Public education in Texas faces massive cuts

[pateticorecords]

Exactly what people in Texas need... less education, good grief!

The kids with affluent parents will get a good education and those less fortunate will continue slipping into the same cycle of under funded education.

When will the people wake up and demand equal educational opportunities for all children. The children are the future o...f this country, we continue to fall behind on educating them:mad:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_texas_budget

[MasterKiller]

Funding for schools everywhere needs to be reworked. The current system just doesn't cut it.

[curenado]

People are weary of hearing "It just takes more money" and they are weary of the public school system which makes undeniable demands on paernts and fails to live up to it's own.
Continually pumping money into something is not viable or workable,
Parents should look into private education and getting private school vouchers for their State.
Public schools here are a joke and the kids are a couple years behind other kids - I wouldn't pay a nickel for that. Parents should have the ability to choose vouchers and better oppotunities for their kid.
We don't live in a communist country (thank God!) and if 30 years of good money after bad and dumb kids getting worse is all the public system can show, maybe a little righteous competition is just what they need to get off the disability wagon and be worth something.

[BJJ-Blue]

Curenado said it best. One thing I do want to add is that we need teacher testing as well. But of course the Teacher's Union is always opposed to that.

As to Texas, we are gaining people daily. We were one of those States who gained Congressional seats this year. While liberal States like California, Illinois, and Michigan are losing people left and right. Texas has an unemployment rate below the national average, and 4 of the Top 10 housing markets are here in Texas. We are a success story, no matter what the liberals say about us.

[SanHeChuan]

Perry is a dumb ass.

Perry turns down nat'l edu. funds (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31522.html)


One thing I do want to add is that we need teacher testing as well.

What kind of Testing?

[curenado]

Seems to me like he was pretty smart actually. Did you see why he didn't want the money?

"“I will not commit Texas taxpayers to unfunded federal obligations or to the adoption of unproven, cost-prohibitive national curriculum standards and tests,” Perry wrote. “Texas is on the right path toward improved education, and we would be foolish and irresponsible to place our children’s future in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and special interest groups thousands of miles away in Washington, virtually eliminating parents’ participation in their children’s education.”


“If Washington were truly concerned about funding education with solutions that match local challenges, they would make the money available to states with no strings attached,” he said.


Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott said he “overwhelmingly” supports Perry’s move in a statement...."

He is not the only Governer letting the FEDs keep some of their "loaded package" attempts lately...

[Drake]

Maybe if they spent less on the military and more on education, we'd be making some progress instead of being in a decline. Yeah, I said it.

[mooyingmantis]

My wife is a teacher in Ohio. She has both a teaching certificate and a special education certificate. She also has a Master's Degree, which is required of teachers in Ohio.

A typical Bachelor's Degree in Ohio costs about $30,000 - $40,000 at one of our public universities. A typical Master's Degree in Ohio starts at about $30,000. Throughout their teaching career, they will also invest several thousand more dollars in required continuing educational units (CEUs).

Unfortunately, Ohio funds its schools through homeowner taxes, along with State and Federal monies which can only be used for specific projects (building schools, technology programs, etc.). Of course, school systems in communities primarily made up of the elderly and lower income residents, like my wife works in, are taking a real beating. In the last few years, the school system my wife works for has lost 30 - 40 teachers due to retirement and downsizing. These teachers will not be replaced due to lack of funds.

The new trend is to blame the teachers for the fact that American children are not keeping up with children in other countries. School systems, in an attempt to break the teacher's unions, are leading the charge. However, with larger classes due to less teachers, unruly students due to less stable families, and poor funding which takes away educational materials, teachers are in a situation where they are set up to fail.

[curenado]

Indeed good points.
That is one reason to push for vouchers. Public schools are highly populated with some highly negative people. The state of public schools is a reflection of the public. Things have evolved as such that you got to go private to ensure the same level of quality unless you are in a school that does not have much problem (plenty don't..) but the costs and taxes you would have to pay to live by a decent public school would be a lot more than with vouchers.
As to the decision he made, our gov here has declined fed checks before because of all the strings attached.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Maybe if they spent less on the military and more on education, we'd be making some progress instead of being in a decline. Yeah, I said it.

