Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Rep Wants To Pattern Schools After Madrasses  
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6774 posts, RR: 35
Posted (2 years 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4613 times:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...ld_be_modeled_after_madrasahs.html

Well, at least he's honest about his true allegiances, because it sure isn't to this country.

And for everyone's edification, this is former US Rep Julia Carson's grandson, from the same district in Indianapolis. He more or less inherited this seat, has been a racial bomb thrower his entire time.

I love it when the lefitsts just show their true colors. In this case, his motivations to islamify the US. Go to Dearborn, Andre, they've already started without you...

155 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4601 times:

Quoting slider (Thread starter):

Well, at least he's honest about his true allegiances, because it sure isn't to this country.

Because of his religious beliefs, he isn't a good American? Since when? Last time I checked, Freedom of and from religion is part of the Constitution of the United States.

Let's say you're a Born-again Christian. If you mention the Bible the same way he mentions the Koran, does that make your allegiance not to this nation?

Explain why he isn't a good American?


User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4587 times:

Oh, and this is a quote from the Congressman in the article I read via Huffpost.

[b"]My remarks at ICNA call attention to the fact that faith-based schools throughout this country have excelled because of innovative instructional methods and a willingness to engage different learning styles – whether visual, auditory, or kinesthetic. While I do not believe that any particular faith should be the foundation of our public schools, it is important that we take note of the instructional tools these schools utilize to empower their young people. Christian, Jewish, and Islamic schools have experienced notable success by casting off a one-size-fits-all approach to education, and this is a model we must replicate. Having attended a parochial elementary school myself, I’ve seen these successes first hand. If we are going to take American education to the next level, we must expand successful models and implement the practices that will enable success for our students."[/b]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...eled-after-madrassa_n_1654510.html

Now, if we want to argue the merits of that statement, we could have a lively debate. But you're trying to turn this into a "Muslims can't be good Americans" rant, you've failed from the outset.

So how is he un-American?


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9695 posts, RR: 27
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4585 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Much ado about nothing.

He seems to think they have a good system set up in their Muslim schools, and it might be beneficial to look at something like that in our public schools.

Maybe he's right, maybe he's not. I don't know, I haven't been to the Muslim schools in question. I don't think he was saying "we need to base public schools on the Koran". That's now how I interpreted it, at least.

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
I love it when the lefitsts just show their true colors.

I love it when rightists show their inability to think.

(that wasn't a serious comment)

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
Well, at least he's honest about his true allegiances, because it sure isn't to this country.

Wow! With that sort of amazing ability to draw conclusions from no evidence, you should be running the country!

Might I suggest that you are NOT helping matters in this country. I don't know anything about this guy except what I saw in that video, which didn't really have much of an effect on me. But your statements are polarizing as hell.

Of course, you know that, and probably don't care.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4573 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
Might I suggest that you are NOT helping matters in this country. I don't know anything about this guy except what I saw in that video, which didn't really have much of an effect on me. But your statements are polarizing as hell.

Of course, you know that, and probably don't care.

Sadly, all too many on the right have been going this way since Clinton was elected in '92. The GOP, a once great party, is now a haven for intolerance.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4553 times:

Ugh, madrasahs are just the Islamic version of Catholic schools. Carson is saying that U.S. schools should model themselves after madrasahs, not become them! This post reeks of ignorance to me.

I should also note that according to my Muslim co-worker, "madrasah" translates to "place of learning", and that there are many madrasahs that are secular.

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
Well, at least he's honest about his true allegiances, because it sure isn't to this country.

You should probably do some research before making comments like this.

If his true allegiance wasn't to his country, why in the world would he sponsor a bill to increase financial counseling for military families, or improve mental health assessments for military personnel? Sounds to me like he's rather fond of his country (and its military).

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
In this case, his motivations to islamify the US.

How do you get that from what he said?!

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
He seems to think they have a good system set up in their Muslim schools, and it might be beneficial to look at something like that in our public schools.

That's how I interpreted it.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
I don't think he was saying "we need to base public schools on the Koran". That's now how I interpreted it, at least.

   Exactly. But some people only see things the way they want to see them.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4550 times:

The next shoe to drop will be as follows: "Well, you know Obama went to a Madrassa when living in Indonesia."

That's where this has to be heading.


User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1330 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4511 times:

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
He more or less inherited this seat, has been a racial bomb thrower his entire time.

How fascinating. I'd have thought people who frantically raise the alarm about "Islamification" would be much more worthy of such a title.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1247 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4504 times:

Oh, the terror of Islamification! Please......  


If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19275 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4449 times:

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
And for everyone's edification, this is former US Rep Julia Carson's grandson, from the same district in Indianapolis. He more or less inherited this seat, has been a racial bomb thrower his entire time.

I love it when the lefitsts just show their true colors. In this case, his motivations to islamify the US. Go to Dearborn, Andre, they've already started without you...

This isn't leftist. This is very rightist. He's for involving religion in schools. Surely you are for involving more religion in schools, right? After all, if I am to listen to Rick Santorum, that's the big problem in this country: not enough religion.

But if I actually listen to the video and not the soundbite, I get a very different story. One that does not reek of "Islamification." If he'd said the same thing about 'Catholic schools" instead of "Madrassas" then you'd cheer him (except he's a Democrat, so he could propose that the sky is blue and you'd probably argue that it isn't).

Reality, as usual, has a strongly liberal bias.


User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4447 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
Surely you are for involving more religion in schools, right?

Not that religion. As with the new curriculum in Arizona, which states they will only let the Bible be taught, that's where the author of this post is headed. Unfortunately, and sadly, far too many conservatives feel these days that if isn't a certain brand of Christianity, it should either be ignored or not allowed.

Again, it's the old, rigid "our way or the highway" mentality that has enveloped the Republican party. And it's destroying our society.


User currently offlineJAGflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3492 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4449 times:

The US is not a Muslim nation and does not need any public systems Islamified or patterned after any religions. I don't understand what a Madrassah does differently other than basing learning on Islamic principals. It's the same as any other religious school.

[Edited 2012-07-06 17:03:41]


Support the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9695 posts, RR: 27
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4469 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 4):
Sadly, all too many on the right have been going this way since Clinton was elected in '92. The GOP, a once great party, is now a haven for intolerance.

Democrats are just as bad. Neither party is blameless.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 5):
Exactly. But some people only see things the way they want to see them.

True, which is generally fine. But to raise an alarm and decry someone as such:

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
Well, at least he's honest about his true allegiances, because it sure isn't to this country.
Quoting slider (Thread starter):
his motivations to islamify the US

...based on basically nonexistent evidence in one video is quite devious.

I mean, really, I could take ANY video, of ANY politician, saying ANYthing, and come up with something that some group wouldn't like. But what's the point, unless you're trying to instigate?



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4437 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 12):
I mean, really, I could take ANY video, of ANY politician, saying ANYthing, and come up with something that some group wouldn't like. But what's the point, unless you're trying to instigate?

That essentially describes 95% of all campaing advertisements. Forget deep thought. Offend the superficial. And have someone else pay for it.


User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4430 times:

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 11):
The US is not a Muslim nation and does not need any public systems Islamified or patterned after any religions. I don't understand what a Madrassah does differently other than basing learning on Islamic principals. It's the same as any other religious school.

As the Congressman said, he's not talking about religious indoctrination here, but in innovation that he feels, rightly or wrongly, could serve American schools well.

Many of us don't want schools Christianized, but that seems to be what many on the right want, even if it's clearly Unconstitutional.

And how would you know it's the same with any religious schools? Are you an expert on the subject?

The problem many of us are having on this thread is that the author of the thread, not the Congressman, is the one trying to insert religion, or a loathing of one religion, into this debate. Debate the issue of whether more U.S. schools should be more like religious schools, or if they can be more like religious schools, or if those schools are indeed better than public schools. It should not be a debate on the Congressman's religion, and if that makes him less of an American.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6471 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4419 times:

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 11):
The US is not a Muslim nation and does not need any public systems Islamified or patterned after any religions. I don't understand what a Madrassah does differently other than basing learning on Islamic principals. It's the same as any other religious school.

Apparently he's referring to AMERICAN Madrassahs that supposedly are better at teaching kids because they adapt.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4895 posts, RR: 16
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4373 times:

'Madrasses' is the plural of 'Madras', or perhaps a derogatory way of addressing the fine citizens of that city.

Enough said.


User currently onlineSOBHI51 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jun 2003, 3404 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4367 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 2):
. Christian, Jewish, and Islamic schools have experienced notable success by casting off a one-size-fits-all approach to education, and this is a model we must replicate. Having attended a parochial elementary school myself, I’ve seen these successes first hand. If we are going to take American education to the next level, we must expand successful models and implement the practices that will enable success for our students."[/b]

Some people the moment Islam is mentioned go into Islamophobia mode. Even there is nothing mentioned about the dreaded Sharia laws, even if it is mentioning other religions, even using the madrassas as an example for improving the quality of education, but nooooo the word Islam is involved so it is all wrong and bad.   



I am against any terrorist acts committed under the name of Islam
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4307 times:

Reminds me of all the controversy surrounding the "ground zero mosque" except even more sensationalized...


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39659 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4279 times:

This is how it all begins. It always starts off as something sweet, harmless & innocent and meant to help the children. Congressman Carson is a disgrace.

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 11):
The US is not a Muslim nation and does not need any public systems Islamified or patterned after any religions.


  
However Carson and his friend in the White House may think otherwise.

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
Go to Dearborn, Andre, they've already started without you...


  
Exactly!



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4232 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 19):
Congressman Carson is a disgrace.

How so?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 19):
This is how it all begins. It always starts off as something sweet, harmless & innocent and meant to help the children.

What is the "it" that you are referring to?



Flying refined.
User currently onlineSOBHI51 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jun 2003, 3404 posts, RR: 17
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4206 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 19):

This is how it all begins. It always starts off as something sweet, harmless & innocent and meant to help the children. Congressman Carson is a disgrace.

What does begin? What end you have in mind?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 19):
Congressman Carson is a disgrace.

So he is not allowed the freedom of expressing his mind? Or because he says things some here get scared he become a disgrace? What happened to the freedom of expression, you always mention.



I am against any terrorist acts committed under the name of Islam
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4149 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 19):
This is how it all begins. It always starts off as something sweet, harmless & innocent and meant to help the children. Congressman Carson is a disgrace.

The disgrace is anti-Islamic hysteria. That's the disgrace.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 19):
However Carson and his friend in the White House may think otherwise.

Yup, I called it. I knew some poor soul would make it a link to the President. THAT is the disgrace.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11461 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4138 times:

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 11):
The US is not a Muslim nation

Nor is she a Christian nation.

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 11):
does not need any public systems Islamified or patterned after any religions.

If you actually listen to what he said, he understands that private schools (which are generally religous based) have a better grasp of teaching. Private schools understand that some children learn by seeing, some learn by hearing and some learn by doing. Because he has a daughter in an Islamic school, he sees this and he relates to this and extends this to "this is how public schools should be." But, the right insists on telling everyone that he wants the country to be an Islamic thocracy. Ignoring the fact that every right-winger out there want this nation to be a Christian theocracy.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 12):
Democrats are just as bad. Neither party is blameless.

So, that gives the right a free pass? I don't think so.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4130 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 23):
Ignoring the fact that every right-winger out there want this nation to be a Christian theocracy.

Um, I know a lot of "right-wingers" who would disagree. I even know a bunch of right-wing atheists... Are you sure there is a giant religious movement, or are there a few loudmouths and a bunch of politicians that make a big deal of it? I think you'd find they are in the minority, and claiming they are the right is like me taking the extreme left's 5-10% and saying that everyone left of center is just like them...

Quoting seb146 (Reply 23):
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 12):
Democrats are just as bad. Neither party is blameless.

So, that gives the right a free pass? I don't think so.

No he is just pointing out to the other poster that it's not one party becoming a monster, it's politicians in general. Neither extreme is good



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29784 posts, RR: 58
Reply 25, posted (2 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4132 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
Maybe he's right, maybe he's not. I don't know, I haven't been to the Muslim schools in question. I don't think he was saying "we need to base public schools on the Koran". That's now how I interpreted it, at least.



That's not the way I read it. A mandrassa is just a gateway school to more fervent Jihadist education and eventually a short life as a suicide bomber.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 6):
The next shoe to drop will be as follows: "Well, you know Obama went to a Madrassa when living in Indonesia."



Wouldn't surprise me, I would explain when Obama is so screwed up, a wacky religious schooling, a broken home, the 70's equivalent of a dad that sleep around, a mom who dragged him around the world through several questionable marriages by his low self-esteem plagued mother.

The US is not a Muslim nation and does not need any public systems Islamified or patterned after any religions.[/quote]

Quoting seb146 (Reply 23):
Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 11):
The US is not a Muslim nation

Nor is she a Christian nation.



Actually seb146 historically it can be argued that it is. The "Freedom of Religion" was to protect the various christian religions in the various colonies, Quakers, Protestants, Catholics, Anglicans etc.......Judaism probably wasn't on the radar, and definitely neither where the native American belief systems or Islamic doctrine. Actually in the case of the latter the US would have our first war with them in short order as we where forced to bombard various north african ports to destroy pilots that followed that religon.

Actually one could argue the war against islamists by the US has been going on for over 200 years thanks to the barbary pirates.

For the record the modern interpretation of religious freedom is superior IMHO....as long as I don't have a majority of one religious committed to killing me, which it seems that the majority of those who practice a particular religion seem to be committed too.

But I also seperate out wahabbisim from from other sects too. I don't think there are too many Durbishes out there looking to killing americans.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13940 posts, RR: 63
Reply 26, posted (2 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4124 times:

As for Madrassas ( Arabic for school) in Muslim countries, there are differences:
E.g. the one Obama went to in Indonesia is not different from a religious affiliated elementary school in western countries (e.g. in Ireland, where still many schools are run by the Catholic church) and offers a broad spectrum of education.

At the other end of the spectrum you´ll find "schools" in Pakistan or Afghanistan, where the children only learn how to recitate the Q´ran by rote and barely anything else (maybe a little bit of reading, writing and algebra). These Madrassas are run by radical groups, who barely have a theological education in Islam themselves and take advantage of the failure by the government to provide for adequate education. The students come mainly from poor families, who can´t afford to sent their children to proper schools and they are easily indoctrinated.

Interestingly, as per an article on the BBC website I read a while ago, in France many middleclass Muslim families send their children to private Catholic schools. The main reason is a bit stricter dress and behaviour code than on government schools and also that these private schools allow for a gang-free environment as opposed to the government schools in the immigrant districts.

Jan

[Edited 2012-07-07 11:09:29]

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29784 posts, RR: 58
Reply 27, posted (2 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4131 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 26):
At the other end of the spectrum you´ll find "schools" in Pakistan or Afghanistan, where the children only learn how to recitate the Q´ran by rote and barely anything else (maybe a little bit of reading, writing and algebra). These Madrassas are run by radical groups, who barely have a theological education in Islam themselves and take advantage of the failure by the government to provide for adequate education. The students come mainly from poor families, who can´t afford to sent their children to proper schools and they are easily indoctrinated.

