Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on November 06, 2004, 08:59:20 AM
-
Interesting article put out by the Propoganda Times, so take it for what its journalistically worth. A short rehash of a paragraph that had me nodding like an infant to a fat breast...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html?hp
But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?
-
Yeah, I had that thought too. It's pretty concisely expressed there.
When a person has a major screw up, he can look inside or look outside for the cause. Either may end up being the valid reason but if one foregoes the looking inside I think there's greater risk of screwing up again.
-
I don't know if this is "values" but I think the insane liberalism of the race scared the crap out of people and got em off their butt to vote...
michelle moore probly got out 300,000+ votes for Bush... springstein and "black leaders" ditto.
I don't think kerrie lied enough, or convincingly enough, about how he wasn't a liberal anymore.
I have watched liberals on shows now claim that the democrats weren't radical liberal enough... like that will get the pot smokers off the couch and to the polls...
lazs
-
The point he made that Bush won across the board is a better one. There was no single group that 'won it' for him. He got more votes everywhere. He even did better in Massachusetts than in 2000.
So, to answer you question. I'd have to say 'fiction'
-
Fiction.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
The mental image of the child with her dad at the pro kerry rally having the signs ripped up from her hands, tears falling from her face would make one consider that "values" were as much to do with the Bush victory then anything else... My values would have been to leave them alone and let them enjoy freedom ,the lefts values actually accounted for the child having to experience poor values... Kerry sign holders were left alone where Bush sign holders were Spat on and actually had bottles thrown at them, these are values that I dont except as Right values...
Deep down 52 percent of america realized that the left represents poor values, excepts rude behavior as the norm and really shouldnt be excepted or even tolerated... If any party should be represented with the term Nazi party the dems sure earned it. But retrospect to your hearts content the Dem party will not be a factor to worry about as long as Mike Moore is involved in its politics..
Goodbye to the party of irrational hate...
XO
IKON
-
Six out of seven of the major models of elections in political science predicted the popular outcome exactly -- a roughly three point difference in favor of Bush.
None of these models include "values." They are all based on various economic and public opinion measures. If non-"value" models perfectly predicted this election, how can we lend much credence to the media-friendly "values" version? I don't.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Here is an intresting thing I noticed.
I mostly watch CNN for my news and this network seemingly mentions the term "moral values" every 15 seconds when the election results are discussed. However when I spent some time watching fox news coverage of the election outcomes the values thing was not nearly so prominent.
Now obviously I watch CNN a lot more so I understand that I only got a short sample from fox but I did find it surprising consdering the general repuation of fox as a conservative network which made me assume they would be harping the conservative moral values angle.
What do you guys think?
-
"Values" and evangelical turnout myth used to hide massive voter fraud! :)
-
The "evangelical Christian voter" is the new "Neocon". Just a make-believe sinister enemy the Dems use to mask the fact that they are in melt down.
-
Grun, after you view Fox for awhile, you can really see how skewed CNN actually is.
I watch a lot of news from many sources.... the only TV I usualy watch is news, History channel and a maybe a documentory or two.
I think CNN is biased and is using the "morality" issue to try to inflame liberals even more. They are using it to try to say the the Liberal view is not "moral".
I have seen CNN interviews with New Yorkers "on the street" and they seem to play on the issue when they pose questions to the locals.
To me it seems that CNN was shocked to find out that they are not in the majority and are trying to make some sense of what happened. They are looking to label a skapegoat.
-
If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?
Rarely have I read anything I agree with more.
Regarding Fox news coverage versus CNN, I honestly believe Fox is more balanced, just as they say. They will cover both sides of an arguement, and have the liberals as well represented as the conservatives. My opinion anyway. The network news doesnt even come close to unbiased and balanced.
I think it does help these comparisons if you read Bernard Goldbergs books to give yourself some understanding of the way bias manifests itself in news presentation.
dago
-
Originally posted by strk
"Values" and evangelical turnout myth used to hide massive voter fraud! :)
Yep. The liberal media pushes the values thing so that stories about Democratic party tricks like slashing the tires of republican get out the vote busses, storming GOP headquarters, dead voters, sign staling, denying voters a choice of candidates, shooting at GOP buildings and other general left wing vandalism can be ignored...