Agreed, to a point, imagine what we could have done to our education system if we had taken all those billions of $$$ that we have just thrown in the garbage can in Iraq and Afghanistan training those highly effective national military units and police forces. We would have a much larger return on our investment.

[BJJ-Blue]

Indeed good points.
That is one reason to push for vouchers. Public schools are highly populated with some highly negative people. The state of public schools is a reflection of the public. Things have evolved as such that you got to go private to ensure the same level of quality unless you are in a school that does not have much problem (plenty don't..) but the costs and taxes you would have to pay to live by a decent public school would be a lot more than with vouchers.
As to the decision he made, our gov here has declined fed checks before because of all the strings attached.

More good points.

When you create a welfare class, they are at least smart enough to figure out education means nothing to them. They are taken care of no matter if they drop out in 6th grade or become class Valedictorian. Why work hard when you have zero motivation to?

[GLW]

“welfare class”

Exactly WHAT does that mean? Who are they? Class-ism ?

“teachers will not be replaced due to lack of funds.”

Texas schools are funded with property taxes – hence so many Independent School Districts (ISDs). People move, homes get foreclosed on, property values drop, and school funds drop. So you spiral into trying to do more or the same with less and you end up doing less with less.

“That is one reason to push for vouchers”

The voucher system proposed in Texas was NOT free money. Basically, you take YOUR kid and YOUR money out of the school system and go to another. What happens?

Well, the already beleaguered ISDs will suffer by losing MORE money. Your voucher money comes out of THEIR money – one for one – you get $2000, the ISD you live in LOSES $2000. Sure fire way to make that ISD go DOWN in quality.

You go to the local private school or another ISD with better schools. The private school has MORE applicants…and supply and demand being what it is, they RAISE tuition to what the traffic will bear. Your voucher becomes all but meaningless. The ISD you try to go to has a waiting list too…they can afford to accept only the best – so they stay OK but all but the brightest students end up not having a place there….So, if you can’t afford the private school, the kid is not in the top academically (or- it is Texas so – they can’t play football), you end up back at the original school that others luckier than you basically looted…and your kid ends up with an even worse situation.

Oh yeah, vouchers will work just fine.

How about no voucher but a one for one federal tax credit for education (like your tuition is deductable) ? That STILL reduces federal funds…

Do the math on tuition. The numbers I have seen bandied about for the vouchers is in the $2000 to $3000 per year per student range. In Houston, the least expensive private school for k-8 runs over $5000 per year. For 9-12, that number jumps up to $10,000 per year. Now, if the private schools all of a sudden have MORE students applying (ie. the more expensive schools in Houston are more expensive due to reputation, having a waiting list, an admissions criteria that is stricter, and charge what the traffic will bear.)

So, if the applications go up and the people in the school already are paying $5000 per year and these people now are getting $2000 from their voucher, the tuition in the first year will probably go up to $6000 – you THINK you are getting a tuition cut of $1000. But the next couple of years, it goes up…and pretty soon, you are back to the $5000 (or more PLUS your $2000 voucher.

[Drake]

More good points.

When you create a welfare class, they are at least smart enough to figure out education means nothing to them. They are taken care of no matter if they drop out in 6th grade or become class Valedictorian. Why work hard when you have zero motivation to?

Maybe because welfare class is a crappy place to be? You have a negative take on the poor people of this nation if you think people are generally content to be taken care of at a minimal level with no ambition to improve themselves. I strongly disagree with that assessment.

There are underlying reasons why people underperform, and they are taught in virtually every management class out there. I suggest you educate yourself prior to making such sweeping accusations with nothing to back it up. And no, random quotes do not count.