And that is the current popular defintion of a Mandrass for the US.

Not saying it is right, not saying it is wrong but that is what it is.

So the question for those who read the Koran, what can you do to change that?



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13940 posts, RR: 63
Reply 28, posted (2 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4122 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 27):
So the question for those who read the Koran, what can you do to change that?

I would say to provide for affordable education, which while not being completely secular, will emphasize the 21st century instead of the 8th.
Here in Germany there is a motion to train Muslim religion teachers and theologists at local universities. These people will mainly heve grown up in Germany, will be familiar with German culture, language and the constitution.
They will then offer Muslim religious class as a voluntary subject, just as Catholic and Lutheran (or, if there enough students, Jewish) religion class offered. The class will be taught in German language and like e.g. the Lutheran class I attended as a boy, will not only teach the religion of choice, but also the basics of other belief systems (IIRC in grade 5 our Lutheran religion teacher taught us the basics about Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Bhuddism. It was the time when the first children of the "Gastarbeiter", many of them Turkish, were in elementary school as well, about my age at this time).

Jan

BTW, I´ve read that the school Obama went to in Indonesia was also quite popular with the local expat community as the the place to send their children to.

Jan


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21421 posts, RR: 56
Reply 29, posted (2 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4113 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 26):
At the other end of the spectrum you´ll find "schools" in Pakistan or Afghanistan, where the children only learn how to recitate the Q´ran by rote and barely anything else (maybe a little bit of reading, writing and algebra). These Madrassas are run by radical groups, who barely have a theological education in Islam themselves and take advantage of the failure by the government to provide for adequate education.

And believe it or not, we've got the Christian equivalent in the US. And they even get state funding.

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/shoc...chool_textbooks_salpart/singleton/

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 30, posted (2 years 3 days ago) and read 4091 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 23):
Ignoring the fact that every right-winger out there want this nation to be a Christian theocracy.

Not true at all. In fact, as a right-winger myself, I see a divide happening on the right. I see far more atheist, moderate rights, while I also see far more extreme rights. So it can be said that there is a stronger religious push, but the number doing so is smaller.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 25):
as long as I don't have a majority of one religious committed to killing me, which it seems that the majority of those who practice a particular religion seem to be committed too.

Do you honestly believe a majority of Muslims are trying to kill you? I think it's rather narcissistic to believe that an average American such as yourself is in the crosshairs of a bulk of the billion or so Muslims in the world.

I am surrounded by Muslims daily in my work, my neighbourhood, and even my football team, and I have never once felt threatened. If you delve a little deeper into Islam, past the minority radicals who make the news, you find a religion that does actually teach peace, not too far off from Christianity.

Interesting anecdote to support my point: There's a team in my football league that has a tradition of doing the Lord's Prayer after every game with the other team. The team in question also happens to have two Muslim players, who I've witnessed engaged in this Christian prayer with everyone else. A guy on my team asked one of them why they do it, since it's not their belief, and his answer really struck a chord with me: "In Islam we are taught to respect others and their beliefs. Since most of you are Christian, we join you in your prayer as a sign of respect." Those two sentences really changed my perspective given that, as an atheist, I hadn't joined the prayer. It's these type of Muslims who make up the majority of the religion, not the one's you think are trying to murder you.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 25):
That's not the way I read it. A mandrassa is just a gateway school to more fervent Jihadist education and eventually a short life as a suicide bomber.
Quoting L-188 (Reply 27):
And that is the current popular defintion of a Mandrass for the US.

I was waiting for someone to say this. I could tell you that you're wrong until I'm blue in the face, but I'd rather have the Yale Centre for the Study of Globalization do it for me:

Quote:
Seemingly posing almost as great a risk as nuclear weapons, according to a plethora of stories, were the Pakistani madrassas. Madrassas, as the Washington Post noted in 2002, were “a breeding ground for terrorist organizations.” Articles observed that Pakistan has thousands of madrassas – implying that the country is virtually awash with training camps for terrorists masquerading as schools for boys. Journalists repeatedly profiled the Haqqani madrassa, for example, observing that it is the alma mater of 90 percent of the former Afghan Taliban leadership.

Few efforts were made to define the term “madrassas” for the American audience. As the controversy over US Senator Barack Obama’s childhood schooling earlier this year pointed up, the use of the word “madrassa” almost always carries a loaded political meaning. The New York Times in fact ran a correction to its January 24, 2007, story covering the Obama controversy:

“ [the] report that said Senator Barack Obama had attended an Islamic school or madrassa in Indonesia as a child referred imprecisely to madrassas. While some teach a radical version of Islam, most historically have not.”
Source



Flying refined.
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 31, posted (2 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4054 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 30):

Quoting L-188 (Reply 25):
as long as I don't have a majority of one religious committed to killing me, which it seems that the majority of those who practice a particular religion seem to be committed too.

Do you honestly believe a majority of Muslims are trying to kill you?

Sadly, there are many on the right who believe that with all their soul. They never got over 9/11, and they're convinced that Muslims are out to get them and this country. It's a bunch of hogwash, but you can't argue with people who have gone 'round the bend like that. You just can't.

The paranoia on the right is hitting levels never seen before: they believe the entire Muslim faith is out to get them; many believe Obama isn't an American; many believe he's a Muslim. And no amount of facts will get in the way of their hysteria.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 32, posted (2 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4050 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 31):
The paranoia on the right is hitting levels never seen before: they believe the entire Muslim faith is out to get them; many believe Obama isn't an American; many believe he's a Muslim. And no amount of facts will get in the way of their hysteria.

  
I refer to it as the new Red Scare... funny thing is, I've seen people that thought this way until they met just one Muslim... they see that that Muslim is a normal person like you or me



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 33, posted (2 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4040 times:

Here's an article for our friend L-188 to read. Maybe before condemning all Muslims as people out to kill him, he could enlighten himself a little.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/0...-but-has-global-enemies/?hpt=hp_c1

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 32):
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 31):
The paranoia on the right is hitting levels never seen before: they believe the entire Muslim faith is out to get them; many believe Obama isn't an American; many believe he's a Muslim. And no amount of facts will get in the way of their hysteria.


I refer to it as the new Red Scare

Conservatives always seem to need an enemy of some sort. abolitionists; communists; liberals; women's libbers; gays and lesbians; Muslims.

I think the reason is that, without an enemy, they cannot justify much of their ideology. If they can't scare people into voting for them, then they're toast.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19275 posts, RR: 58
Reply 34, posted (2 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4043 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 10):
Not that religion.

So which religion is OK?

Quoting L-188 (Reply 25):
Wouldn't surprise me, I would explain when Obama is so screwed up, a wacky religious schooling, a broken home, the 70's equivalent of a dad that sleep around, a mom who dragged him around the world through several questionable marriages by his low self-esteem plagued mother.

He's so screwed-up that he became the President? He's happily married with two kids and a dog? Yeah, that's screwed-up.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 25):
A mandrassa is just a gateway school to more fervent Jihadist education and eventually a short life as a suicide bomber.

That's not a fact. That's what you "feel." Most madrassas are simply the Muslim equivalent of a Catholic school.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 30):
I am surrounded by Muslims daily in my work, my neighbourhood, and even my football team, and I have never once felt threatened. If you delve a little deeper into Islam, past the minority radicals who make the news, you find a religion that does actually teach peace, not too far off from Christianity.

You find a religion that teaches the same absurd rituals with different trappings. You find a religion that preaches that it is the only way to Heaven and that all others have it wrong, just like Christianity. You find a religion that preaches that followers will receive favorable treatment from the inherent forces in the universe, while non-followers will be punished. You find a religion that preaches that blind faith in the face of basic good judgement will be rewarded. You find... a standard Abrahamic religion. They are all the same, other than the trappings.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 35, posted (2 years 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4036 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 33):
Conservatives always seem to need an enemy of some sort. abolitionists; communists; liberals; women's libbers; gays and lesbians; Muslims.

I think the reason is that, without an enemy, they cannot justify much of their ideology. If they can't scare people into voting for them, then they're toast.

Sigh... I think you need to meet and talk with some average Joe conservatives. You keep stereotyping and misunderstanding them and only seem to be listening to the extreme 10%. You do realize you're doing the exact same thing as some posters equating the most radical Muslims with all Muslims? Most conservatives are good people that simply just disagree with your point of view. Not all of them blow up abortion clinics, hate women, are homophobic, etc. SAME thing as implying that you and anyone left-of-center is a Marxist-Leninist-Zaoist. When talking about party platform, it becomes a bit more black and right, but honestly, does the Democrat party represent 100% of your views?

Source: person who knows extreme right wingers but far more normal right-of-center wingers



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9695 posts, RR: 27
Reply 36, posted (2 years 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4003 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting L-188 (Reply 27):
And that is the current popular defintion of a Mandrass for the US.

Clearly, as it's what you said here:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 25):
That's not the way I read it. A mandrassa is just a gateway school to more fervent Jihadist education and eventually a short life as a suicide bomber.


Maybe I'm missing something....

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 24):
Quoting seb146 (Reply 23):
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 12):
Democrats are just as bad. Neither party is blameless.

So, that gives the right a free pass? I don't think so.

No he is just pointing out to the other poster that it's not one party becoming a monster, it's politicians in general. Neither extreme is good

Thank you. It's amazing that you actually have to point that out; some people are so incredibly ready to be offended or to argue about non-argumentative points!

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 33):
Conservatives always seem to need an enemy of some sort. abolitionists; communists; liberals; women's libbers; gays and lesbians; Muslims.

I think the reason is that, without an enemy, they cannot justify much of their ideology. If they can't scare people into voting for them, then they're toast.

Hmmm. It's funny you should say that, considering that in doing so, you are making an enemy of conservatives.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 37, posted (2 years 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4000 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 36):
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 33):
Conservatives always seem to need an enemy of some sort. abolitionists; communists; liberals; women's libbers; gays and lesbians; Muslims.

I think the reason is that, without an enemy, they cannot justify much of their ideology. If they can't scare people into voting for them, then they're toast.

Hmmm. It's funny you should say that, considering that in doing so, you are making an enemy of conservatives.

That's what I'm trying to point out here... I know it's cliche, but people really need to step in the shoes of others. You cannot effectively debate and win the minds of others over if you completely misunderstand their point of view or if you insult them in some way (by name calling or labeling.) Doesn't make it right even if the other side does it, all it does it make the person being called a name become enraged and defensive, and no logical exchange can occur



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 38, posted (2 years 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3998 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 10):
Not that religion. As with the new curriculum in Arizona, which states they will only let the Bible be taught, that's where the author of this post is headed.

Speaking of this, I saw the funniest comment on a story about the new Arizona law:

"Can we just goddamn let the south cecede already? Seriously, this has been a 100 year war of aggression against the north now."

LOL


I think the reason that private schools of any variety can do different teaching styles etc. is because they've got more control over the kids in the class to begin with. If the kids misbehave and the teachers tell the parents there is hell to pay at home because mom and dad are paying good money and/or are concerned that the child doesn't get kicked out of the school. Public school teachers are too busy trying to get the kids to sit down and shut up (with no help from home in many cases) to delve into accommodating different learning styles.

So religion is not the answer, getting mom and dad to hold the kids accountable at home is. Unfortunately too many parents can't even take care of themselves.

So regardless of the representative's motivations, his goal of making public schools more like private schools is a pipe dream as long as the entering argument of public education is that everyone deserves an education no matter how uncommitted they or their parents are to that goal.


User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 39, posted (2 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3976 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34):
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 10):
Not that religion.

So which religion is OK?

For those on the right? Fundamental Christianity is the only game in town.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 40, posted (2 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3964 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 39):
For those on the right? Fundamental Christianity is the only game in town.

Tell that to my Republican atheist friends  

Or my Muslim Republican friend for that matter...

Please stop stereotyping!



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 41, posted (2 years 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3951 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 40):
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 39):
For those on the right? Fundamental Christianity is the only game in town.

Tell that to my Republican atheist friends

Or my Muslim Republican friend for that matter...

Please stop stereotyping!

Maybe it's time to hit the water cooler and take a break, friend. If it really bothers you that much.

The fact is one of the dominant forces within the GOP is fundamental Christianity. You may not like it, your atheist and Muslim Republican friends may not like that, but it is a fact.

Republicans that are atheist and Muslim, I'd wager, are not a large percentage of the GOP, and I doubt they're looked upon very kindly in that strange organization today.


User currently offlinejcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 39
Reply 42, posted (2 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3915 times:

Imagine if an Evangelical Christian like Michelle Bachmann (who I dislike) suggesting that she wanted to model American schools after a Protestant school-model (not that one even exists). The howls on the left would be deafening. You have an American representative suggesting that schools should be modeled after madrassahs -- where the primary goal is to learn and recite the Koran and Democrats are defending this guy? Are you f'ing kidding me?

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have such a program, and look what they have produced. Millions of radicalized men who consider murder a justified cause if people don't practice Islam. You have millions of men in Pakistan who don't even know basic English, basic Math, but abhor Hindus and Indians. This is what madrassahs produce.

I'm so sick and disgusted that Western people have actually defended this guy. Gay men who support this guy, go to your nearest Mosque and try to defend your homosexuality.



America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11461 posts, RR: 15
Reply 43, posted (2 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3906 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 24):
are there a few loudmouths and a bunch of politicians that make a big deal of it? I think you'd find they are in the minority,
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 36):
It's funny you should say that, considering that in doing so, you are making an enemy of conservatives.

Why, then, do right-wing voters keep voting those loud mouths into office? Those ones who's sole purpose in life is to make Obama a one term president and nothing more? Zero compromise (remember before 1994?) and telling anyone that any other opinions are terroristic and should be dismissed. Listen to all right-wing talking points and they say the same thing: Anyone who disagrees with the script is un-American and needs to be kicked out of the Christian nation known as The United States of America.

If you look at the policies of Barak Obama, they are nearly on par with Ronald Reagan and just about with George H.W. Bush! People stroking the egos of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, FOX "News" et al. have pushed this country so far to the right that neither HW nor Reagan could be elected as a Republican today. Even Nixon would be degraded and drummed out of the party for being the worst anti-American ever: a "liberal".

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 36):
It's amazing that you actually have to point that out

Then stop feeding into the rehtoric and just don't say anything about it at all.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinejcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 39
Reply 44, posted (2 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3901 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 43):
Why, then, do right-wing voters keep voting those loud mouths into office? Those ones who's sole purpose in life is to make Obama a one term president and nothing more? Zero compromise (remember before 1994?) and telling anyone that any other opinions are terroristic and should be dismissed. Listen to all right-wing talking points and they say the same thing: Anyone who disagrees with the script is un-American and needs to be kicked out of the Christian nation known as The United States of America.

If you look at the policies of Barak Obama, they are nearly on par with Ronald Reagan and just about with George H.W. Bush! People stroking the egos of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, FOX "News" et al. have pushed this country so far to the right that neither HW nor Reagan could be elected as a Republican today. Even Nixon would be degraded and drummed out of the party for being the worst anti-American ever: a "liberal".