Its really nice of you to be so honest about thius strk, I applaud you... :lol ;)
-
I just have 2 questions and will don my flamesuit...
1) When did being a liberal become a bad thing? Liberals have done some of this country's finest work. Liberals drug us out of the depression with public works programs putting impoverished people to work and at the same time providing electricity and running water to a major chunk of the nation. Liberals gave us equal rights. No longer do black children and white children drink from seperate water fountains or learn at seperate schools. Liberals also passed hate crimes laws. No longer can biggots violate the civil rights of others without reppercussions for their hate. Yes, many of the high points of American history are marked by the blood, sweat and tears of liberals.
2) When did they switch colors for Republicans and Democrats? Republicans were always blue and Democrats red. WTF??
-
rpm, your party used to be in touch with America, but now it is not. Kind of simple to see really.
Don't view things as "liberal" or "conservative" and then find your place in the big picture......that's my humble advice.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I just have 2 questions and will don my flamesuit...
1) When did being a liberal become a bad thing? Liberals have done some of this country's finest work. Liberals drug us out of the depression with public works programs putting impoverished people to work and at the same time providing electricity and running water to a major chunk of the nation. Liberals gave us equal rights. No longer do black children and white children drink from seperate water fountains or learn at seperate schools. Liberals also passed hate crimes laws. No longer can biggots violate the civil rights of others without reppercussions for their hate. Yes, many of the high points of American history are marked by the blood, sweat and tears of liberals.
2) When did they switch colors for Republicans and Democrats? Republicans were always blue and Democrats red. WTF??
Liberals did none of the things you said. Democrats did. Unfortunately the Democratic party changed, sometime in the 60's. Then they became the party of "How much will you tolerate"? Its a Liberal mind control trick.
-
Being "Liberal" began to be a bad thing when a set of behaviors took hold in the liberal faithful.
They changed from being generous to demanding everyone else be generous too.
They switched from encouraging generosity to belitteling and demeaning people who don't like being told they have to give up their hard earned money to those who have some sort of need.
They started using violence against anyone who opposed their progressive ideas, even to the point of publically wishing people were dead simply because they did not agree with their agendas.
They began to forward radical "niche" ideas as deserving equal attention as historically liberal ideas. Attracting fringe whackos is one way to expand your power base but fronting for their whacko ideas just polarizes everyone who doesn't also share every one of those whacko ideas. This is why hollywood probably hurts the Democrats more than they help, because some of the causes promoted by hollywood celebrities are truly beyond common sense.
Throwing bottles in the name of peace... Slashing tires in the name of free speech... Killing doctors and assaulting clinic workers "but it's for the children!" in the name of humanity. They have realized that most people don't share their values so they have turned into the same jackbooted thugs they revile so much.
That's why being liberal is bad, because the self rightous liberals will quite literally do anything to get their way especially when it comes to telling other people how they should live their lives and spend their money. The democrat party has been pandering to these extremists for decades and it now defines their party and agenda. They'll support any cause that sounds sensitive no matter how little sense it may make and how much it will intrude into people's everyday lives, if it gets them another voter or two. Well guess what... The pot smoking hippie freaks just aren't that reliable or attractive when it comes to actually putting votes down on paper or encouraging others to follow their lead.
-
The vile behavior you mention exists on both sides - they are mirror images, including murder in the name of peace. It all our fault for accepting it, and being afraid to step away from rhetoric to call a nut a nut no matter what the party affiliation of the nut (or potato, or opportunist).
They work for US.
-
1) When did being a liberal become a bad thing?
About the same time liberals started calling themselves progressives.
2) When did they switch colors for Republicans and Democrats? Republicans were always blue and Democrats red. WTF??
The main stream media decided red was jinxed, so they swapped for the 2000 election. Didn't work.
-
Terse rhetoric ra, "I dunno" would have sufficed. You don't like like Democrats - we got that. 95% of the OC doesn't so you aint special. How about backing off of terse answers and elaborating unless your life's goal is to be a cheerleader.