[BJJ-Blue]

Maybe because welfare class is a crappy place to be? You have a negative take on the poor people of this nation if you think people are generally content to be taken care of at a minimal level with no ambition to improve themselves. I strongly disagree with that assessment.

There are underlying reasons why people underperform, and they are taught in virtually every management class out there. I suggest you educate yourself prior to making such sweeping accusations with nothing to back it up. And no, random quotes do not count.

If they are not content to live that way, why do they refuse to change? It was on full display during Katrina. You have 3 generations deep of welfare recipients who had no idea what to do when the Gov't checks didn't show up. In those areas it's often looked down upon to succeed in school. Does the term 'Uncle Tom' mean anything to you? I was 'bussed' in junior high (7th-8th grade) to a bad part of town. We actually had 2 guys who DROVE to that school! All they did was show up, cut up in class, and try and pick up girls years younger than them. And the kids from that part of town looked up to them!

There is ZERO reason to fail in this country. We have free lunches/breakfasts in school, English as a Second Language for those who don't speak English, counselors, and tons of grants/programs for low income kids to go to college. Look at the dropout rates in the parts of town where there is little to no Gov't money going into it vs the parts of town where Gov't money flows like water. Why are the failing schools always in the districts that receive the most Gov't aid? If Gov't money is the solution, then then East LA schools should be outperforming Beverly Hills schools.

Why are the worst parts of any city the areas that get the most Gov't aid?

People wouldn't live in ghettoes if we didn't pay them to.

[Drake]

One thing I've learned during my time in academia is that you don't make outlandish and outrageous statements without SOMETHIGN to back it up besides "Hurricane Katrina OMG!" or a referral to gov't funding of schools being causation for them failing. That being said, have you thought that maybe the funding is an attempt to keep the system from collapsing altogether, or have you thought that certain disadvantaged areas (ie parents who grew up poor, as it is scientifically proven that having a wealthy or even middle class family background gives you a disproportionate advantage) might have to work twice as hard as their better off peers?

I grew up poor, and I can say firsthand I was almost sucked in to permanent poverty. You have no support structure, the city is concerned with taking care of its wealthy and middle class, and the culture around you is one of "it sucks, deal with it, because the opportunities just aren't there". I still have no support structure in my life, so if I fail, everything I worked for goes down with me.

The federal funding is enough to keep those schools afloat. As opposed to nicer schools with laptops at every desk, that funding keeps teachers there and the basic supplies running. You are confusing causation with attempts to keep the system from collapsing entirely.

[GLW]

"Why are the worst parts of any city the areas that get the most Gov't aid?"

Got to love it when people confuse CORRELATION with CAUSATION.

Let's see...

There is more ice cream sold when the most people have heat strokes.

Ergo, ice cream sales cause heat strokes....

Or maybe, just maybe, you sell more ice cream when it is hot and you have more heat strokes when it is hot...

Areas that are eligible for government aid have to show need and the more need they show, the more aid they get. (With the exception of areas where graft and craft allow a political machine to apportion funds inappropriately).

[Syn7]

Maybe if they spent less on the military and more on education, we'd be making some progress instead of being in a decline. Yeah, I said it.

haha i was gonna say that, but you beat me to it...

i also like the higher premiums for smokers... i think obesity should be in there too... if i do everything right and another guy does everything wrong we shouldnt have to pay the same prices... i hate how some feel they can smoke and live off trans fat and feel that everyone else should foot the bill for the massive amount of medical resources they will FOR SURE be using up... it just isnt right...

insurance is tricky tho, they are all such misers with paying people out... most companies pay bonus to those who find way to not pay... or pay less...

[YouKnowWho]

As to Texas, we are gaining people daily.
Not someone like me. I have lived in Texas for 37 years. I'm so happy that I'm out of that "RED" state.

Texas needs more rednecks. This policy will help Texas to achieve that goal.

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/3715/redneck.png

[Syn7]

More good points.