Here is what I want you to do:

1. Drive to the Islamic Center of Portland. It's at 10323 SW 4th Ave., Portland

2. Walk into in the Mosque and proclaim your homosexuality during prayer hours. Be honest. Yell that you have sex with men.

3. Tell the Imam you have solidarity with their cause in Palestine.

C'mon tough guy, you have no problem calling out Republicans. Let's see if you even dare doing the same thing in a Mosque.



America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39659 posts, RR: 75
Reply 45, posted (2 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3891 times:

Seems like every election year, there is a new member that pays to join and only post political propaganda, then disappears after the election. Same thing happened in 2000, 2004, 2008 and looks like it's happened again this time around.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 42):
Imagine if an Evangelical Christian like Michelle Bachmann (who I dislike) suggesting that she wanted to model American schools after a Protestant school-model (not that one even exists). The howls on the left would be deafening. You have an American representative suggesting that schools should be modeled after madrassahs -- where the primary goal is to learn and recite the Koran and Democrats are defending this guy? Are you f'ing kidding me?

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have such a program, and look what they have produced. Millions of radicalized men who consider murder a justified cause if people don't practice Islam. You have millions of men in Pakistan who don't even know basic English, basic Math, but abhor Hindus and Indians. This is what madrassahs produce.

I'm so sick and disgusted that Western people have actually defended this guy. Gay men who support this guy, go to your nearest Mosque and try to defend your homosexuality.


  
Amen!

If members here actually listened to Congressman Carson's full speech, he goes on to speak as if America's educational system hasn't produced any successful people. That is why this man is completely off base. His suggestions are completely unnecessary.
Many schools in Indianapolis are doing fine, even those is poor neighborhoods still manage to do well and WITHOUT adopting Madrassa style teaching. Congressman Carson is just shooting off at the mouth again to grab headlines.

http://www.indystar.com/article/2012...pite-high-poverty-other-challenges



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5553 posts, RR: 6
Reply 46, posted (2 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3879 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 25):
The "Freedom of Religion" was to protect the various christian religions in the various colonies

That is one of the most perverse perversions of history I have ever seen.

Sorry, but if that were the case, the 1st Amendment would read "The government shall not ... prohibit the free excersice of the various Christian Religions".

Quoting L-188 (Reply 25):
Actually in the case of the latter the US would have our first war with them in short order as we where forced to bombard various north african ports to destroy pilots that followed that religon.

You mean the Barbary War, which ended with a declaration by Congress that the US was NOT a Christian nation?



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9695 posts, RR: 27
Reply 47, posted (2 years 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3863 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seb146 (Reply 43):
Then stop feeding into the rehtoric and just don't say anything about it at all.

I have no idea what you're talking about. How on Earth is this:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 12):
Democrats are just as bad. Neither party is blameless.

...feeding either side's rhetoric???

(that's the quote you originally responded to)

Look, I listen to both sides (well, try to avoid listening to both sides might be more accurate), and read/hear the partisan vitriol from Republicans and Democrats. Hence me saying "neither party is blameless".

I don't know why right-wingers do certain things, as I'm not one. I don't know why left-wingers do either; I'm not one of them either.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 42):
Imagine if an Evangelical Christian like Michelle Bachmann (who I dislike) suggesting that she wanted to model American schools after a Protestant school-model (not that one even exists). The howls on the left would be deafening. You have an American representative suggesting that schools should be modeled after madrassahs -- where the primary goal is to learn and recite the Koran and Democrats are defending this guy? Are you f'ing kidding me?

I'm not a Democrat or a leftie, but if Bachmann said such and specified what she was talking about, like Carson did (i.e. talking about visual vs. auditory vs. kinetic/tactile learners, and catering to each of them), I wouldn't have a problem with it. Seriously, I don't understand why I would. Advice or criticism isn't automatically invalidated because it comes from a source with whom I don't agree on all views.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineGBLKD From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (2 years 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3859 times:

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 42):
You have millions of men in Pakistan who don't even know basic English

The dominant language in Pakistan is Urdu, why would every Pakistani man need to know basic English? How much basic Urdu did your school teach you?


User currently onlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8666 posts, RR: 43
Reply 49, posted (2 years 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3855 times:

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 42):
You have millions of men in Pakistan who don't even know basic English, basic Math, but abhor Hindus and Indians. This is what madrassahs produce.

You've got the very same in China and they manage it completely without religion.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 44):
Walk into in the Mosque and proclaim your homosexuality during prayer hours. Be honest. Yell that you have sex with men.

Walk into a house of worship and disrupt the prayer? That'll land anyone in trouble anywhere.

[Edited 2012-07-08 01:13:58]


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13940 posts, RR: 63
Reply 50, posted (2 years 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3816 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 40):
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 39):
For those on the right? Fundamental Christianity is the only game in town.

Tell that to my Republican atheist friends

Or my Muslim Republican friend for that matter...

Please stop stereotyping!

Take Mrs. Aygül Özkan, state minister for social affairs and integration in the German state of Lower Saxony. She is Muslima of Turkish descent (and a lawyer by profession) and joined the conservative Christian Democrat party many years ago (as btw. quite a few Muslims with a more value conservative outlook do. Tradtional Christian voters of the party are not happy about it, because the party used in the past, up to the 1970s, toe the line of the Roman Catholic church). She caused quite a storm and was attacked by both conservative Muslim groups as well as the Catholic church for a speech, in which she advocated a ban of religious symbols in public schools, including headscarves and big signs of crosses.
BTW, her boss, the state prime minister, has the very German name of David McAllister. He is the first bi-national prime minister in Germany. His father was a Scottish officer in the British Army of the Rhine and he got educated both in Germany and the UK.
Similarly the Catholic church has joined the recent fray in Germany about the circumcision of boys on the side of the Jews and Muslims. For them the issue is to give religion more influence again in Germany, where the consitution defines the state and government to be secular and neutral, an issue which went on since Bismarck´s times.

Jan


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11461 posts, RR: 15
Reply 51, posted (2 years 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3756 times:

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 44):
you have no problem calling out Republicans. Let's see if you even dare doing the same thing in a Mosque.

What.... the....

You went off on some tangent to.... I have no idea where.

There was an Islamic center over the hill from where I used to live in Portland. On SW 35th, IIRC. There was also a large Muslim population in my neighborhood. What does any of what you said have to do with a Congressman saying how public schools are failing and need to be patterned after private schools?

BTW, I no longer live in Portland. I live in Santa Rosa, California. No Muslims, from what I see.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 47):
I have no idea what you're talking about.

It is irritating to me when someone says "They are doing something bad, so our side can do just as bad because they did it!" Then, it devolves into a whole "Well, we did it because you guys did X" and "Well, that was in response to when you guys did Y" and so forth.

Can we just get back to what the right-wing promised to win the House in 2010? That would be "We will create jobs." Unemployment is at 8.2%. If the right is all about creating jobs, where are the jobs? "Don't tax the job creators because they need to create jobs" is their mantra. So, where are the jobs they promised us?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 52, posted (2 years 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3738 times:

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 42):
Imagine if an Evangelical Christian like Michelle Bachmann (who I dislike) suggesting that she wanted to model American schools after a Protestant school-model (not that one even exists). The howls on the left would be deafening. You have an American representative suggesting that schools should be modeled after madrassahs -- where the primary goal is to learn and recite the Koran and Democrats are defending this guy? Are you f'ing kidding me?

If Frau Bachmann was simply saying we need to make our public schools as successful as many of our parochial schools, so what? But since it was a MUSLIM, you get all hysterical about it?

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 42):

I'm so sick and disgusted that Western people have actually defended this guy.

Had you even heard of him before this? Seriously? And I'll defend his, and your right, to freedom of speech. People have died in this nation to defend that. Not just for you,but for him as well.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 46):
Quoting L-188 (Reply 25):
The "Freedom of Religion" was to protect the various christian religions in the various colonies

That is one of the most perverse perversions of history I have ever seen.

I don't know if saying perverse and perversions in the same sentence is valid!

But I will say I agree-that's one of the worst interpretations of the First Amendment that I've even encountered. One that I don't even think the likes of Scalia, Thomas and Alito would agree with.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 42):
You have millions of men in Pakistan who don't even know basic English

No! Really? They can't speak English? Do you speak their language? I doubt it. So why are you even worried about someone in the Middle East not knowing English? Sorry, but the world doesn't revolve around white, English speaking people, JCS17.


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 53, posted (2 years 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3707 times:

Quite simply, if Madrasses encourage:
-exceptionalism
-study
-scholarship
-growth
-responsibility
-participation
-volunteerism
-accountability
-achievement
-athleticism

Then we should model our schools after them.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 52):
Had you even heard of him before this?

Yup, he's a racist.
This is the same guy who claimed that the Tea Party wanted them (blacks) hanging 'on a tree'. We discussed it here on A-Net, but I can't find the thread.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...s-to-see-blacks-hanging-on-a-tree/

[Edited 2012-07-08 11:49:56]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 54, posted (2 years 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3708 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 51):
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 47):
I have no idea what you're talking about.

It is irritating to me when someone says "They are doing something bad, so our side can do just as bad because they did it!" Then, it devolves into a whole "Well, we did it because you guys did X" and "Well, that was in response to when you guys did Y" and so forth.

That's not what he was saying at all, in fact, him and I recently had a PM conversation where we both agreed with your statement that just because one side does something wrong doesn't mean the other side should. I totally agree because you have a back and forth of "Barrack Hussein Obama" / "Willard," "socialist" / "Tea Bagger," etc and it just makes the conversation ignorant and hateful... degrades the thread to the quality of YouTube comments



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 55, posted (2 years 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3704 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 53):
-exceptionalism

That word is bunch of BS, in my view.

It's basically a word used by the right to somehow say Americans are better than everyone else. It's simply a mask for ultra Nationalism. The Nazi's did crap like that if you read history.

This is a blessed land, no doubt. But to imply we're somehow better than others is simply BS. It simply shows, again, how far the political right is pushing in this nation.

Let me ask you something. Let's for a moment say that we do teach "American Exceptionalism" in our schools. What do you teach? What do you ignore?

Do you only teach on the the positive things the U.S. has done? And we've done a lot of positives, no doubt.

Do you ignore those things that don't make us looks so good? Slavery; Jim Crow; the near annihilation of the Native American; the interment of Americans of Japanese descent during World War II; segregation.

It seems to me exceptionalism, as you want it, only points out the positives, and would ignore the negatives of our history. The things we've done wrong are just as important as defining us as a people as are the positives.

So, what do we teach, I ask you?


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 56, posted (2 years 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3700 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 55):
Let me ask you something. Let's for a moment say that we do teach "American Exceptionalism" in our schools. What do you teach? What do you ignore?

Though I disagree with your notion that Americans can not be exceptional and that the United States is not an exceptional nation...where in my post did you read 'American Exceptionalism'?

I wrote 'exceptionalism'. I believe in individual exceptionalism and it should be taught in schools. Kids should not be taught that they are the same as everyone else. They should be taught that they are different and can be exceptional if they do exceptional things.

Schools should strive to find these rare, exceptional students and foster their development, while balancing the needs of the other students.

We can talk about American exceptionalism in another thread.

[Edited 2012-07-08 11:33:26]

[Edited 2012-07-08 11:34:37]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 57, posted (2 years 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3674 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 56):
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 55):
Let me ask you something. Let's for a moment say that we do teach "American Exceptionalism" in our schools. What do you teach? What do you ignore?

Though I disagree with your notion that Americans can not be exceptional and that the United States is not an exceptional nation...where in my post did you read 'American Exceptionalism'?

Perhaps because we're talking about education in the United States. Simple, really.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 56):
I wrote 'exceptionalism'. I believe in individual exceptionalism and it should be taught in schools. Kids should not be taught that they are the same as everyone else. They should be taught that they are different and can be exceptional if they do exceptional things.

Fair enough. The explanation helps. I appreciate it.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9695 posts, RR: 27
Reply 58, posted (2 years 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3615 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

One more time, I guess. How does this:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 51):
It is irritating to me when someone says "They are doing something bad, so our side can do just as bad because they did it!" Then, it devolves into a whole "Well, we did it because you guys did X" and "Well, that was in response to when you guys did Y" and so forth.

...match up with this:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 12):
Democrats are just as bad. Neither party is blameless.

?????????????????

I was saying that BOTH PARTIES are at fault. EQUALLY. Both parties say "you did this so we'll do it too". That's EXACTLY what I pointed out here:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 36):

Hmmm. It's funny you should say that, considering that in doing so, you are making an enemy of conservatives.

Read what you want to read, Seb, but it's not what I said.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5553 posts, RR: 6
Reply 59, posted (2 years 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3606 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 52):
I don't know if saying perverse and perversions in the same sentence is valid!

It is. Perverse is an adjective, perversions is a noun.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 55):

It's basically a word used by the right to somehow say Americans are better than everyone else. It's simply a mask for ultra Nationalism. The Nazi's did crap like that if you read history.

For different reasons. The Nazis believed they were genetically superior to other races. A lot pro-American propaganda refers to either a cultural mindset of ingenuity, overcoming odds, and making your own way. Much of it used to be based on the "land of the free", although that has slowly disappeared as America is increasingly becoming not so free.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11461 posts, RR: 15
Reply 60, posted (2 years 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3572 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 54):
I totally agree because you have a back and forth of "Barrack Hussein Obama" / "Willard," "socialist" / "Tea Bagger," etc and it just makes the conversation ignorant and hateful... degrades the thread to the quality of YouTube comments

This is what my point was:

There are way too many nasty and hateful things said about Obama and Democrats. I use only them because I identify with their political ideology more. I try my hardest (it does not always work, but still, I try) to use facts and my own personal experience to counter what any right-wing supporters come up with and ignore the whole "he's a socialist/communist/Muslim" argument. I appriciate and applaud those on the right who do this. I wish they all would. Sadly, they don't. If we could have a simple conversation on just the issues, things would be so much better. But, people have to gum it up with FOX and Limbaugh and Beck and all the others.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 61, posted (2 years 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3539 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 60):

Usually if you politely call them out (which I have a hard time doing, sometimes I go a bit far) and just continue with the argument, it kinda invalidates their name calling and moves on with the conversation (plus you'll maintain the higher moral ground and maturity.) Throwing back mud just degrades the conversation, even though it may be fun sometimes  

Generalizations are also very bad... that's how the issue in this thread became an issue...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6471 posts, RR: 9
Reply 62, posted (2 years 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3459 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 26):
Interestingly, as per an article on the BBC website I read a while ago, in France many middleclass Muslim families send their children to private Catholic schools. The main reason is a bit stricter dress and behaviour code than on government schools and also that these private schools allow for a gang-free environment as opposed to the government schools in the immigrant districts.

They can skip religious teachings and Mass (as can do any children, since the schools receive public money). They're not very many, I can compare since I was in public school with a significant number of Muslim children (and no trouble) while my sister went to Catholic school where they were one or two. I guess the problem is not many Muslim families are middle class to begin with, but it's also that they might not know or think about putting their children there, because in practice it's almost free if you can't pay.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2706 posts, RR: 8
Reply 63, posted (2 years 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3428 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 10):
As with the new curriculum in Arizona, which states they will only let the Bible be taught

As in another thread you are wrong on this point.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 14):
even if it's clearly Unconstitutional.