-
Originally posted by rpm
1) When did being a liberal become a bad thing? Liberals have done some of this country's finest work. ...
Liberals gave us equal rights. No longer do black children and white children drink from seperate water fountains or learn at seperate schools.
While President Johnson, and Senators Humphrey and Mansfield were Democrat pushers of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,
Date: 02 JUL 64
88th Congress, H. R. 7152
An Act
To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
The Republican candidate for President in 1964 was conservative Senator from Arizona, Barry Goldwater. Therefore one can make the argument that the Republican was the more conservative party at the time.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act passed the House of Representatives by 289 to 124, a vote in which 80% of Republicans voted “yes”.
The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting “no”.
Chief opponents to the bill were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a former Klansman whom Democrats still call "the conscience of the Senate", filibustered against the civil rights bill for fourteen straight hours before the final vote.
It turns out that by voting record, the Republican party (the more conservative party) has a much stronger civil rights record than does the Democratic party, which oddly enough until 1964 was largely obstructionist when it cam to Civil Rights legislation.
As for the TVA and electrification of Appalachia, which party do you think would be more supportive of damming a river today?
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Terse rhetoric ra, "I dunno" would have sufficed. You don't like like Democrats - we got that. 95% of the OC doesn't so you aint special. How about backing off of terse answers and elaborating unless your life's goal is to be a cheerleader.
Tweety, do you have better answers than mine?
-
"Liberal" has just become a dirty word because the rightwing wurlitzer controls the discourse. Years ago it was "conservatives" that were snickered at.
IMHO Jesus was the biggest liberal of them all.
-
Originally posted by strk
"Liberal" has just become a dirty word because the rightwing wurlitzer controls the discourse.
Since when is the NY Times a right wing rag? The Chigago Tribune? No wait I know, the Los Angeles Times. Or were you meaning Dan.... no? maybe Tom or Peter? No must be CNN....
Can't be that talk radio and Fox News can drown out the din from all the above news outlets...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It turns out that by voting record, the Republican party (the more conservative party) has a much stronger civil rights record than does the Democratic party, which oddly enough until 1964 was largely obstructionist when it cam to Civil Rights legislation.
that is entirely true, but sadly try explaining that to a minority who has been taught all their life to vote democrat but their parents from before then.
-
>>Tweety, do you have better answers than mine?<<
I might , Ra, but you have to tell me what your idealogical differences are with the Democratic party.
Is it Blacks?
Is it homosexuals?
Is it taxes?
Is it abortion?
Is it prayer in schools?
Is it big government?
Is it gun control?
Is it women's rights?
Is it you believe the United States should be a one party government?
What is your distict problem(s) with Democrats?
Liberalism did not become a scarlet letter because some used the word "progressive". Thats complete nonsense. There are some parts of liberalism that people hate, whether its culture change, big government, taxes, religious differences etc.
The election is over. There is absolutely no reason to shine over stuff and use euphemisms and abstracts. If you tell me Democrats want to be too many things to too many people I agree with you! And we can go over EXACTLY how they do this and use specific examples of how it leads to contradiction. If you think the the problem with Democrats is they're more interested in changing things from a cultural standpoint rather than a legal or governmental standpoint, I'll agree with you. Again with specifics we can discuss it.
But please, with all these brains in here, there's no reason to discuss the devide in simplistic stereotypes. What is your distinct problem(s) with the Democratic party?
-
my $.02 I think the majority of the "undecided" thaught that the lefts alignment with Moore and Soros and Moveon.org was alot less threatening then the right's alignment w/ the christian right.
think about it....Kerry's supporters were just frantic about their hatred that it drove them to do ALOT of things that "peace loving" liberals just wouldnt do.
Then you got the "peace" protester protesting against bush with signs that say the most vial things about America and Bush at the same time supporting most of the enemies that we appose right now.
That coupled with the fact that the demacrats put up a third rate canidate with no record of doing anything except going to nam then protesting it later.