When you create a welfare class, they are at least smart enough to figure out education means nothing to them. They are taken care of no matter if they drop out in 6th grade or become class Valedictorian. Why work hard when you have zero motivation to?

thats just stupid blue... thats like saying if crack was legal all the sudden there would be millions of crackheads...

nobody wants to live off welfare... given the opportunity to sit on welfare till they die poor or going to school and doing something worthwhile that you enjoy, do you really think so many would choose welfare???

maybe a good chunk of welfare recipients are there because their education system failed them a long time ago... failed to recognize any number of issues that lead to failure and/or drop-out...

find me one class valedictorian that said they were gonna quit college to be on welfare cause its easier... show me ONE...

our kids should be our number one priority, over everything, even security...:eek:

[Syn7]

If they are not content to live that way, why do they refuse to change? It was on full display during Katrina. You have 3 generations deep of welfare recipients who had no idea what to do when the Gov't checks didn't show up. In those areas it's often looked down upon to succeed in school. Does the term 'Uncle Tom' mean anything to you? I was 'bussed' in junior high (7th-8th grade) to a bad part of town. We actually had 2 guys who DROVE to that school! All they did was show up, cut up in class, and try and pick up girls years younger than them. And the kids from that part of town looked up to them!

There is ZERO reason to fail in this country. We have free lunches/breakfasts in school, English as a Second Language for those who don't speak English, counselors, and tons of grants/programs for low income kids to go to college. Look at the dropout rates in the parts of town where there is little to no Gov't money going into it vs the parts of town where Gov't money flows like water. Why are the failing schools always in the districts that receive the most Gov't aid? If Gov't money is the solution, then then East LA schools should be outperforming Beverly Hills schools.

Why are the worst parts of any city the areas that get the most Gov't aid?

People wouldn't live in ghettoes if we didn't pay them to.

you know nothing about what its like to grow up poor... your last phrase shows just how much of a handle you really have on this... if you really think the answer is in the numbers you will never get it... its like you arent even willing to try to look at things from another perspective...

[mooyingmantis]

GLW and BJJ,
You both seem to understand the educational system, its strengths, weaknesses and dilemmas. Good to see!

All,
Private schools are not necessarily the answer. Yes, they can offer an excellent program. However, it is still necessary for the STUDENT to take the initiative to absorb what is taught. And it is still necessary for the PARENTS to ensure that the student attends school, does their homework and offers some means of after school help.

My daughter went to a private Christian school during part of elementary schooland all of junior high school. Then she graduated from an excellent high school in an affluent community. She excelled to the point that she was in the top 50,000 students in the US the year she graduated.

However, the private Christian school was not immune to drugs or teen pregnancy. And some of the students with whom she graduated high school in the affluent community did not similarly apply themselves. Now they are jobless and donate plasma on a weekly basis where I work, because they have no other source of income.

No matter how much money is thrown into the educational system, success in education begins with a student interested in learning and parents who demand excellence of their children.

Further, the success of students in other countries only STARTS with the public school systems. Students in Japan, for example, spend hours after school in tutoring programs. Their parents must provide this so their children will pass the entrance exams necessary to be permitted to attend high school. Do not pass the entrance exams and your education ends at middle school! It is also interesting to note that Japan has one of the highest incidences of teen suicide due to the extreme pressure placed on students to excel. Is this what we really want for our children?

[YouKnowWho]

This was what I had experienced in my grad school and junior high back in Taiwan.

- The teacher would hit me N times on my hand. N = 100 - my score.
- I had never went to bed before 2 am.
- There was not a single day that I didn't have exam.

I still have nightmare even today that I have not prepared enough for my next exam.

[curenado]

I doubt American children will have to worry about that soon, if ever.

I think both public and private schools should be operating to meet the needs of the individuals they are there to serve. I can't agree that students moving into private schools is hurting public school funding since students funding is paid for head by head and students needs are to be included in that. If student B moves, student A's money is still at that school.