Even if it clearly is Constitutional

Quoting seb146 (Reply 23):
Ignoring the fact that every right-winger out there want this nation to be a Christian theocracy.

Really, I must of missed that memo.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 25):
The "Freedom of Religion" was to protect the various christian religions in the various colonies, Quakers, Protestants, Catholics, Anglicans etc

It was to protect all denomination's including Judaism and if there had been a population of Muslim's at the time it would of covered that.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 25):
Judaism probably wasn't on the radar

Yes it was.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 25):
and definitely neither where the native American belief systems or Islamic doctrine

President Jefferson used Federal dollar's to build Churches, buy Bibles and to supply Reverend's to Christianize the Indian's

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 26):
Obama went to in Indonesia is not different from a religious affiliated elementary school in western countrie

As long as Islamic religious schools follow the same scholastic requirements that the other schools are required to follow then no one should have a problem with it. As can also be said of any private religious school.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 33):
Conservatives always seem to need an enemy of some sort. abolitionists; communists; liberals; women's libbers; gays and lesbians; Muslims.

I think the reason is that, without an enemy, they cannot justify much of their ideology. If they can't scare people into voting for them, then they're toast.

really spreading the BS thin.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 39):
For those on the right? Fundamental Christianity is the only game in town.

Missed that memo also.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 41):
The fact is one of the dominant forces within the GOP is fundamental Christianity.

And you would be wrong again.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 46):
You mean the Barbary War, which ended with a declaration by Congress that the US was NOT a Christian nation?

Which was later removed from the declaration by an amendment by Jefferson.

Quoting aloges (Reply 49):

You've got the very same in China and they manage it completely without religion

Sorry but communism is a form of religion. They just eliminated God and inserted Mao.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39659 posts, RR: 75
Reply 64, posted (2 years 23 hours ago) and read 3381 times:

Did someone set the time machine back to 2004?
I feel like I'm spiralling back in time when I read a particular 'newcomers' post.





Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5553 posts, RR: 6
Reply 65, posted (2 years 23 hours ago) and read 3368 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 63):

Which was later removed from the declaration by an amendment by Jefferson.

It wasn't a declaration, it was a treaty, which the Senate ratified and was in force until a new treaty was signed. Jefferson was not able to do such a thing.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2706 posts, RR: 8
Reply 66, posted (2 years 22 hours ago) and read 3334 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 65):
It wasn't a declaration, it was a treaty, which the Senate ratified and was in force until a new treaty was signed. Jefferson was not able to do such a thing.

Sorry I used the wrong word. I understand it is a treaty. But the rewrite of the treaty which was done in 1805 removed the phrase "is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." Tobias Lear who was Jefferson's envoy during the new treaty was the one who rewrote the article. The treaty was also broken open due to Jefferson's refusal to pay higher tributes. So yes Jefferson would have been able to do such a thing.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13940 posts, RR: 63
Reply 67, posted (2 years 21 hours ago) and read 3317 times:

The Barbary Coast War was something unusual anyway. Normally it would have been the business of the Europeans to take care of the pirate threat (which after all depopulated most of the European Mediterranean coast). But around 1805 Europe was in the middle of the Napoleonic wars, with an alliance under the British beeing very busy to prevent Napoleon from conquering Europe. He was after all the first modern military dictator, with secrtet police and all.
The American operation in the Mediterranean only stalled the pirate attacks temporarely. Around 1830, when Napoleon was definitely dead, a mixed fleet of British, French, Dutch and other ships finally bombed the pirate headquarters to bits and ended the rule of the Barbary Coast piratexs over the Mediterranean.

Jan


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5553 posts, RR: 6
Reply 68, posted (2 years 20 hours ago) and read 3312 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 66):

Sorry I used the wrong word. I understand it is a treaty. But the rewrite of the treaty which was done in 1805 removed the phrase "is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." Tobias Lear who was Jefferson's envoy during the new treaty was the one who rewrote the article. The treaty was also broken open due to Jefferson's refusal to pay higher tributes. So yes Jefferson would have been able to do such a thing.

You are correct: the second treaty didn't have that phrase (among many other phrases it added or deleted). Still doesn't mean anything.

Now, if you can point to a treaty, law, or clause in the Constitution that says the US is founded on Christianity, we'll get somewhere.

Oh, wait:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19275 posts, RR: 58
Reply 69, posted (2 years 18 hours ago) and read 3300 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 24):
No he is just pointing out to the other poster that it's not one party becoming a monster, it's politicians in general. Neither extreme is good

Except it's not true. Oh sure, there's some first-class wackos in the DNC. Far be it from me to deny that.

But let's just go over what the GOP has turned into in JUST THE LAST FOUR YEARS. They have made it clear that the number one priority is not jobs or national security or the economy, but defeating Obama. Boehner said so himself. They have INTENTIONALLY scuttled legislation that they have previously supported in the aim of scuttling the economy to hurt Obama. This has been revealed as a key strategy in internal memos and somehow, that mainstream "Liberal" press hasn't latched on to it. They have coddled Birthers. Their leaders have sat on stage and told bald-faced lies (Santorum's whopper about people in the Netherlands being afraid to go the hospital because they might be euthanized). They have booed an American serviceman. They have driven the country to the point of default because they would not negotiate even a little with their Democratic colleagues about allowing what was supposed to be a temporary tax cut to expire. Tea Party Republicans were quoted as saying that default was "no big deal" during the default crisis. And then they point the finger at the Democrats and say it's all their fault. Then, the President pushes the very same healthcare plan that the GOP wrote. The one that his opponent actually IMPLEMENTED and they call it "tyranny." They even compare him to Hitler for it. Meanwhile, they call him a "Socialist" and a "Muslim" and "Not American."

I'm sorry, but there are looneys in the DNC, but it's not nearly to this scale or to this level of noise.

I'm all for being fair and balanced, but let's face it: the GOP has gone off the deep end. This is McCarthy all over again. It's not "both sides," it's the GOP.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9695 posts, RR: 27
Reply 70, posted (2 years 18 hours ago) and read 3299 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 69):

I'm sorry, but there are looneys in the DNC, but it's not nearly to this scale or to this level of noise.

I'm all for being fair and balanced, but let's face it: the GOP has gone off the deep end. This is McCarthy all over again. It's not "both sides," it's the GOP.

Disagree. As an outsider to both parties, they're both just as full of BS to me.

Neither party is about what's good for everyone. They are about keeping their party strong and winning.

As usual, it mostly boils down to money.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 71, posted (2 years 17 hours ago) and read 3275 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 69):

I agree they've took a plunge, but I've seen some crazy stuff on the other side. Some of the stuff the OWS peeps did (SOME, not ALL) was very shady. Bush was compared to Hitler a lot, etc. But as shady as some Democratic politicians can be, I do agree there are more nut Republican congressmen these days. Whatever the result, hopefully after November they'll either live with the fact that President Obama got reelected, or they'll have their own guy in and hopefully do something productive...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19275 posts, RR: 58
Reply 72, posted (2 years 14 hours ago) and read 3249 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 71):
I agree they've took a plunge, but I've seen some crazy stuff on the other side.

Not nearly as much. Not even close to as much. It's not even a fair comparison. I agree, there's wackiness, but it's not as all-pervasive.

Look, the GOP promise to the American people has been.
1) We're going to do nothing "free market"
2) We're going to cut taxes
3) We're going to have the biggest military in the world, a huge national security complex, spend vast amounts of money on a wall across the Mexican Border (that can be defeated with a boat or a plane)
4) We're going to cut all other government spending, including eliminating Social Security without paying back all the money that everyone has paid into it.
5) We oppose abortion and gay marriage and want to pass a bunch of laws about that
6) We have no alternative healthcare plan except to claim that things are fine they way they are.

It's absolute lunacy. Economists have been ragging on these guys since day one, but they're just dismissed as "liberal academics."


User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3826 posts, RR: 1
Reply 73, posted (2 years 14 hours ago) and read 3247 times:

Quoting slider (Thread starter):

Why not, look at the bright side, your child might become the President of the United States!   




Ain't I a stinker?
User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1330 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (2 years 1 hour ago) and read 3156 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 71):
I agree they've took a plunge, but I've seen some crazy stuff on the other side. Some of the stuff the OWS peeps did (SOME, not ALL) was very shady. Bush was compared to Hitler a lot, etc. But as shady as some Democratic politicians can be, I do agree there are more nut Republican congressmen these days. Whatever the result, hopefully after November they'll either live with the fact that President Obama got reelected, or they'll have their own guy in and hopefully do something productive...

The difference is that the left-leaning "insurgent" movements, of which Occupy Wall Street received the most publicity, don't have as clear a path to the ears of meaningful political power, and, on a related note, don't have nearly as many allies who have a vested interest in their success, when compared to the right-leaning movements of a similar nature. When the Obama health plan was gestating, the Republicans' backers had at the time lost a bit of faith in the capabilities of their existing, establishment mechanism, and started to circumvent it, placing the balance of power in favor of the Tea Party and other throw-the-bums-out type inclinations, which pulled the Republican party as a whole further to the right. (Which, from my perspective, is a direction it had been going for a long time anyhow.) Rightly or wrongly, good portions of the Republican House of Representatives attribute their seats to this rightward pressure, and don't want to be seen making sense to anyone else but the right-wing insurgent demographic. Hence bringing up abortion at the first opportunity (a lot of the Tea Party is actually the socially conservative wing of the Republican party under a new name,) and holding any legislative accomplishment, even if it's agreeable to the public as a whole, hostage to things like union-busting or tax cuts that would lower revenue even further in a condition of growing deficit.

What does this have to do with the OP? Not a great deal, so let me try to bring things back on track. For a long time now, hundreds of years, a portion of the electorate, the size of which is difficult to determine, has voted not strictly on "who would lead me best" but on "who is like me, who sees the way I do." Part of that is charisma and the "common touch," simply a politician's skill at interpersonal relationships. But another part is derived more from intrinsic or demographic facts of the candidate and of the country, and the candidate's skill at exploiting them. At first this manifested itself in small ways because only a few demographics could vote anyhow- think white men. But the franchise has grown. Sometimes in fits and starts as laws go back and forth to change the conditions of voting, but as a whole, we've been adding more and more identities of individual to the electorate and the larger sphere of public debate- women, more classes of immigrant, African-Americans, gays. That presents a tempting opportunity, for any variety of politician. The newer voters, the more recently included demographics- they're presented, overtly or through innuendo, as a dilution to the power of the established electorate and the politicians which it identifies as its own. But by the letter of the law, they're just as much capable of exercising the franchise and the rights extended to them as the establishment- just as much Americans.

So for generations effort after effort has been made to change the spirit of the law in people's minds- who an American is, and thus who can be properly identified with as a candidate of the "real people." Since the Southern Strategy went into effect and the center of Republican power has moved south and west, the GOP has done this more- there's no more established a voting demographic than white men, and race is the largest and most fearful splinter of identity- but that's not to say no one is blameless. But as time has gone by, due to both increasingly tolerant attitudes toward race and religion and the shift of the demographics themselves, fewer and fewer overt appeals to identity on that basis reach a wide audience. Now also we're at war, fighting terrorist action by Islamic militants, who were until 2001 poorly understood by many, from a poorly understood region and culture. That lack of understanding means assumption of the worst, and that means the opportunists and bigots and lunatics can interject their rhetoric with that of the more reasoned, turning concepts like "sharia law" and as we hear in the thread, "madrassa," into scare phrases to hurl at opponents. And the people that feel under threat can close ranks and identify themselves against the Islamic enemy. The far right has done this first, painting the left in various ways as insufficiently committed to the threat, or trying to turn the United States into an Islamic state. The logic only barely holds in the most favorable contexts. Most Islamists derive from cultures very unfavorable to homosexuality and not so hot on women's rights either, theocrats to the core. Why the heck would the liberals, in other debates usually favoring extension of rights to homosexuals and greater equality for women, want the very opposite of pluralism to be the preferred doctrine of the United States?


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19275 posts, RR: 58
Reply 75, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3131 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 74):
The logic only barely holds in the most favorable contexts. Most Islamists derive from cultures very unfavorable to homosexuality and not so hot on women's rights either, theocrats to the core. Why the heck would the liberals, in other debates usually favoring extension of rights to homosexuals and greater equality for women, want the very opposite of pluralism to be the preferred doctrine of the United States?

It's because the voter base is not interested in logic. They are interested in identity, as you so rightly point out. So what these right-wing pundits do is that they paint the entire Left (meaning really a large majority of the country) as "NOT US." They are pro-gay, pro-Muslim theocracy, anti-Christian, pro-socialism, pro-illegal immigrant, pro-big-government, anti-military, anti-gun, and of course, anti-American. And, worst of all, they KILL BABIES!

As you point out, that is internally logically inconsistent. You can't be all of those things at once. You can't want to institute Sharia law and gay marriage and protect abortion rights all at the same time. But that's not the point at all. The point is that in order to gain power, you have to get public support. One very good way to get public support is to scare the living daylights out of people. One very good way to do that is to lie about the "others." You create a false sense of kinship. It's "Us good guys" vs. "Them evil guys."

We've seen this before; it's been the root of every single fascist dictatorship that has been bent on genocide. Not just Germany. Serbia, Rwanda, etc. etc. etc. You appeal to the basest of instincts and this is the result.

For this precise reason, most of Western Europe has limits on freedom of speech that state that you cannot advocate hatred against a group of people. They also mandate that all children must go to school (rather than staying at home to be religiously indoctrinated by extremist parents). They do this because they have seen a very frightening fascist dictatorship and genocide and they have determined that it will never happen again. I worry that we may be headed down the same road here. Am I being overly dramatic? Well, I dunno... Rick Santorum stood on the pulpit and applauded as the Reverend Jeremiad White said that all non-Christians (his brand of Christian, of course) and gays should "get out" of America. Rick Santorum didn't win the nomination but he sure won a lot of primaries. As a gay Jew, that gives me a serious case of the willies.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 76, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3118 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 74):
the Republicans' backers had at the time lost a bit of faith in the capabilities of their existing, establishment mechanism, and started to circumvent it, placing the balance of power in favor of the Tea Party and other throw-the-bums-out type inclinations, which pulled the Republican party as a whole further to the right.

If you want to "fix" things, or redo them as you see fit, the first step is to get into power which means getting those currently in power out of power, which means doing and saying whatever is necessary to do so. Getting Obama out of power isn't an unworthy goal, but people will ultimately be judged by what they do afterward.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 75):
So what these right-wing pundits do is that they paint the entire Left (meaning really a large majority of the country) as "NOT US." They are pro-gay, pro-Muslim theocracy, anti-Christian, pro-socialism, pro-illegal immigrant, pro-big-government, anti-military, anti-gun, and of course, anti-American. And, worst of all, they KILL BABIES!