To me with Kerry the election could have gone either way. BUT if the left had put up even a slightly stronger canidate with some kind of ounce of convicitions they would have trumped Bush big time.
-
Killing doctors and assaulting clinic workers "but it's for the children!" in the name of humanity.
eagl, that would be a conservative thing, definitely not a liberals. Liberals are pro-choice and don't bomb clinics...they usually build them.
A few of you have got what I was talking about, a few instantly mixed liberal with democrat. One does not have to be a democrat to be a liberal, but yeah...it helps. Conversely, one need not be a republican to be a conservative as the civil rights movement demonstrated quite clearly. I remember George Wallace and what an ultra melon he was.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
This is something that has ... bothered me; why the heck are the Republicans considered "Red America" and the Democrats "Blue America". Shouldn't it be the other way around?!
That's a good question GS. Not sure were the red and blue thing came from. But that's the way it is.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
This could be one of those "US only" things. Probably not, but everywhere else that I know of red is the collor of the socialists, blue for conservatives, and green for centrists.
That makes sense to me considering socialist are close to communists and since birth i've allways been told to associat red with them.
Green here usually goes to the "green party" wich I think is mostly the extreme environmentalists.
either way it is a missrepresentation to most people. If you look at the midwest alot of states are red. If you look at the coasts alot of states are blue.
This does not mean that these states are strictly conservative or strictly liberal it just means that more people voted that way than not. If you look at california by county you will see that LA and San Fansico are blue and most of the rest of the state as red. It is not an acurate picture to say that ALL of california is liberal just as it is not accurat to say that ALL of florida is conservative.
Just my view though think what you like
-
Liberals.... Conservatives... Neither really does much good when you think about it.
I'd like to see a Senate Split like this:
Total: 50/50
Conservatives: 20
Liberals: 20
Moderate GOP: 30
Moderate Dems: 30
I think that might be a bit better way to go about things. At least you'd hope with that many moderates things would be "fair".
-
Tod... just curious.. if all the models showed that Bush would win by three points then why did allmost every poll show the lead changing back and forth with kerrie having a slight lead in the end and.. Why did no one predict the huge turnout?
would you say that turnout has nothing to do with the results? neither side gains by high voter turnout?
lazs
-
shlotz... I believe that there was discussion about red and blue and that the democrats felt that it was stereotyping them to have to be the red color. I believe that they would do even worse if it was obvious that they were reds. Reasoning is that the republicans have no disadvantage by being a red color since no one would call them "commies".
lazs
-
When I grew up, republicans often wore red "power ties", so that might be part of it...
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
What is your distict problem(s) with Democrats?
Tweety throws down the gauntlet...the issues...not the rhetoric.
Where's the response?
-
crow.. I will take the bait. I find all of the things that tweety mentions to be places where I part with the democrats. the last item, one party politics is especially true.. I don't like their brand of it for instance... who was it that sued to keep nader off the ballot in so many states?
basicly I don't agree with tweety or the democrats on much of anything.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the last item, one party politics is especially true.. I don't like their brand of it for instance... who was it that sued to keep nader off the ballot in so many states?
Not much different that when the RNC tried to shut Perot out of the '92 and '96 elections.
I'm more familiar with the case of Nader on the Florida ballot. The law was clear and Nader should not have been on the ballot since he was not a member of the Reform Party or nominated by their convention. The "liberal" Florida Supreme Court (as they were labled in the 2000 election) felt that voter choice was paramount...a position I agree with.
But interestingly, the Dems in Florida could have had Bush disqualified from appearing on the Florida ballot but decided not to pursue it. The Bush campaign filed its candidacy papers with the Florida Department of State past the filing deadline. Normally, that should mean disqualification. Personally I would have bet the RNC would not have been so generous if the situation had been reversed. So, I'm not sure how I see that Dems are for one party anymore than Reps. Or how their brand of politicing is much different than the RNC's.
Originally posted by lazs2
I find all of the things that tweety mentions to be places where I part with the democrats. basicly I don't agree with tweety or the democrats on much of anything.
Lets not be general...specifically what do you disagree with and why.
-
pick one.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
pick one.
