your church is spending the money. When we as a church meet these needs the government can get out of the handout business. In our country I just don't think it can happen before then.

[jbock13]

But throughout the history of the world, and mainly before 1900, government had not role in creating a welfare program.

[Liberty4Life]

But throughout the history of the world, and mainly before 1900, government had not role in creating a welfare program.

I'm pretty sure the poor are better off today than the poor before 1900, ergo, the government is doing a better job helping the poor today than the rest of society was doing before 1900.

[ALUmnus]

But the poor are being lifted up by bringing others down. You can't sustain that. And even if the church stepped up in a big way, that doesn't replace the government or make its influence go away. And if you're one to give credibility to the concept of social engineering, the government will never get out of it.

[From the class of 09]

But the poor are being lifted up by bringing others down. You can't sustain that. And even if the church stepped up in a big way, that doesn't replace the government or make its influence go away. And if you're one to give credibility to the concept of social engineering, the government will never get out of it.

I agree that our current system is unsustainable however the only way you could get anyone to change it is if there is a workable alternative in place; at least in our society where we vote.
I'd think you would have a bigger chance of getting the government to cut back its social programs if you had a viable alternative in place. As compared to now when the argument is that the social programs should be cut with no alternative to support the poor and sick. If I was a candidate and could say that I will cut government spending on social programs but still meet those needs from private sources. How would that not be popular?
I’d think that would be a good witnessing opportunity too, almost like the church was fulfilling part of its original mission.

[jbock13]

09, let me first say it's not a huge issue to me so I'm holding back a bit on my debating. But in essence what you're arguing is, since the church doesn't do it, the government should force you to do. I know I'm oversimplifying a bit, but it's pretty the essence of your argument. Which I completely disagree with.

[From the class of 09]

09, let me first say it's not a huge issue to me so I'm holding back a bit on my debating. But in essence what you're arguing is, since the church doesn't do it, the government should force you to do. I know I'm oversimplifying a bit, but it's pretty the essence of your argument. Which I completely disagree with.

I'd say that because the family unit and church have failed to provide for the sick and poor it's a natural solution for society to try and solve the problem through other means. I’m not sure if I’m for or against the government providing for the s&p in our situation, but I’m sure someone needs to.

My bigger point is that if you agree the s&p should be cared for by private groups (it’s my belief the family and church should fill the role) instead of the government than you have to have the private organization in place before the government can do away with its programs given that we live in a democracy. It’s simply not popular to cut social programs that provide considerable economic benefit to the majority of the voting population. However given our need to fix government spending in this country it would be popular to cut spending on these social programs while at the same time replacing those programs with privately run programs.

I know most on here will think I’m crazy but how wants to fit a stereotype anyways

[jbock13]

But that's the point 09. By giving government the authority to help others, now there's no point in letting the church do it. As wrong as that is. Once you give government power, it never goes away. It's like the wack-a-mole games you probably played as a kid. So now, people simply look to the government, rather than private charity.

A little off topic, but I dismiss the notion that there are many needy people out there. Just like how many percent of people with handicap stickers actually need them? Maybe 10%.

In the same way, opportunities are out there. I'm paying my way through college, working minimum wage, and yet I've still saved up enough money to purchase my first house when I'm graduated. I don't have the most material things, but I was wise with my money, and hard work has gotten me where I am today. And that's why I get so pis$ed off with the notion that anybody needs a handout from the government.

Of course, I assume you understand that us libertarians don't want a mother of 7 and her children to starve on the street. You seem more intellgent than that anyway

[El Scorcho]

A little off topic, but I dismiss the notion that there are many needy people out there.

I consider myself to be Libertarian to the core, but I'll vehemently disagree with you on this. It's ignorant and also irrelevant. To a libertarian, it should not matter how much need is out there because government is never the answer to that problem.

[jbock13]

Fair point El Scorcho.

But we agree on the important things so that's what matters, than government is not the solution.