And the left wing paints the right wing as a bunch of Christian fundamentalist, racist bigots hell bent on enslaving anyone with a net worth of less than $10 million. What's your point?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 75):
For this precise reason, most of Western Europe has limits on freedom of speech that state that you cannot advocate hatred against a group of people. They also mandate that all children must go to school (rather than staying at home to be religiously indoctrinated by extremist parents).

You talk about inherent contradictions in the right wing narrative, but what about liberals? The whole thing seems to be that they are in favor of freedom (to marry whoever, abortions, etc.) as long as you agree with them. Anything resembling hate speech or religious indoctrination and they're ready to come down on you, hard.

If you want freedom, you have to make that freedom with no strings attached. Inherent with freedom of speech is the freedom to say dumb things. No cutting it off as soon as someone uses it to do something you don't agree with.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13940 posts, RR: 63
Reply 77, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3119 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 75):
Quoting Newark727 (Reply 74):
The logic only barely holds in the most favorable contexts. Most Islamists derive from cultures very unfavorable to homosexuality and not so hot on women's rights either, theocrats to the core. Why the heck would the liberals, in other debates usually favoring extension of rights to homosexuals and greater equality for women, want the very opposite of pluralism to be the preferred doctrine of the United States?

It's because the voter base is not interested in logic. They are interested in identity, as you so rightly point out. So what these right-wing pundits do is that they paint the entire Left (meaning really a large majority of the country) as "NOT US." They are pro-gay, pro-Muslim theocracy, anti-Christian, pro-socialism, pro-illegal immigrant, pro-big-government, anti-military, anti-gun, and of course, anti-American. And, worst of all, they KILL BABIES!

Um, I´ve seen this contradiction in some leftwing feminists, who accept male chauvinist behaviour from members of other cultures, which they would never tolerate from a man of their own culture.

Jan


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19275 posts, RR: 58
Reply 78, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3114 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):
You talk about inherent contradictions in the right wing narrative, but what about liberals? The whole thing seems to be that they are in favor of freedom (to marry whoever, abortions, etc.) as long as you agree with them. Anything resembling hate speech or religious indoctrination and they're ready to come down on you, hard.

Because those things are anti-freedom.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):
If you want freedom, you have to make that freedom with no strings attached.

Bull honkey. There are plenty of strings attached on freedom. You aren't free to just murder people or rob them. You aren't free to drive without a license. You aren't free to publicly tell lies about me. You aren't even free to smoke pot in the privacy of your home in this country.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):
And the left wing paints the right wing as a bunch of Christian fundamentalist, racist bigots hell bent on enslaving anyone with a net worth of less than $10 million.

Because it's very often true. A good portion of the right wing is made up of fundamentalists and racists. Self-avowed, no less. Not all. Maybe not even most. But certainly a good portion. Anyone defining him or herself as a "social conservative" in the current milieu is a priori a bigot.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):
If you want to "fix" things, or redo them as you see fit, the first step is to get into power which means getting those currently in power out of power, which means doing and saying whatever is necessary to do so.

Including advocating internment, mass deporation, and mass murder? Because that's exactly what's been done. Sorry, but the ends do not justify such means ever.


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 79, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3104 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 78):
Anyone defining him or herself as a "social conservative" in the current milieu is a priori a bigot.

Pretty bold statement there, Doc. Defend it.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19275 posts, RR: 58
Reply 80, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3094 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 79):
Pretty bold statement there, Doc. Defend it.

I have yet to meet a "social conservative" who believes that gays should have the same legal rights as straights. In fact, that is a defining chacteristic of an American "social conservative."

The belief that a subset of people should --without any due process or secular justification-- have different legal treatment than the rest of society is inherently bigotry. And I stand by that statement without apology.

In the past, "social conservatives" have opposed basic civil rights, they have advocated that women should not work, opposed womens' suffrage, opposed interracial marriage, and even opposed the use of anesthesia during childbirth (and sought to have it banned).

This is a group of people who hold themselves superior to the rest of society, which they view with great scorn, and view themselves as the saviors of Americans from themselves.


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 81, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3089 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 80):
I have yet to meet a "social conservative" who believes that gays should have the same legal rights as straights. In fact, that is a defining chacteristic of an American "social conservative."

So, what you're saying, is that if I don't support making homosexuals a 'protected class', I am a bigot? Even though I support gay marriage, I'm still a bigot?

What about my opposition to Affirmative Action? Bigot?
Opposition to abortion? Sexist bigot?
Illegal immigration? Xenophobic bigot?
etc, etc, etc,.

Doc, the problem with the left is their intolerance of opposing viewpoints. In the mind of a liberal, there can be no coherent argument to support the opposing viewpoint on social issues. Thus, they throw out the word 'bigot' and dismiss the argument.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1247 posts, RR: 3
Reply 82, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3074 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 81):
Doc, the problem with the left is their intolerance of opposing viewpoints. In the mind of a liberal, there can be no coherent argument to support the opposing viewpoint on social issues. Thus, they throw out the word 'bigot' and dismiss the argument.

Neither the left nor the right is very tolerant of opposing viewpoints, as a quick scan through the topics on this board would demonstrate.

There is a difference in how I view the issue of gay marriage/abortion/religion vs. a lot of my GOP-voting friends though. For me social issues are very important when voting, whereas for them it doesn't matter. We broadly have the same opinions (I'm not likely to be friends with somebody who is a gay-hating pro-life Christian, for example), and we have vaguely similar views on the economy and most social issues, albeit with a few variations relating to the finer points (not the overall thrust) of the healthcare law.

However, despite having similar views, we tend to vote for parties radically different from each other. I cannot in good conscience vote for a party with the social views of the GOP, but I can accept the differences between my fiscal views and the Democrats'. They cannot in good conscience vote for a party with the fiscal views of the Democrats, but can accept the differences in social policy between them and the GOP.

It's a horrible political system which divides us, and occasionally it's good to remember that the majority of people want a happy, healthy, wealthy society- we just generally want to do things in a different order.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 83, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3071 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 81):
So, what you're saying, is that if I don't support making homosexuals a 'protected class', I am a bigot?

How are they being made a protected class? Freedom from discrimination is as protective as banning "whites only" schools or targeting someone because they are a Mexican. If I am wrong, please correct me. Targeting someone just because they are a homosexual... that's discrimination

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 81):
Even though I support gay marriage, I'm still a bigot?

What about my opposition to Affirmative Action? Bigot?
Opposition to abortion? Sexist bigot?
Illegal immigration? Xenophobic bigot?

Depends on the reasons. I can't think of a logical, non-religious reason for #1, #2 I personally see as reverse discrimination, #3 attracts a lot more flack than it deserves (everyone I've seen that's anti-abortion focuses on the baby's life and not "oppressing women,") and #4 I don't think anyone is pro-illegal immigration, but the treatment of them and potential racism for Mexicans in general can be a problem.

As long as you have legit reasons that don't go against someone's rights, it's seen as valid. If opposed to gay-marriage because you don't like gays, that's bigotry, if you're opposed to it because the Bible said so, very well, but there is a separation of church and state for a reason, and if you have some sketchy reason you have to conjure up and overly explain because it doesn't make sense (ie: "it's unnatural, what does that mean?" Lots of things are "unnatural") then you may be in denial like I used to be

Edit for grammar error

[Edited 2012-07-10 17:33:34]


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 84, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3063 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 81):

Doc, the problem with the left is their intolerance of opposing viewpoints

Raise the red flag on that one!

Tell me, who is blocking equal rights for LGBT? The right, or the left?

Who are the ones who still block equal pay for equal work, and want to deny women basic reproductive rights? The right, or the left?

Who are the ones passing what are no doubt Unconstitutional voting laws designed to keep people who have the absolute right to vote from doing their Constitutional privilege? The right, or the left?

Who has been holding up legislation, sub-cabinet level appointments, and judgeships that the president has sent forth, because they don't want to compromise, and their goal is solely to defeat the incumbent president? The right, or the left?

Now, tell me again, with a straight face, who are the intolerant ones?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83):

How are they being made a protected class? Freedom from discrimination is as protective as banning "whites only" schools or targeting someone because they are a Mexican. If I am wrong, please correctly, but targeting someone just because they are a homosexual... that's discrimination

BINGO! Conservatives said the same thing about slaves and blacks; they said it about women's rights, and now they say it about LGTB's. The Constitution states that we "endowed by our Creator, with certain inalienable rights, among those being Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. By telling LGTB's they cannot marry; by telling them they cannot have the same rights as other Americans ,solely because they ARE LGBT, is Unconstitutional. If you deny them the liberty of marriage, you are not supporting the Constitution.


User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 85, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3042 times:

Want another example? Read this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...a-republicans-to-mi_n_1662173.html

You know had this been Ann Romney, the Republican school board members would have welcomed her with open arms. Now, again, who doesn't like other points of view?


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19275 posts, RR: 58
Reply 86, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3043 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 81):
So, what you're saying, is that if I don't support making homosexuals a 'protected class', I am a bigot? Even though I support gay marriage, I'm still a bigot?

Name me ONE person or organization that has advocated making homosexuals a "protected class."

I bazigajillion-dare you.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 81):
What about my opposition to Affirmative Action? Bigot?
Opposition to abortion? Sexist bigot?
Illegal immigration? Xenophobic bigot?
etc, etc, etc,.

I wouldn't argue that any of those necessarily make you bigoted. And so your argument that the left considers dissent bigoted is invalid. I also wouldn't consider illegal immigrantion to be in the realm of "social conservativism" and more an immigration issue. I consider current right-wing ideas about policy with respect to illegal immigration foolish, but not inherently bigoted.

If you support gay marriage and if you believe that sexual orientation should be protected from discrimination, then you cannot be considered a bigot. If you believe that sexual orientation should be specifically excluded from legal protection, then the opposite is true.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 81):
Thus, they throw out the word 'bigot' and dismiss the argument.
Quoting zckls04 (Reply 82):
It's a horrible political system which divides us, and occasionally it's good to remember that the majority of people want a happy, healthy, wealthy society- we just generally want to do things in a different order.

There is a significant minority who think that the path to happiness, wealth, and health is to be made by harming or eliminating certain groups of people. Gays and Muslims are the current whipping boys in our country.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83):
If opposed to gay-marriage because you don't like gays, that's bigotry, if you're opposed to it because the Bible said so, very well,

Nope. Sorry. The Bible says nothing about same-sex marriage. It says something about gay sex, but that's all. The Bible also can be used to defend racism. It can be used to defend the denial of anesthesia to women in labor. It can be used to defend a whole bunch of horrible things. Look at what certain people use the Q'uran to defend. Sorry, but religion does not defend any behavior.

I'm sorry, but I cannot accept someone's opposition to gay rights on biblical grounds any more than I can on personal grounds. If you're arguing that you're just doing what the Bible says, then what you are REALLY doing is using the Bible to justify your own desires.

"I mistrust those who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice how it always coincides with their own desires." -Susan B. Anthony, during a congressional debate in which social conservatives wanted to ban anesthesia for women in labor on the grounds that Genesis commands that women should bear their children with pain.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9695 posts, RR: 27
Reply 87, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3042 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 82):
I cannot in good conscience vote for a party with the social views of the GOP, but I can accept the differences between my fiscal views and the Democrats'.

Same here. But at the same time, I'm not a member of any political party.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 82):
It's a horrible political system which divides us, and occasionally it's good to remember that the majority of people want a happy, healthy, wealthy society- we just generally want to do things in a different order.

  

I'm not usually friends with people who are very political. I don't know how all my friends would vote in any given election. Generally we see relatively similarly on issues, but not always.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 88, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3032 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 86):
Nope. Sorry. The Bible says nothing about same-sex marriage. It says something about gay sex, but that's all.

True, I recently discovered this and forgot. In fact, there is a lot of debate on the real translation of the wording of some parts of the Bible (gay men vs male prostitutes for example.)

But it really doesn't concern me, I don't really buy into the Old Testament laws. I'm Christian and follow Christ, which includes not marginalizing and discriminating against certain groups (homosexuals.) Call it unconventional, I call it thinking for myself and not through 2000 years of politics and distortion



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 89, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3021 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 86):
Name me ONE person or organization that has advocated making homosexuals a "protected class."
http://www.fairness.org/Issues/tabid/583/Default.aspx

The Fairness Campaign is part of a statewide coalition aimed at the passage of a statewide Fairness law, protecting all Kentuckians from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations.

How else to 'protect' certain people from discrimination other than make them a protected class?

Doc, I'm not saying it's 'the gay agenda' or anything such silliness as that, but someone is not a bigot or a racist or a xenophobe or a sexist or a whatever because they have a principled disagreement with a position. And, way too many liberals, subscribe to the ideology that paints those in opposition to the liberal positions as (pick your epithet).



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 90, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3020 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 78):
Because those things are anti-freedom.

Hate speech isn't anything as long as there is no action to back it up, which is a crime. Neither is religious indoctrination, you don't have to listen or let it affect you in any way.

Just face the fact that you aren't really in favor of freedom. You're in favor of some freedom for some people who you agree with.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 78):
You aren't free to just murder people or rob them.

...because that encroaches on someone else's rights. Nobody's rights are being encroached upon if they simply say or write something that is their opinion and not defamation.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 78):
Because it's very often true. A good portion of the right wing is made up of fundamentalists and racists. Self-avowed, no less. Not all. Maybe not even most. But certainly a good portion.

I'm sure you have comprehensive, quantitative information to back that up...

But since there isn't, you're more than welcome to paint with as broad a brush as you like. Like I said, being free means being free to do dumb things. But you should take a minute to consider how saying "Social conservatives are bigots" is different than racists saying that "Black men are criminals and black women are welfare queens" or homophobes saying "gay men are pedophiles." Then ask yourself who's a bigot.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 81):
Doc, the problem with the left is their intolerance of opposing viewpoints.

It's not even that. I don't expect them to be tolerant of other viewpoints since they believe that they are wrong. I don't expect anyone to play along with people they believe are misguided unless it benefits them. The issue is pretending to be tolerant of everything when in fact they are only tolerant of people who agree with them. How tolerant are you if you get together with people just like you to pat yourselves on the back for being so tolerant?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 91, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3018 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 89):
How else to 'protect' certain people from discrimination other than make them a protected class?

It's NOT making homosexuals a protected class. It's protecting everyone. Us heterosexuals cannot be discriminated against if these laws are enacted. The laws say no one can be discriminated against based on sexual orientation not "homosexuals cannot be discriminated against [but heterosexuals can]"



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1330 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3004 times:

I think fr8mech is referring to the legal standard of a "protected class" as it refers to certain hate crime and civil rights legislation, but I'll be honest, it's been a long time since I took civics class and I'm rusty on the particulars.

User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1247 posts, RR: 3
Reply 93, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2996 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 86):
There is a significant minority who think that the path to happiness, wealth, and health is to be made by harming or eliminating certain groups of people. Gays and Muslims are the current whipping boys in our country.

I agree totally with you there- it's a significant minority and it is one I find as unacceptable as you do. However I do believe that a majority of people have much more centrist views and that the political system in this country does not accurately represent the populace. Perhaps that's just wishful thinking....



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19275 posts, RR: 58
Reply 94, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2978 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 90):
Hate speech isn't anything as long as there is no action to back it up, which is a crime. Neither is religious indoctrination, you don't have to listen or let it affect you in any way.