Prayer in schools...
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Prayer in schools...
what about prayer in schools?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
what about prayer in schools?
Laz said, "I find all of the things that tweety mentions to be places where I part with the democrats." I asked him to be specific. He asked me to pick one of the topics on Tweety's list. I chose prayer in schools to start.
-
bump...
Still no comment on the issues?
-
It is amazing how quiet it gets when the issues get specific.
-
"Whatever is said, the same monotonous noise replies, and quivers up and down the walls until it is absorbed into the roof. "Boum" is the sound as far as the human alphabet can express it, or "bou-oum," or "ou-boum," — utterly dull. Hope, politeness, the blowing of a nose, the squeak of a boot, all produce "boum." Even the striking of a match starts a little worm coiling, which is too small to complete a circle but is eternally watchful. And if several people talk at once, an overlapping howling noise begins, echoes generate echoes, and the cave is stuffed with a snake composed of small snakes, which writhe independently.
The crush and the smells she could forget, but the echo began in some indescribable way to undermine her hold on life. Coming at a moment when she chanced to be fatigued, it had managed to murmur, "Pathos, piety, courage — they exist, but are identical, and so is filth. Everything exists, nothing has value." If one had spoken vileness in that place, or spoken lofty poetry, the comment would have been the same — "ou-boum."
A Passage to India
- E.M. Forster
-
If we want prayer in school, why not send your kids to a religious school. There's a kazillion of them. If you want prayer in public school, be prepared to allow EVERY religion to have a prayer. Baptist, Pagan, Catholic, Jewish, Branch Davidian, Islamic, Buddist, Satanic, Islamic, Atheist (they can go take a coke break, I suppose) and every single religion on the face of this planet. Otherwise you just turned a public school into a religious school. If you want your children to have a biased education you must pay for the privilege. What you get with tax money is reading, writing and arithmetic .
-
Originally posted by rpm
What you get with tax money is reading, writing and arithmetic .
and evolution is right, religion is wrong.
-
Evolution is right.
And God is oh so very right.
But religion is wrong.
It is when we try to to explain God that we fail miserably.
Forcing our weak, human, explanations of it on others does us all a disservice.
None of it is right, and none of it is wrong.
We need to stay out of the picture, and let individuals experience it in their own way. Because it is only right when it is right for the individual.
-
Originally posted by rpm
What you get with tax money is reading, writing and arithmetic .
In English or in Spanish?
-
Fear not, JB. Evolution has stopped.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Fear not, JB. Evolution has stopped.
Hehe, that's not a Homerun, but it's good Double, even if you had to dive into Second.
-
The pitcher is getting called off the mound, too. Looking ugly in Mudsville.
-
DERAILMENT!
We are not talking about evolution. The topic is "prayer in schools".
Republicans: What is the Democrat stance on prayer in schools that you disagree with and why.
(hint: it might help to start by stating what you think the DNC stance is on prayer in schools)
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
DERAILMENT!
We are not talking about evolution. The topic is "prayer in schools".
Republicans: What is the Democrat stance on prayer in schools that you disagree with and why.
(hint: it might help to start by stating what you think the DNC stance is on prayer in schools)
Well... At least in my town, there aren't any classes about religion allowed in public schools. I think that is a great diservice in itself.
Now, I'm not saying that kids should be forced to go to these classes, but surely having electives in high school for say Christianity, Judaeism (sorry for spelling butcher) and Islam might go a bit of a long way towards easing religious tension over the years?
I mean, why's it ok to learn about the Greek Gods but forbidden to learn of more widely worshiped ones of these times?
As for "prayer" in schools, I've never understood what's wrong with a simple moment of silence. Well, actually, I do have one complaint: At least in my school, it was too darn short (ten seconds or less on average). You can't even say a Hail Mary in that time... Much less relflect on anything.
-
And what stopped your silent prayer after the 10 seconds was up? A teacher opening up a lesson? I think there were silent prayers during bombings, executions, stonings, burnings, linchings etc. What stopped your silent prayer? Please tell me what unearthly force stopped you from praying.