I do agree it is in the parents and students - first and foremost, but upholding the educational environment and keeping it quality, competative and class is the school's primary function and both parties have to be functional for it to work well.

This was a little strange:
<<nobody wants to live off welfare... given the opportunity to sit on welfare till they die poor or going to school and doing something worthwhile that you enjoy, do you really think so many would choose welfare???>>

Actually and in fact they do. They make it a career. Hard to believe that argument was even tried.
Welfare and disability are two of the greatest man spirit killers that there are. Many people actually do stop right where they can and do not esteem upward mobility or personal effort at all.

The individuals in any environment that do wish to are the reason for the effort, because they are the only ones who can really benefit much from it.

[BJJ-Blue]

That being said, have you thought that maybe the funding is an attempt to keep the system from collapsing altogether, or have you thought that certain disadvantaged areas (ie parents who grew up poor, as it is scientifically proven that having a wealthy or even middle class family background gives you a disproportionate advantage) might have to work twice as hard as their better off peers?

So what if you have to work harder. Is hard work suddenly a bad thing? Sometimes people who are at a disadvantage who must work harder actually achieve the highest success. Look at Tom Dempsey, he was born physically handicapped (only half a foot) and he yet became a place kicker in the NFL and still holds the record for longest field goal in a regular season game.


I grew up poor, and I can say firsthand I was almost sucked in to permanent poverty. You have no support structure, the city is concerned with taking care of its wealthy and middle class, and the culture around you is one of "it sucks, deal with it, because the opportunities just aren't there". I still have no support structure in my life, so if I fail, everything I worked for goes down with me.

And despite those disadvantages you became a comssioned offiicer in our armed forces. You are a succes story. So since you did it, why do we have so many who refuse to?


The federal funding is enough to keep those schools afloat. As opposed to nicer schools with laptops at every desk, that funding keeps teachers there and the basic supplies running. You are confusing causation with attempts to keep the system from collapsing entirely.

Funding isn't the problem, it is the lack of parental involvement.

There was an Assistant Principal at that school, Mr Washington. He handled the referrals. When a teacher wrote a referral it was sent to him and he called the student in to discuss the incident and assess punishment. The punishment ranged from 'Verbal Discisssion' to 'Suspension', and he would check the appropriate box. Washingtom was well known for falling asleep during the discussions. The students who were sent to him alot figured out you could often drag along the discussion and wait for him to pass out. Then they would check the 'Verbal Warning' box and leave. I was sent to him for my first (and only) referral for talking in class. He decided I needed a suspension. My mother flipped out, as a was a straight A student with zero discipline problems. She contacted the Administration and they found out Washington was on so many medications for his health it caused adverse aide effects like falling asleep. He had basically been 'dumped' at the East Side school until he reached retirement. Washington was forced into early retirement that year. But the point is he had been there for years before I got there and no one had even bothered to complain nor had anyone even bothered to see if he competant to do his job until one of the 'white boys' who was bussed in had parents who gave a ****.

[BJJ-Blue]

"Why are the worst parts of any city the areas that get the most Gov't aid?"

Got to love it when people confuse CORRELATION with CAUSATION.

Nice try. I just want an explanation. Liberals say that 'investing' in poor areas is the answer, yet the more money we throw at the problem, the worse it gets. If I throw gasoline on a fire to put it out and the fire just gets worse, I'd be an idiot to say it didn't work because I didn't use enough gasoline.


Areas that are eligible for government aid have to show need and the more need they show, the more aid they get. (With the exception of areas where graft and craft allow a political machine to apportion funds inappropriately).

True. But of course that means that if an area receiving aid actually gets worse, they get more Federal money. So failure is rewarded.


i hate how some feel they can smoke and live off trans fat and feel that everyone else should foot the bill for the massive amount of medical resources they will FOR SURE be using up... it just isnt right...

But yet you feel if someone drops out of school, gets pregnant as a teenager, and commits crimes they should be able to live off others via welfare. :confused:


thats just stupid blue... thats like saying if crack was legal all the sudden there would be millions of crackheads...