Hate speech is inciting violence. And try telling a little kid that religious indoctrination is his own choice when his parents will tell him he will suffer eternally for not going along. Yeah, that's not coercive.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 90):
Just face the fact that you aren't really in favor of freedom. You're in favor of some freedom for some people who you agree with.

On the contrary, I am for the freedom of individuals to do whatever they want as long as it does not attempt to coerce others to go along with them or violate the rights of others to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 90):
I'm sure you have comprehensive, quantitative information to back that up...

Given the fact that David Duke would argue that he's not really a racist, that's impossible.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 90):
The issue is pretending to be tolerant of everything when in fact they are only tolerant of people who agree with them.

I guess I'm not a leftist, then. I'm tolerant of those who are willing to tolerate me. Someone trying to pass a law to selectively curtail my rights isn't tolerance. And I don't have to tolerate intolerance.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 89):
How else to 'protect' certain people from discrimination other than make them a protected class?

You are NOT making homosexuals a protected class any more than a ban on racial discrimination makes Vietnamese into a protected class. Are you aware that there are gay-owned-and-operated businesses who refuse to hire straight employees? Did you know that this in no way violates Federal law? Is that OK with you? It's not with me.

Now, we can disagree on whether the initial Civil Rights Act should have been passed in the '60's, and whether private businesses and services should be permitted to choose to discriminate. Ron Paul argues that they should, in fact, and I actually don't believe he's a bigot.

But you are not talking about gays as a protected class; you are talking about gays as an excluded class. If there is non-discrimination legislation and sexual orientation is not listed as a class, then that actually excludes gays and lesbians, and to argue that sexual orientation should be excluded from the law is inherently bigoted.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21421 posts, RR: 56
Reply 95, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2967 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 89):
How else to 'protect' certain people from discrimination other than make them a protected class?

Having the same rights as everyone else does not make one part of a "protected class." A "protected class" is one that has extra rights over others. Nobody's been calling for that to apply to the gay community.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 89):
Doc, I'm not saying it's 'the gay agenda' or anything such silliness as that, but someone is not a bigot or a racist or a xenophobe or a sexist or a whatever because they have a principled disagreement with a position.

Depends on the position. You can come up with the most principled argument that women should be discouraged from working because their place is at home raising families, but you're still being sexist.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 90):
Nobody's rights are being encroached upon if they simply say or write something that is their opinion and not defamation.

Unless you're trying to get something made illegal. Then you're encroaching on people's rights.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 96, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2965 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 95):

Depends on the position. You can come up with the most principled argument that women should be discouraged from working because their place is at home raising families, but you're still being sexist.

And, in a free land, that's allowed, but it certainly doesn't make it right?


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13940 posts, RR: 63
Reply 97, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2929 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 75):
For this precise reason, most of Western Europe has limits on freedom of speech that state that you cannot advocate hatred against a group of people. They also mandate that all children must go to school (rather than staying at home to be religiously indoctrinated by extremist parents).

You talk about inherent contradictions in the right wing narrative, but what about liberals? The whole thing seems to be that they are in favor of freedom (to marry whoever, abortions, etc.) as long as you agree with them. Anything resembling hate speech or religious indoctrination and they're ready to come down on you, hard.

We know from bitter experience that the Nazis would, even today, if they had a chance, repeat all the mass killings they carried out in the 1930-40. The ideology hasn´t changed. They still believe that different groups of humans have different values and that some should be exterminated. Oh, sure, they would sugarcoat their doctrine until they are firmly in power, as they did it in the early 1930s (do you think they went ahead right away with arresting and killing kids? No, they set up their first concentration camps in 1933, but there the prisoners were mostly leftwing politicians, who were despised by the nationalist population majority anyway. Only by and by they extended their target range and the whole genocide only came into full swing in the 1940s, when the population was distracted by the war).
Never again!

Jan


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 98, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2907 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 84):
If you deny them the liberty of marriage, you are not supporting the Constitution.



That sounds terribly unpatriotic these silly "un-american" GOP peoples are a right laugh.

I still don't understand how a law against gay marriage possibly works, there seems to be no logic and seems odd more than anything.

Fred

Edited: Apparently I spell anything:enything  bigthumbsup 

[Edited 2012-07-11 04:08:16]

User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 99, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2888 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83):
As long as you have legit reasons that don't go against someone's rights,

Who defines 'legit'?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 91):
It's NOT making homosexuals a protected class. It's protecting everyone. Us heterosexuals cannot be discriminated against if these laws are enacted. The laws say no one can be discriminated against based on sexual orientation not "homosexuals cannot be discriminated against [but heterosexuals can]"

Have you ever tried to fire a black person? How about a female? How about a white person? I have been involved in the termination of employment of all 3 types, not to mention a few others. And, I will tell you, the standard to fire a white person is nowhere near the standard to fire a member of a group that is the subject of anti-discrimination laws.

In fact, I was involved in the termination of a female management person. Terminating management tends to be a simple, straight forward process (after the senior folks have crossed the t's and dotted the i's), but we spent more time on this termination than we did on some of the white, male union terminations. If homosexuals are added to the list, they become a 'protected class'.

I am vehemently against any protected classes. That is discrimination.

I guess we are way off topic here, but I am astounded that reasonable people feel free to 'discriminate' all day long against one class of people, through the force of government.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 94):
Ron Paul argues that they should, in fact, and I actually don't believe he's a bigot.

I don't know if I'd go as far as Dr. Paul, but I certainly understand where he's coming from.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2706 posts, RR: 8
Reply 100, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2875 times:

You say this

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 78):
You aren't free to publicly tell lies about me.

But then add these

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 78):
A good portion of the right wing is made up of fundamentalists and racists.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 78):
Anyone defining him or herself as a "social conservative" in the current milieu is a priori a bigot.

So it okay for you to lie about me but it is not okay to lie about you?

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 84):
Tell me, who is blocking equal rights for LGBT? The right, or the left?


Some , but I think a majority have come around and believe that anyone can marry whomever they want. No special lwas should be needed and no laws defining civil marriages as being between a man and woman are not required either. As far as the church they should be left alone to make their own decision's on this with out being chastised.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 84):
Who are the ones who still block equal pay for equal work

That would be the Obama white house in case you missed that.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 84):
and want to deny women basic reproductive rights?

What the hell is basic reproductive rights and exactly how are they denying them?

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 84):
Who are the ones passing what are no doubt Unconstitutional voting laws designed to keep people who have the absolute right to vote from doing their Constitutional privilege?

Having to be a legal citizen and an ID to vote is unconstitutional?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 94):
I am for the freedom of individuals to do whatever they want as long as it does not attempt to coerce others to go along with them or violate the rights of others to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So why then are you for Obamacare? It does to me everything that you claim something should not. It taxes me at the tip of the IRS spear at the threat of going to jail. The extra cost and tax then violates my attempt to take care of my families life, liberty and happiness. You cannot have it both ways. Obamacare, Social Security and medicaid have absolutely nothing to do with my freedoms as an individual. By not wanting to participate in them I am in no way taking away someone else freedoms or the individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 6
Reply 101, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2868 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 100):
So it okay for you to lie about me but it is not okay to lie about you?

At worst it's an opinion, not a lie, and in fact he's correct.

As for the rest, not much point in rehashing.


User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 102, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2872 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 100):

Some , but I think a majority have come around and believe that anyone can marry whomever they want. No special lwas should be needed and no laws defining civil marriages as being between a man and woman are not required either. As far as the church they should be left alone to make their own decision's on this with out being chastised.

I think you're right there. But who IS passing laws barring gays from marriage, or, in some cases, even civil unions? Conservative legislatures and governments, for the overwhelming part.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 100):

That would be the Obama white house in case you missed that.

That is not true, sorry. It's conservatives.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 100):

Having to be a legal citizen and an ID to vote is unconstitutional?

This isn't aimed at illegals, and you know it. It's aimed at poorer voters, who often don't have a drivers license or state ID, and who, up til now, have never had to show any. And we can skip with the "well, it's supposed to help with fraud", because that's just a smokescreen. You can count the cases of fraud in major elections using less than the fingers on both your hands. If fraud is really the issue, where are the charges and convictions against all these supposedly fraudulent voters?


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2706 posts, RR: 8
Reply 103, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2845 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 102):
I think you're right there. But who IS passing laws barring gays from marriage, or, in some cases, even civil unions? Conservative legislatures and governments, for the overwhelming part.

I am with you on this point. They should not be doing this and should be marginalized. Why should anyone care if they have civil unions, marriage or civil contracts? I do not understand why we waste time with this crap. It does the conservative cause no good.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 102):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 100):
That would be the Obama white house in case you missed that.
That is not true, sorry. It's conservatives.

Obama White House pays Woman less than Men

http://www.politisite.com/2012/04/11...te-house-pays-woman-less-than-men/

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 102):
This isn't aimed at illegals, and you know it. It's aimed at poorer voters,

Sorry but anything you say on this is your opinion. The laws effect all citizens equally.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 102):
who often don't have a drivers license or state ID, and who, up til now, have never had to show any

To get any government benefits or to cash a check they have. So stop with the nonsense.

Quoting rampart (Reply 101):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 100):So it okay for you to lie about me but it is not okay to lie about you?
At worst it's an opinion, not a lie, and in fact he's correct.

If an opinion is wrong and told without any facts or any known truth then it would be a lie.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21421 posts, RR: 56
Reply 104, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2795 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 99):
If homosexuals are added to the list, they become a 'protected class'.

So what you're basically saying is that you want it to be easier to fire a homosexual for being gay than it is to fire a black person for being black.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 103):
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 102):
This isn't aimed at illegals, and you know it. It's aimed at poorer voters,

Sorry but anything you say on this is your opinion. The laws effect all citizens equally.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France

If you think those laws aren't being targeted for political gain, you're not living in reality. Hell, one state legislator even had the balls to just flat-out admit that they're doing it to help Romney win.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 105, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2791 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 102):
I think you're right there. But who IS passing laws barring gays from marriage, or, in some cases, even civil unions? Conservative legislatures and governments, for the overwhelming part.

Just a point of order here...I believe everytime the question has been put to The People, The People have voted against it, haven't they? Even in California? But, it's not the first time, nor will it be the last time, The People have been wrong.


Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 102):
That would be the Obama white house in case you missed that.

That is not true, sorry. It's conservatives.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-neither-...s-women-white-house-205600143.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...se-male-counterparts.html?ITO=1490
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehic...ite_house_pays_women_less_than_men

Quoting Mir (Reply 104):
So what you're basically saying is that you want it to be easier to fire a homosexual for being gay than it is to fire a black person for being black.

No, what I'm saying is I want to be able to fire (or hire) a person for his performance and not be asked to prove I didn't fire (or hire) him because he was gay or black or Muslim or a she.
Let me ask you this: how long after homosexuality becomes a protected class will it become necessary for employers to provide employment numbers on homosexuals, as they do for blacks and women and other members of protected classes?

Protected classes and affirmative action are state sponsered bigotry.

Edited to change 'racism' to 'bigotry'.



[Edited 2012-07-11 14:17:19]

[Edited 2012-07-11 14:49:28]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21421 posts, RR: 56
Reply 106, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2779 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 105):
No, what I'm saying is I want to be able to fire (or hire) a person for his performance and not be asked to prove I didn't fire (or hire) him because he was gay or black or Muslim or a she.

I want that too. But let's be honest: there are people out there who do fire people because they are gay or black or Muslim or female, and thus it is necessary to be able to prove that those are not the reasons for being fired in order to preserve equal rights of employment (which, IMO, is more important to preserve than the ease with which a business can fire someone).

I will say, though, that I don't think the burden of proof should be on the employer to show that a firing was motivated by performance - it should be on the employee to show that it wasn't.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 107, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2779 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 99):
I am vehemently against any protected classes. That is discrimination.

Protected class doesn't mean a woman, a black, or a gay man cannot be fired, it means you cannot fire a woman for being a woman, a black man for being black, or a gay man for being gay. I agree that there are cases where someone will get pissed and say they were fired only because they are _________. That abuse is not right but it should not mean we should just ditch the laws and allow discrimination to go on.

Are you for repealing laws that protects discrimination against race, gender, etc, in addition to sexual orientation? If you are, I still disagree, but at least it's more consistent...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 108, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2776 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 107):
Are you for repealing laws that protects discrimination against race, gender, etc, in addition to sexual orientation? If you are, I still disagree, but at least it's more consistent...

Of course I am. I want no protected classes. None, zero, zip.

Quoting Mir (Reply 106):
I will say, though, that I don't think the burden of proof should be on the employer to show that a firing was motivated by performance - it should be on the employee to show that it wasn't.

Unfortunately, the burden of proof, in practice, appears to be with the employer.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21421 posts, RR: 56
Reply 109, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2761 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 108):
I want no protected classes. None, zero, zip.

So you do want people to be able to fire someone for being a woman, or being Hispanic.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2706 posts, RR: 8
Reply 110, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 109):
So you do want people to be able to fire someone for being a woman, or being Hispanic.

So everyone is protected except white males? Seems to be what you guys keep saying. There should be no laws protecting classes. That is racist and bigotry on part of the state. I have seen like other people who cannot be fired for performance because of the color of their skin. But a white guy can be fired for no reason and no one raises an eyebrow. It is racism sanctioned by the state and needs to be stopped. You are never going to stop racists through legislation. You are just creating more racism and creating resentment among others.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 107):
That abuse is not right but it should not mean we should just ditch the laws and allow discrimination to go on.

It goes on or even makes it worse through state sponsored racism.

Quoting Mir (Reply 109):
So you do want people to be able to fire someone for being a woman, or being Hispanic.

It will happen anyways. They will just find anotherr reason to do it. Or not even hire them in the first place. If you think legislation has changed anything you are fooling yourselves.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21421 posts, RR: 56
Reply 111, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2746 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 110):
So everyone is protected except white males?

If you read Fre8mech's link, they're protected as well.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 112, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2748 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 110):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 107):
That abuse is not right but it should not mean we should just ditch the laws and allow discrimination to go on.

It goes on or even makes it worse through state sponsored racism.
Anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action laws are not mutually exclusive... getting rid of anti-discrimination laws just because they are sometimes abused is like getting rid of all guns because people use them a lot in murder... I know you're a fan of the 2nd Amendment like me (I think, or else my comparison is useless   )



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 113, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2724 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 109):
So you do want people to be able to fire someone for being a woman, or being Hispanic.

See, that's the liberal mind at work. If the government can't do it, no one can.

I want to be able to fire someone for performance. I don't want to have to jump through hoops in order to prove the person was not right for the company or the position.

Quoting Mir (Reply 111):
If you read Fre8mech's link, they're protected as well.

In writing, yes, but certainly not in practice. I've been involved in the termination of plenty of white males and HR doesn't bat an eye. When ever we went after one of the protected groups, we had to meet a very high standard.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 114, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2723 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 94):
Hate speech is inciting violence.