Lets take a wild leap in logic and say NOTHING can keep you from silently praying. You can do it as a doctor puts a mask over your face or a thug puts a knife to your throat or even when you come close to sexual temptation. NOTHING can stop you from slilently praying. Lets take another wild leap in logic. Perhaps you aren't really pissed about the state preventing you from praying, but pissed that the state isn't telling you WHEN to pray.
When did it become the states job to tell you WHEN to pray? Is that not your responsibility, or perhaps your parents' or pastor's?
Why should the state tell you when to pray?
Is HTC in error because they don't start each reset with a prayer or a slient moment for prayer? Is it Chrystler's error for not starting every commercial with a moment of slilent prayer? Do you need companies and businesses telling you when to pray? Why should you need the state telling you? Is it their responsibility or YOURS?
-
There were two main churches in my city while I was growing up. I don't know what domination or sect or whatever they were, but they were the two big ones.
They both had houses attached to them, where families lived. And those families had a daughter a piece. Kate in one, and Ann-Marie in another.
I lost my virginity to Ann-Marie, and on my 16th bithday Kate gave me a blow job.
Looking back at it, I'm not sure what that tells me. But I'm convinced of something now.
God cannot be taught. And if it is taught, it cannot be learned.
I don't know how to explain my reaction to a certain group of people who wants desperately to think that they own the ground on this. On this here BBS I see constantly the words used by those who profess to know God. And it is some of the most handsomehunk, hateful, ignorant b*llsh*t evar.
It is not God. It is ugly.
But yet, appearently, they own it. A moral majority. A moral authority.They signed the lease on their version of things, rolled the contract up, and want to whack the rest of us over the head with it.
But they never bothered to read the fine print.
God is love.
I can no more teach you or anyone else what love is than any gifted teacher alive can. You have to know it for yourselves. You cannot mandate a 15-minute time out during class in order that kids come to learn love. That would be impossible.
Issiah Joseph 2:12 passage 17 article twenty-three section seven will not give you any answers. It will not give you any answers. So I don't want someone telling kids that it will. Because it won't. That would be a lie.
At the very most, it will have the effect of manifesting itself in a troubling behavior that plays itself out daily on this BBS.
That is....
From those who claim to know God, but hate you.
No... Uhn-uh... no way.
I aint buying. Because you've got it all messed up.
You gonna tell me how to know God? Screw that noise. As if.
Meanwhile.... what's that other noise I just heard? You better check on yer daughter, cuz I thought I just heard the downstairs window sliding open.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
And what stopped your silent prayer after the 10 seconds was up? A teacher opening up a lesson? I think there were silent prayers during bombings, executions, stonings, burnings, linchings etc. What stopped your silent prayer? Please tell me what unearthly force stopped you from praying.
Lets take a wild leap in logic and say NOTHING can keep you from silently praying. You can do it as a doctor puts a mask over your face or a thug puts a knife to your throat. Neither can stop you from slilently praying. Lets take another wild leap in logic. Perhaps you aren't really pissed about the state preventing you from praying, but pissed that the state isn't telling you WHEN to pray.
Yes... You're quite correct, though I think you're being a bit over-the-top as I'm not one of the very radical members others may have been fishing for.
However, I think most reasonable people could agree that perhaps 10 seconds is a bit short for any sort of moment of silence. It's supposed to be a time where people can relfect on anything or nothing that they like. A time when you can choose to pray, or choose to think about what you're having for lunch.
All I'm saying is that maybe 20-30 seconds would be more appropriate as there are some people (not saying i'm one of them, I fell in the lunch category 9 outta 10) who might like to actually have time to say a simple prayer, or gather a thought, or anything, before it's time to hit the books, and, really, 10 seconds, well it just isn't gonna cut it. (Not asking for an hour either, or even a full minute, just more then the smallest definition of "moment")
And although you are correct that nothing could stop you from doing this even if the teacher did start rambling, some people would like to hear that rambling. You never know, it might be important.
And, for the record, I never once claimed to be pissed. Actually, I really don't get why you decided to type that last sentence.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
When did it become the states job to tell you WHEN to pray? Is that not your responsibility, or perhaps your parents' or pastor's?