You liberals say if guns weren't legal we would have less guns. So which way is it?


nobody wants to live off welfare... given the opportunity to sit on welfare till they die poor or going to school and doing something worthwhile that you enjoy, do you really think so many would choose welfare???

maybe a good chunk of welfare recipients are there because their education system failed them a long time ago... failed to recognize any number of issues that lead to failure and/or drop-out...

So explain how welfare is now 3 or 4 generations deep in some families. Are the older ones too stupid to have figured out getting a good education and making good choices is a way out or do they just not care if their kids plan to live off welfare? It has to be one or the other.


find me one class valedictorian that said they were gonna quit college to be on welfare cause its easier... show me ONE...

You completely missed my point.

[GLW]

“Nice try. I just want an explanation. Liberals say that 'investing' in poor areas is the answer, yet the more money we throw at the problem, the worse it gets. If I throw gasoline on a fire to put it out and the fire just gets worse, I'd be an idiot to say it didn't work because I didn't use enough gasoline.”
Ok…now you are exhibiting a total lack of logic. You are equating addressing a REAL social problem with a KNOWN TO BE TOO SMALL amount of resources – then being SURPRISED when you get less than optimum results… and THEN, due to doing the right idea but doing it in a doomed to fail half-a$$ed manner as PROOF that any action is futile.
Sorry, but your inability to see that there are more inputs into this system than money in – perfect neighborhoods and schools out – would be laughable if it weren’t so typical.
Did you consider the effect of changes in economics, outside forces, growth in population, maybe even that those who benefited from said programs did well…and LEFT the area so that those left are still in need? And if that is possible, would you say that the expenditure of the money that allowed the ones who benefited to move to a better area as WASTED. (There are a lot of instances where people do well and leave their old neighborhoods…and most NEVER consider giving back to the area they left so others can do the same).
You would not last a month in a social workers job. First, you would have to learn to care about others as much as you do your own wallet. Second, you would have to learn that just about everyone lives the best life they know how to live…and to walk in with a “YOU people attitude is at once insulting AND builds a wall you have to tear down first to do any real work and get any real change.


“True. But of course that means that if an area receiving aid actually gets worse, they get more Federal money. So failure is rewarded.”


And you assume that the money was enough to actually make a difference. Sort of like having a car with a bad battery. So you look at your bank account and you don’t have enough money for a new or even a reliable used battery. But you DO have the money for a cheap charger. So you buy the charger and it gets you to the point where you can start the car in the morning…but you may end up needing a jump at the end of the day just to get home. Now, you are having the same problem but you are ****ed that you spent the money….but you KNEW that you were not spending enough and were NOT spending it correctly in the first place.

The people in the communities are not the ones who want to fail. The people in the city, county, state, and federal government who feather their nest this way are the ones to look at. This is no different than the people who do exactly the same thing with military contracts. (Good example is an old description of the requirements for a simple ashtray for the military). It just happens that the military is scrutinized less and is vilified less for this very typical problem of graft than the social services.

Want to clean it all up, start with BOTH – Military and social spending. If you want to rail against the graft – do both or you are just a right wing tool.

[curenado]

<<Second, you would have to learn that just about everyone lives the best life they know how to live…and to walk in with a “YOU people attitude is at once insulting AND builds a wall you have to tear down first to do any real work and get any real change.>>

I'm curious - if that is true, why then over the last 30 years has the only change been continually degenerative?
There is more than one philosophy in human services. Yours seems to come from the incumbent school of thought - that by giving people whatever they want for free without expectation of even moral merit, let alone practical viability or rehabilitative effort will improve their condition and future as well as include and validate them in society.
But the actual results have been fatually the opposite. The numbers for college entry and graduation have not really improved much but crime has become exponentially worse. In thirty years no substantive "victory garden" or across the board adult living skills or quality of life movements have been implemented.