...but if it doesn't actually incite violence, it isn't really encroaching on anyone's rights. I'm not saying that the government should not monitor or investigate hate groups, but I don't think there should be laws curbing free speech, other than libel and imminent danger type things.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 94):
And try telling a little kid that religious indoctrination is his own choice when his parents will tell him he will suffer eternally for not going along. Yeah, that's not coercive.

Parenting is by definition coercive. It isn't a very good upbringing, nor does it really prepare the kid to function in society, but that hurts him not you. Nobody's taking away your rights and it does not hurt you in any way other than possibly annoy you because you don't agree. What's your solution? Pass a law codifying how kids should be raised? Tell parents what they can teach their kids?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 94):
On the contrary, I am for the freedom of individuals to do whatever they want as long as it does not attempt to coerce others to go along with them

Does that include groups that tell us all the reasons why gay marriage should be legal? Or does this only apply to things you don't agree with?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 94):
Given the fact that David Duke would argue that he's not really a racist, that's impossible.

Of course you don't have the information...but you still have no problem making the assertion. I thought that a good portion of the right was made up of fundamentalists and racists. Self avowed, no less. Oh well, tell the kettle "hi" for me.

Quoting Mir (Reply 95):
Unless you're trying to get something made illegal. Then you're encroaching on people's rights.

Not even that. If I say that I want to pass laws that discriminate against a group, that doesn't encroach on anyone's rights. It makes me an idiot, but it shouldn't be illegal.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 97):
The ideology hasn´t changed. They still believe that different groups of humans have different values and that some should be exterminated.

Yeah, we all know the Nazis are bad.

Here's the thing: you and I and most other people don't actually need free speech. It doesn't really protect us, since we don't really say anything that would need protection.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 102):
It's aimed at poorer voters, who often don't have a drivers license or state ID, and who, up til now, have never had to show any.

How does that work in Illinois, where seniors, people with disabilities, and the homeless get state ID cards for free? And, for what it's worth, cards for people not in those categories cost the princely sum of.....$20.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21421 posts, RR: 56
Reply 115, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2718 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 113):
See, that's the liberal mind at work. If the government can't do it, no one can.

If we're talking about discrimination when it comes to employment, yes. If that means I have a liberal mind, then I'm proud of it.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 113):
I want to be able to fire someone for performance. I don't want to have to jump through hoops in order to prove the person was not right for the company or the position.

So you're saying you're okay with people being fired for their race, religion, gender, etc. just so you can have some extra convenience?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 114):
If I say that I want to pass laws that discriminate against a group, that doesn't encroach on anyone's rights. It makes me an idiot, but it shouldn't be illegal.

It would make you a bigot, though, and you'd deserve to be called out for it, lobbied against, etc.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 116, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2716 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 113):
See, that's the liberal mind at work. If the government can't do it, no one can.

Um I'm pretty un-liberal but even I think there should be laws against some guy firing black people because he's a racist. What is your solution to racists like this? I feel your pain, I feel the race card is used way too much these days.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 113):
I want to be able to fire someone for performance. I don't want to have to jump through hoops in order to prove the person was not right for the company or the position.

But is the repeal of discrimination laws really the answer? I highly, highly doubt that these laws are going anywhere. I think a balance can be achieved. What do you suggest gay people do that are getting fired for just being gay? I mean if there is a better way I'd be all for it, but I don't think we can just ignore this problem...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 117, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2712 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 115):
It would make you a bigot, though, and you'd deserve to be called out for it, lobbied against, etc.

Absolutely. And that should remain legal as well.

But beating someone for being a bigot is as bad as beating someone for being black or gay. Equal protection under the law means just that: even morons get protected.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21421 posts, RR: 56
Reply 118, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2711 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 117):
But beating someone for being a bigot is as bad as beating someone for being black or gay.

I've never supported beating anyone.   

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 119, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2709 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 118):
I've never supported beating anyone.

Never said you did. I'm just using it as an illustration. I never caught the full story but I recall something about some group in the Chicago area having some members arrested for beating up some skinheads a while back.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 120, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2711 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 115):

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 113):
I want to be able to fire someone for performance. I don't want to have to jump through hoops in order to prove the person was not right for the company or the position.

So you're saying you're okay with people being fired for their race, religion, gender, etc. just so you can have some extra convenience?

I think the reply goes a little far on this one. fr8mech never said it was OK to be fired for race, religion, gender, etc. He simply state that performance, or lack thereof, should be the standard.

I disagree with him that white men aren't protected-white men have been the most protected group of people in the history of the world, if you ask me, and I do believe listening to white men bellyache about being mistreated is a bunch of manure.

But I have to defend him from your attack on this one, Mir. He didn't say such things, so he shouldn't be accused of it in this regard.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21421 posts, RR: 56
Reply 121, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2701 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 120):
fr8mech never said it was OK to be fired for race, religion, gender, etc. He simply state that performance, or lack thereof, should be the standard.

But he did say that there should be no protections for discrimination, and the corollary of that is that one could be fired for any of those things.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 122, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2674 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 120):
white men have been the most protected group of people in the history of the world, if you ask me, and I do believe listening to white men bellyache about being mistreated is a bunch of manure.

Protected by who,...by what?...White people today are blamed for everyone else's bad attitudes and problems...What a crock...

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
Well, at least he's honest about his true allegiances, because it sure isn't to this country.

While as usual this thread has run the gamut of "racism/gay rights" and all that, the fact remains the point of the thread highlights a point that Andre Carson brings to the table a dangerous perspective. I hardly believe the US educational system needs to utilize the model of the Madrasas to move forward our education system in an "innovative way". We saw "innovation 9/11, Dearborn MI, and so on. Sharia and America= Oil and water.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 123, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2660 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 122):
White people today are blamed for everyone else's bad attitudes and problems

We are? First I'm hearing of this  
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 122):
We saw "innovation 9/11, Dearborn MI, and so on. Sharia and America= Oil and water.


Dearborn was heavily Arab long before 9/11 and this mass hysteria over "Islamification of America" started. In fact, the bulk of the Arab population in Dearborn didn't even originate from either of the countries the U.S. is at war with. Further to that point is that there are many Arab families in that area that have been in the United States since well before you or I were even born, so whatever point you are trying to make is completely invalidated.

I'm totally going to ignore the Sharia part of your comment since it has nothing to do with anything.

Maybe you should attend a Madrassa-style school, you might learn how to do some critical thinking before making ignorant comments like the above.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 124, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2639 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 122):
Protected by who,...by what?...White people today are blamed for everyone else's bad attitudes and problems...What a crock...

Really? Do you deny that, for 400 years in what is now the United States, the white male has totally dominated the political, economic and cultural strings in this country? The white male-of which I am one-has dominated this continent, and all tit's aspects.

So, trying to tell me that we should have a pity party for the white male is absurd. And, no, the white male isn't blamed for the bad attitude of everyone. That's a crock, actually.

The white race has been responsible for many great things in this nation for 4 centuries, no doubt. It has also been responsible for some hideous crimes against humanity in that time-slavery; the destruction of the Native American culture; interning Americans of Japanese descent. The good has, no doubt, outweighed the bad.

The griping from white males, and whites in general-conservative whites, mostly, is simply frustration over the fact that their long-tenured grip on this nation is starting to subside. It was bound to happen, but seems they could handle it quite well when they were on the top of the mountain. Many whites aren't handling it well, now that they're majority status is dying.

As a white male, I have no sympathy for your anger.


User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6774 posts, RR: 35
Reply 125, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2639 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 124):
The griping from white males, and whites in general-conservative whites, mostly, is simply frustration over the fact that their long-tenured grip on this nation is starting to subside.

I know this line of discussion is a bit tangential to the topic, but for me, as a white male, the issue isn't frustration over losing so-called 'control' (inasmuch control as I as a middle class working white dude can have) but over the fact that the golden goose is being replaced by, well, something much less savory.

It's time to start celebrating the doers, the achievers--regardless of race in our society--and stop coddling the malcontents. We can't have an honest discusison of race in this country because the facts of the matter are inconvenient, uncomfortable and those who make their stock and trade in race hustling (ie: most notable the Democrat Party and the American left) would be out of business if more people acknowledged the truths, whether it's crime, family stats, education, etc. And it doesn't have to be that way.


User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 126, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2620 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 125):

I know this line of discussion is a bit tangential to the topic, but for me, as a white male, the issue isn't frustration over losing so-called 'control' (inasmuch control as I as a middle class working white dude can have) but over the fact that the golden goose is being replaced by, well, something much less savory.

You're welcome to your opinion, certainly, but I think many of us don't have as dour and skeptical view of our future. We're in the middle of terrific change, and it will take a generation or so. When we get through it, I think we'll be a better nation for it.

Quoting slider (Reply 125):
race hustling (ie: most notable the Democrat Party and the American left)

Nonsense. The left isn't the ideology that has the race problem. The right does. There very few non-whites that are conservatives. And conservatism has been the force behind denying change based on race, sex or other factors, not the left. Conservatives of their day started a war to keep the peculiar institution; they fought against equal rights for blacks, women, gays, etc, not the left.

The sad fact is that the right doesn't give a lick for minorities in this nation. That's so evident in many of their policies, that are anti-poor and pro-wealthy.

So, from this view, you have it backwards.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39659 posts, RR: 75
Reply 127, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2619 times:

How did this go from a topic about religion to race?

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 52):
the world doesn't revolve around white, English
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 120):
I disagree with him that white men aren't protected- white men
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 120):
listening to white men bellyache
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 124):
the white male has totally dominated the political, economic and cultural strings in this country
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 124):
a pity party for the white male is absurd
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 124):
The griping from white males, and whites in general-conservative whites , mostly, is simply frustration
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 124):
Many whites aren't handling it well
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 124):
As a white male, I have no sympathy for your anger.





Wow. Sounds like you have some serious demons that you are battling. Perhaps I can be of some help.  
Here is a hotline that you should call that can help you deal with this sort of guilt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nji38c9fPso

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 124):
some hideous crimes against humanity in that time-slavery;


  
Slavery wasn't started by European colonialist. Slavery was introduced to Sub-Saharan Africa by MUSLIMS hundreds of years before the first European colonialist arrived. Read up on your African history.

Quoting slider (Reply 125):
It's time to start celebrating the doers, the achievers--regardless of race in our society--and stop coddling the malcontents.


  
Sadly the West is moving away from that. Instead people are increasingly being taught to be envious of others and take from those that have more than them. I never thought we would end up with a President that would be so petulant, ornery and advocate so much hatred towards those who are successful or aspire to be successful.

[Edited 2012-07-12 10:07:49]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2706 posts, RR: 8
Reply 128, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2614 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 124):
Really? Do you deny that, for 400 years in what is now the United States, the white male has totally dominated the political, economic and cultural strings in this country? The white male-of which I am one-has dominated this continent, and all tit's aspects.

Do you deny that for the last 400 years that Caucasians males in general have dominated certain geographic areas while Asians, Indians, African's and other ethnic groups males have dominated other regions. And that slavery of other peoples had taken place all over the planet. That the white male did not dominate this area that it is still practiced by other cultures today?



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2706 posts, RR: 8
Reply 129, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2611 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 120):
white men have been the most protected group of people in the history of the world,

Ever been to Japan? Saudi Arabia? China?..Did not think so Falcon..........I mean Sherman..



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 130, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2580 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 126):
Conservatives of their day started a war to keep the peculiar institution;


I was done with this thread, but I can't let this egregious misrepresentation of history stand. I assume by 'peculiar institution' you mean slavery.

Abraham Lincoln: Republican
Jefferson Davis: Democrat

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 126):
they fought against equal rights for blacks, women, gays, etc, not the left.


Civil Rights act of 1964:

In The House, 80% of Republicans voted for vs. 61% Democrats. In The Senate, 82% of Republicans vs. 69% of Democrats and was filibustered by a Democrat.

Tidbits:
Governor George Walace: Democrat
Commisioner Bull Connor: Democrat
Senator Robert Byrd: Democrat

Which party is for institutional racial and gender discrimination, via Affirmative Action? That would be the Democratic Party.

Are Conservatives squeaky clean? No. But, don't hoist your party on ideology on some kind of racial pedestal and claim some kind of moral superiority. The Democratic Party is way more dirty than the Republican Party.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently onlineSOBHI51 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jun 2003, 3404 posts, RR: 17
Reply 131, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2574 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 127):
Slavery wasn't started by European colonialist. Slavery was introduced to Sub-Saharan Africa by MUSLIMS hundreds of years before the first European colonialist arrived. Read up on your African history.

I don't know what history you are reading my friend, but slavery existed long before Islam or Christianity, if my memory serve me right, it existed during the Roman Empire long time ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

[Edited 2012-07-12 13:44:42]


I am against any terrorist acts committed under the name of Islam
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5553 posts, RR: 6
Reply 132, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2569 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 130):
but I can't let this egregious misrepresentation of history stand.

I've been mostly in agreement with you up until now, but a little history lesson for you:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 130):
Abraham Lincoln: Republican
Jefferson Davis: Democrat

Republican did not mean conservative, and Democrat did not mean liberal.... they actually meant what they were: Republicans were for a stronger Federal government, while Democrats were for weaker, more democratic central government (and thus more power to enact local policies and such).

You cannot compare the parties of the 1860s and 1960s to today's parties, as they are not the same.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 133, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2531 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 127):

Wow. Sounds like you have some serious demons that you are battling. Perhaps I can be of some help.
Here is a hotline that you should call that can help you deal with this sort of guilt.

Not me. My family is Yankee through and through. Our family were never slave owners, so I write with a clear conscience, personally about it.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 127):

Slavery wasn't started by European colonialist. Slavery was introduced to Sub-Saharan Africa by MUSLIMS hundreds of years before the first European colonialist arrived. Read up on your African history.

I"m not talking about where the slave originated. I'm talking about what it was in this country, and for a long time. The origins of slavery are well know. But do you deny that the institution here wasn't a crime against a whole race of human beings?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 128):
Do you deny that for the last 400 years that Caucasians males in general have dominated certain geographic areas while Asians, Indians, African's and other ethnic groups males have dominated other regions. And that slavery of other peoples had taken place all over the planet. That the white male did not dominate this area that it is still practiced by other cultures today?

I'm not talking about other areas of the world. I'm talking about as it was practiced here, in this nation. I'm well aware that it was practiced in other parts of the world, but I don't care, as far as this thread goes, about how it was in other parts of the world. I see it, as i was practiced here, in this nation, as a terrible stain upon our history. Do you also?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 130):
I was done with this thread, but I can't let this egregious misrepresentation of history stand. I assume by 'peculiar institution' you mean slavery.

Abraham Lincoln: Republican
Jefferson Davis: Democrat

Anyone who is really up on history know that the two parties have turned 180 degrees to what they were back in 1860. All you have to do is look at presidential electoral maps from that time to this. You used to have the "Solid South" as a Democratic Party given. But when the Democratic Party became the party of Civil Rights, the Solid South left the Democrats, and turned to the Republicans.

The politics of the south, which has always been conservative, didn't change. The party's changed.


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 134, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2517 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 132):
Republican did not mean conservative, and Democrat did not mean liberal.... they actually meant what they were: Republicans were for a stronger Federal government, while Democrats were for weaker, more democratic central government (and thus more power to enact local policies and such).