Why should the state tell you when to pray?
Is HTC in error because they don't start each reset with a prayer or a slient moment for prayer? Is it their responsibility or YOURS?
Wow.
-
Wow what?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Wow what?
I was just wondering how on earth he came up with that response to my post. I don't think I indicated any such thing, please see above.
Now if he wasn't responding to me, my apologies. However, as he mentioned the "10 second thing" that I brought up, I think you can appreciate why I might think he was.
-
Sorry man - still ranting and editing :D
But you get the point. Its smoke and mirrors. No one can stop anyone from praying, and the religious zealots claiming that is happening are conning people.
Edit (yet again) so it isn't aimed specificaly at your post but the whole prayer in schools non-issue.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Sorry man - still ranting and editing :D
But you get the point. Its smoke and mirrors. No one can stop anyone from praying, and the religious zealots claiming that is happening are conning people.
Oh I agree with you, they sure are. I mean, we got a moment of silence every single day don't get me wrong, I just felt it was too short to do much of anything with.
I'm not for a much longer one at all, but a bit longer one seems like a reasonable request. You're there from 7:30 till 3:00, what's 20 extra seconds :)
-
Vudak, thanks for responding. A religion class may not be offered in your school because of the cost more than anything. My high school did not offer classes in tennis or have a tennis team because of the cost. It also did not have a course to teach the Russian language or Japanese. These courses are all available later in college, including world religion.
So where is Laz, Nuke, Rip, Gunslinger...
I know Laz has posted elsewhere since he decided to "take the bait", but not here.
What's the deal Republicans? Why afraid of the issues?
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Is it Chrysler's error for not starting every commercial with a moment of slilent prayer?
I dunno about before every commercial...but I know back in the late 70s -early 80s lots of Chrysler owners prayed every time before they turned the ignition key...hoping God would let the car start!
:rofl
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Vudak, thanks for responding. A religion class may not be offered in your school because of the cost more than anything. My high school did not offer classes in tennis or have a tennis team because of the cost. It also did not have a course to teach the Russian language or Japanese. These courses are all available later in college, including world religion.
So where is Laz, Nuke, Rip, Gunslinger...
I know Laz has posted elsewhere since he decided to "take the bait", but not here.
What's the deal Republicans? Why afraid of the issues?
Did I say "pick pne"? Nope. Me thinks you have been raised in one of those "new learning" schools the Dems look fondly upon by pumping massive amounts of taxpayers dollars, and you are the end result. I don't think our political candidates are going to improve in the future...
As far as what the Dems think, I don't dwell on what one party or the other "thinks", I turn to myself for the issues, and which I agree with, and disagree with.
Regarding school prayer, since it is federally funded, I don't think it should be allowed with the exception of using "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
-
I am not even sure what the issue is. I vote for the republicans cause if I don't the democrats will get in. I vote on a straight gun and Hot Rod ticket and.... lower taxes.... I vote on who will be the less biggoted and fairest to everyone. I vote on who gives me the most freedom. I don't want people telling me to wear a seatbelt or a helmet "for my own good". I don't want a "living constitution" that is "progressive" as liberals define progressive.
I vote with the christian right for the most part simply because we are voting for the same guy. I fear all large organized groups... I fear christians too but less than I fear government or some of the large leftwing groups like the whacko environmentalists. Chritians like me for my vote and my support for them but I am not someone they stay happy with for long. They would not treat me kindly if they were all powerful.
I am for vouchers in schools.. let everyone go to the kind of school they want. Don't care if they teach gayness or snake handling.... could NOT possibly do a worse job.
lazs
-
to be fair to crow and be more specific in my answer...
I part with the democrats in that I want vouchers in schools... If you can't have vouchers and everyone has to attend the same school then you are making christians pay for an education that does not include their faith. If their faith permeates every facet of their lives then you are in effect, denying them their rights and making em pay for it.
I would not pray in school nor ask my kids too but I would not be offended by a minute every day for silent prayer or meditation or... dozing off.
democrats are against vouchers and prayer in school at the same time even tho a huge portion of children are religious in one form or another... I am against the democrats in this because, in my opinion, like so many other things.... they are all about limiting choice and freedom.
next subject,,
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
democrats are against vouchers and prayer in school at the same time even tho a huge portion of children are religious in one form or another... I am against the democrats in this because, in my opinion, like so many other things.... they are all about limiting choice and freedom.
next subject,,
lazs
Lazs, so you are in favor of prayer in school? Would that be mandatory prayer, or can my child choose not to pray, or to pray to Allah? Just wondering where the "freedom" is in that. Personally I like that part of the Constitution that seperates Church and State.
Vouchers would bankrupt public education. Don't get me wrong, if I had it to do over again I'd have put my child in private school, but pulling the educational rug out from under children of less fortunate circumstances denies them an education, thus denying them equal opportunity...and ultimately denies them that which you cherish, choices and freedom.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
...if the left had put up even a slightly stronger canidate with some kind of ounce of convicitions they would have trumped Bush big time.
Agreed, the Dems would have gotten my vote if the candidate would have had more substance. So you’re extremely liberal, fine, then stand up for it.
If Kerry would have come out with conviction about his beliefs, although I may not have sided with him, there is a good chance he would have gotten my vote. Standing with conviction on the voting history that he had would have swayed a lot more voters his direction.
I do not agree with everything Bush says and/or does but I can believe that what he says is going to happen will. There are plenty of checks and balances in the government to worry about whether or not someone is swinging the righteous sword of god or is to progressive or liberal.
-
Kerry lost this election in 1971 when he testified before Congress. To conservatives of the day he was a traitor, and to the anti-war movement he was a Johnny Come Lately building a political career.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
I dunno about before every commercial...but I know back in the late 70s -early 80s lots of Chrysler owners prayed every time before they turned the ignition key...hoping God would let the car start!
:rofl
I had a 1963 Valiant. It listened to no God but itself.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Since when is the NY Times a right wing rag? The Chigago Tribune? No wait I know, the Los Angeles Times. Or were you meaning Dan.... no? maybe Tom or Peter? No must be CNN....
lol, or the NY post, or the Boston Herald. Or were you meaning Rush, or O'rielly, wait, must be fox
-
airhead... I am in favor of what I stated... I say give everyone some time to pray in their own way if all you offer is one crappy brand of education for the money.
if vouchers bankrupt the public school system then the public school system does not deserve to exist.
In my opinion, the public school system does not deserve to exist as it does anyway... part time employees being paid full time salaries and benifiets... buildings left vacant for a large portion of the year... "progressive" methods of teaching that destroy the abilities of entire decades of students abilities to do simple math and reading... students graduating with 3rd grade of less reading and math skills...
it's about time the public school system got with it or went down the tubes.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
In my opinion, the public school system does not deserve to exist as it does anyway... part time employees being paid full time salaries and benifiets... buildings left vacant for a large portion of the year...
We live in different times today, both parents are forced to work to make ends meet. With kids getting out at two in the afternoon, it leaves them unsupervised for at least two to three ours. I think it would be great for schools to stay open til five or six to serve as day care and a rec center. The burden of finding day care is becoming a big and expensive problem, and I think a full time shift and expanding the school day would help to solve this problem.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
We live in different times today, both parents are forced to work to make ends meet. With kids getting out at two in the afternoon, it leaves them unsupervised for at least two to three ours. I think it would be great for schools to stay open til five or six to serve as day care and a rec center. The burden of finding day care is becoming a big and expensive problem, and I think a full time shift and expanding the school day would help to solve this problem.
Also taking some of the money used for the War on Drugs and using it to fund after school problems might kill two birds with one stone.
Oh and CrowMAW, finances sure have a large part to do with it, but we definately have an extremely liberal jewish woman in our town who has successfully waged a war to ban pretty much anything about religion in our public schools too. I believe my class was the last allowed to sing "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" :rolleyes:
Just seems silly to me, we all sang the dradle song too, but she didn't want anything of it. >shrug< some people just go to extremes.