Yeah, I know, I got a little carried away with the labels. But, it burns my ass when liberals hoist themselves up to be the protectors of the weak, when all they've done in the last 50 years is enslave, yes, I said enslave, the weak and poor, through government policy.

I retract my comparison to the politics of the Civil War.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 135, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2508 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 134):
But, it burns my ass when liberals hoist themselves up to be the protectors of the weak, when all they've done in the last 50 years is enslave, yes, I said enslave, the weak and poor, through government policy.

Sorry, but that's just not true, and you know it.

And, even if it was true, what have conservatives done about it? I mean, they've been in charge of this nation a helluva lot during the last 30 years, and for the most part, their policies are anti-minority and anti-poor.

The conservatives give all the breaks to to the wealthiest Americans and corporations. Yet then on the flip side, they pass laws that disenfranchise minority voters; they make laws that are ostensibly aimed at illegal aliens, but threaten the rights of legitimate Americans. Some jerk in the GOP in Tennessee even tried to get a law passed there that would have not allowed a welfare recipient to gain the winnings of lotteries, and would have given most of the money to the state!

The GOP is no friend of minorities. Not in the least. They've had their chances, no doubt, to turn that around, but they're still dominated by the Southern wing of the party, and as long as that wing remains as it is, minorities are an afterthought to that strange party.

Now, to be fair, both parties DO have to take blame for the welfare state in this nation. It was started by FDR as a way to try to get the U.S. out of the desperate straits of the Depression, but it is later president's and congresses that are at fault for making those programs permanent and expanding them. Both parties are guilty of this.

But to say that liberals have enslaved the poor and minorities is going way too far.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 136, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2500 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 135):

Yes there has been a lot of shady laws but to say that all of them are anti-minority or anti-poor is going too far. Some disagree with affirmative action, doesn't make them all anti-minorities. Some wanted a law cracking down on illegal immigrants (whit a law may or may not be exploited)... doesn't mean they're all anti-minority. Some want less welfare (maybe going too far IMO) and want more personal responsibility... doesn't make them all anti-poor. Some genuinely believe that allowing corporations a lot of capabilities creates jobs... doesn't mean they're all enslaved by corporate overlords.

How can you honestly debate these issues when you blatantly fail to understand what they are arguing? I don't go into abortion debates screaming "baby killers!" because that gets you absolutely no where. There are extremes on the right and left... don't be one yourself.

Yes, the GOP has some terrible positions on some issues, but you make it so black and white... that's not the reality of this situation

[Edited 2012-07-12 18:16:13]


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 137, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2484 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 123):


Sir...You are apparently too young to really have dialogue regarding this topic...no disrespect but some real life experience is required here. The pablum your college is feeding you is starving you of valuable nutrients.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 124):


I'm not going to get way off topic here about white vs blacks/vs Hispanics vs/ Asians. There is good and bad in all but most can agree we all pretty much want the same things. We also would like to see America prosper and live long. It is our home. On the other hand, I witnessed the calling card of Madrases trained ideologues in my city that have different views on the direction they would like to see America go in and I don't like it nor do I agree with it. Andre Carson and his type are not good for this nation. That is my opinion. This administration is not good for this nation. My wallet proves that and it will get worse and will further move to you and every other American (Black/ white/Pink or Yellow) in one form or another and your life will become more difficult and you will enjoy less. It is your prerogative to live with your head in the sand and whatever happens, I don't feel sorry for those such as yourself.
I will not make excuses for being a white, middle class American Christian that liked his country on the way up and worked hard enough, contributed enough to keep it strong. I'm certainly not going to sit around and watch a wave of ideologues force their way into my homeland and condemn those that do not follow their word.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 124):
That's a crock, actually.


You said it...

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 124):
As a white male, I have no sympathy for your anger.


And I have no sympathy for the likes of you, one that will idly sit back and watch his country erode and allow himself to be a pin cushion of political correctness. How pathetic.


User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 138, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2471 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 137):

And I have no sympathy for the likes of you, one that will idly sit back and watch his country erode and allow himself to be a pin cushion of political correctness. How pathetic.

That's a matter of opinion, and we don't agree. It doesn't make what either of us say pure fact.

And I don't agree with you that the country is eroding, the way you think it is. And I certainly am no fan of political correctness, even if I am liberal. That's an over-generalization on your part.

What is making the country erode, in your opinion? I won't put words in your mouth, as that isn't fair. But I'd like to hear the reasoning.


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 6
Reply 139, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2453 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 127):
Slavery wasn't started by European colonialist. Slavery was introduced to Sub-Saharan Africa by MUSLIMS hundreds of years before the first European colonialist arrived. Read up on your African history.

This is a tired and irrelevant argument that's put forth by apologists, and I hope you aren't an apologist. And the Romans and Greeks had slaves before the Arabs. And tribes had slaves before them. Unfortunately, slavery permeates history. That doesn't minimize the sad period of history in the U.S. (and in Brazil, and in the Caribbean, etc.) where European-heritgage colonists abused others through slavery.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 137):
The pablum your college is feeding you is starving you of valuable nutrients.

  I don't understand. If someone disagrees with you, that means their college is at fault? Do you remember much of your college, or high school? Did you learn to think for yourself? Or are you content repeating tired insults and talking points?

-Rampart


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 140, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2443 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 137):
Sir...You are apparently too young to really have dialogue regarding this topic...no disrespect but some real life experience is required here. The pablum your college is feeding you is starving you of valuable nutrients.

Moving past the obvious attack on my credibility...can you please elaborate on which part of my above statements you find factually incorrect?

Also (since my life experiences are of such great interest to you), I'll have you know that I strongly believe it is the quality of one's life experiences, not the quantity, that defines a person.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 134):
I retract my comparison to the politics of the Civil War.

Not often we see an honest retraction in these threads. All due respect to you fr8mech   

Quoting rampart (Reply 139):
I don't understand. If someone disagrees with you, that means their college is at fault? Do you remember much of your college, or high school? Did you learn to think for yourself? Or are you content repeating tired insults and talking points?

His mentioning of my college (it's a university, actually) would only be relevant in this discussion if I were studying either Political Science or Education...of which I am studying neither.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 127):
How did this go from a topic about religion to race?

Good question. It is probably because many believe that they are one in the same...

Quoting Superfly (Reply 127):
Here is a hotline that you should call that can help you deal with this sort of guilt.


  



Flying refined.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 141, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2417 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 5):
Ugh, madrasahs are just the Islamic version of Catholic schools.

Madrassa literally means school in Arabic, it is not a terrible word.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 34):
He's so screwed-up that he became the President? He's happily married with two kids and a dog? Yeah, that's screwed-up.

He's an atheist   


Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 38):
"Can we just goddamn let the south cecede already? Seriously, this has been a 100 year war of aggression against the north now."

Reminds me of this picture.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 55):
Let me ask you something. Let's for a moment say that we do teach "American Exceptionalism" in our schools. What do you teach? What do you ignore?

How does one teach American Exceptionalism or any Exceptionalism for that matter?

Also in terms of education US students lag behind a lot of other countries so there really isn't that much expectionalism to gloat about. If I had to guess the Steve Jobs and Bill Gates of the 21st century are largely not going to come out of America and a lot of the ones that do will have come from the US from elsewhere. That is unless the US changes course on education.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 107):
Protected class doesn't mean a woman, a black, or a gay man cannot be fired, it means you cannot fire a woman for being a woman, a black man for being black, or a gay man for being gay. I agree that there are cases where someone will get pissed and say they were fired only because they are _________. That abuse is not right but it should not mean we should just ditch the laws and allow discrimination to go on.

It happens anyways and always will but if there is evidence mounting that a company is discriminating they should have the book thrown at them.
It's so easy to get around the laws in the first place if you want to fire someone usually its done without cause and you give a package so the employee can't come back and sue you later which can be done in a non-union environment. If you fire with cause an employer has to have evidence that an employee has been lacking performance and has been given on record warnings to rectify it.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39659 posts, RR: 75
Reply 142, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2399 times:

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 131):
slavery existed long before Islam or Christianity,


True but I was pointing out to Sherman how there were others involved besides Europeans in order for him to cope with his issues of self-hatred.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 133):
Our family were never slave owners


Wonderful. Do you want a cookie?   

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 133):
But do you deny that the institution here wasn't a crime against a whole race of human beings?


Well of course not. Duh!
I haven't heard Obama issue an apology for his family's role in slavery in his country.

Quoting rampart (Reply 139):
I hope you aren't an apologist.


Of course not.

Quoting rampart (Reply 139):
Romans and Greeks had slaves before the Arabs.

Well aware of that but TecumsehSherman said;

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 133):
I'm not talking about other areas of the world. I'm talking about as it was practiced here, in this nation.



I was responding to Sherman as he is only "talking about as it was practiced here, in this nation".
His words, not mines.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 140):
Good question. It is probably because many believe that they are one in the same...


Sad but true. Only the ignorant people think they're one of the same yet it's the apologist that rush to claim that all criticism of Islam are "racist". Yet their criticism of Christians is enlightening.   

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 140):


In Living Color was the TV show that propelled Jim Carey's carrier who is also Canadian. He was awesome!



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 143, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2381 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 140):
His mentioning of my college (it's a university, actually)

Arg!...Tomatoes/Tomatos...Semantics!,...Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama attended Universities. Now look at this country. So did just about every local politician in my neck of the woods and the level of corruption,stupidity and lack of common sense is of historical proportion.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 140):
I'll have you know that I strongly believe it is the quality of one's life experiences, not the quantity, that defines a person.

And this belief is a good one but time is the best teacher and their exist some aspects of life that are best taught, best learned, through time. Relative to this thread as it is dangerously close to De railling...I have experienced (the high quality version) of where my country came from, where it is currently and where I'm afraid it is headed. You don't learn that in college, or as you put it...a University. You can only read about it. So again...the idea of Andre Carson's Madrases schooling concept IMHO is dangerous to the United States. You like the idea?, have at it.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 142):
Sad but true. Only the ignorant people think they're one of the same yet it's the apologist that rush to claim that all criticism of Islam are "racist". Yet their criticism of Christians is enlightening.

Bingo!

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 138):

I'm trying very hard to stick to the topic here...in short obviously we have our views and don't necessarily agree with all...nothing wrong with that but please don't ask me to "source" so to speak, about the erosion of our country. It exists and one significant bit of evidence is brought to the table by the thread starter...Our educational system styled after Islamic Madrases. I was unaware we are an Islamic Nation.


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 144, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2364 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 141):
Exceptionalism for that matter

Oh good, back to education. You don't teach exceptionalism, you foster it. You develop it. You don't tell kids who are academically better than the others that they are no better. You teach up to them, not teach down.

You allow the kids that can excel, to excel.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 6
Reply 145, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2354 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 142):
Well aware of that but TecumsehSherman said;

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 133):I'm not talking about other areas of the world. I'm talking about as it was practiced here, in this nation.


I was responding to Sherman as he is only "talking about as it was practiced here, in this nation".
His words, not mines.

Then why did you bring up Arab slave traders as an excuse?

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 143):
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama attended Universities. Now look at this country.

Huh? Don't most politicians go to college? Bush went to Yale. A lot of good that did him. Romney went to BYU/. Can you imagine RIck Perry? C student at Texas A&M. "Oops!" I think that's the main problem, most people who vote think with their adrenal glands rather than their brains. This thread is a good example. Maybe if they'd exercise the part of the brain that went to college, we'd be better off.


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 146, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2350 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rampart (Reply 145):
Maybe if they'd exercise the part of the brain that went to college, we'd be better off.

If people did that then the green part wouldn't exist on this map

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 141):


Certainly with a different name.

Fred


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 147, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2337 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 143):
Arg!...Tomatoes/Tomatos...Semantics!

I realize that in the US they are basically the same thing, but in Canada there is actually a big difference between colleges (3-year diploma, more practical programs of study such as Police Foundation, Graphic Design, other trades, etc.) and universities (4-year degree, more theoretical programs of study such as sciences, business, psychology, etc.).

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 143):
but time is the best teacher and their exist some aspects of life that are best taught, best learned, through time.

From a broader perspective I would definitely agree with this...but I fail to see how it would be of any benefit to this specific discussion. I'll even go as far to say that, as a young person far less removed from formal education than most in this thread, that I may have a more accurate perspective of the education system's shortcomings in North America.

I personally found highschool to be a joke. Cookie-cutter teaching is not beneficial to anyone, which is why the type of schooling Carson proposes (fostering innovation and all that) sounds attractive to me. If we (North Americans) can adopt the more progressive aspects of the madrassa-style education, and leaving the religious teachings out of it (I believe this should be the case for every religion), I can't see why we shouldn't at least entertain the idea.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 143):
Our educational system styled after Islamic Madrases. I was unaware we are an Islamic Nation.

You aren't, but you shouldn't be an Anti-Islam Nation either.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 148, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2329 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 144):
Oh good, back to education. You don't teach exceptionalism, you foster it. You develop it. You don't tell kids who are academically better than the others that they are no better. You teach up to them, not teach down.

Something the United States in 2012 is severely lacking, your education statistics as well as your social mobility is some of the worst in the developed world which means that other countries do the American dream better than America.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 147):
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 143):
Arg!...Tomatoes/Tomatos...Semantics!

I realize that in the US they are basically the same thing, but in Canada there is actually a big difference between colleges (3-year diploma, more practical programs of study such as Police Foundation, Graphic Design, other trades, etc.) and universities (4-year degree, more theoretical programs of study such as sciences, business, psychology, etc.).

  

Only in the US is this semantics, in Australia a college is often a high school and you have either university or a TAFE school which is like college in Canada.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 143):
Arg!...Tomatoes/Tomatos...Semantics!,...Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama attended Universities. Now look at this country. So did just about every local politician in my neck of the woods and the level of corruption,stupidity and lack of common sense is of historical proportion.

Your point, do I have to mention that Bush, Boehner and Eric Cantor are GOP politicians that also went to university. It isn't just democrats who have screwed of the United States.


Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 143):
I was unaware we are an Islamic Nation.

You aren't as well as you aren't a Christian one, you are a country that was founded on not being governed by religious principles, while allowing freedom of religion as well as freedom from it. Be proud of that!!



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 149, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2286 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 143):

I'm trying very hard to stick to the topic here...in short obviously we have our views and don'tecessarily agree with all...nothing wrong with that but please don't ask me to "source" so to speak, about the erosion of our country. It exists and one significant bit of evidence is brought to the table by the thread starter...Our educational system styled after Islamic Madrases. I was unaware we are an Islamic Nation.

I"m not asking your to "source" anything. I'm asking for your opinion on why you think this nation is declining. I didn't put any words in your mouth; I didn't even suggest any subjects that might be the reason for your discontent. I simply asked you to enumerate the reason for your discontent.

To simply say we're going down, without ticking off the reasons as to WHY we're going down, is disingenuous, and simply will stifle debate on the subject. I'm just interested in hearing your reasons.

It certainly wasn't a trick question, or a "gotcha", as Sarah Palin like to say.