So I think you are being a little rough with the guy. Trying to defend the few viables (because it does seem like you are) and demonstrate what does work about the "spoiled dependent" philosophy does come down to the individuals. Only a small % of individuals actually benefit from all America has to offer beyond free maintenance care.

I see your arguments, but only in a perspective towards individuals. When you generalize the issue it obscures your defense of the viables who do benefit - anybody can understand the "leg up" thing in America because that is how it should work. How it should and how it ends up going though is often very different.

[BJJ-Blue]

Ok…now you are exhibiting a total lack of logic. You are equating addressing a REAL social problem with a KNOWN TO BE TOO SMALL amount of resources – then being SURPRISED when you get less than optimum results… and THEN, due to doing the right idea but doing it in a doomed to fail half-a$$ed manner as PROOF that any action is futile.

No, I'm looking at results and seeing that despite the money we throw at poor areas, the problem has only grown.

Detroit before the War on Poverty:

http://www.timelessimagesmi.com/boblo.dock.Det.1950.53.jpg
http://metrotimes.com/sb/139530/07_BIG_skyline4c.jpg

Detroit after the War on Poverty:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cG2SV6Pnny4/Sh4Mt3GxmzI/AAAAAAAAC-8/XEtZ_UvYwgE/s400/fisherbody2.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2043/1527159317_2a83dd9c3e.jpg


Sorry, but your inability to see that there are more inputs into this system than money in – perfect neighborhoods and schools out – would be laughable if it weren’t so typical.

Are you even listening to me?

I'm the one blaming other factors, such as lack of parental involvement in education. It's the liberals who always say money is the solution. There is a reason why most Americans know who Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are, and have no idea who Jessie Lee Peterson and Ken Hamblin are. Guess which 2 demand money to fix problems, and which 2 advocate things like personal responsibility and making good choices as the solution?


You would not last a month in a social workers job. First, you would have to learn to care about others as much as you do your own wallet. Second, you would have to learn that just about everyone lives the best life they know how to live

I agree I wouldn't. And it's because I'm too honest. Id tell poor people to do things like take full advantage of a free education, respect teachers, don't have sex outside of marriage, and report crime in your communites. Now the kids in those areas have little respect for teachers (there is a reason few teachers want to work in inner cities), are told premartial sex is ok if you just use protection, and reporting crime gets you called a snitch (or worse).

Look at conservatism: What could be better than telling a poor person, 'You can't change how you started off, but you have so many tools you can use to change how you will end up'. We believe this country still is the Land of Opportunity, not the land of no hope. We also believe that human beings are so great we can achieve even more than we can imagine if we just put our minds to it and work hard. It's the liberals who say 'Life is unfair. Some people are just doomed to failure because of where they were born or the color of their skin.'

And no they don't live the best life they know how. Some do, of course. But how do explain women having 3 kids by 3 different guys before they are old enough to drink? They knew how to live better than that, they chose not to. How do explain women not choosing to look for a good, decent man who will provide for and take care of his children but instead relying on the Gov't to do it and just sleeping around with losers?


And you assume that the money was enough to actually make a difference.

We spent $620 BILLION in 2005 alone. How much is enough? :eek:


The people in the communities are not the ones who want to fail.

Want to clean it all up, start with BOTH – Military and social spending. If you want to rail against the graft – do both or you are just a right wing tool.

Some do, or they at least accept it. If you can't at least admit that, the discussion is pointless.

And I'm not railing against graft, I'm comparing Reagan's success in ending the Cold War via the solution he proposed to it, and the liberals failure to win the War on Poverty via the solutions they proposed, despite the trillions of dollars thrown at for 3+ generations.

[MasterKiller]

don't have sex outside of marriage.


Because that's exactly what you did, right...? :rolleyes:

[curenado]

Because that's exactly what you did, right...? :rolleyes:

Maybe marriage is a spiritual and moral choice but male regard for preventing pregnancy occurence and female control to prevent having more babies can be practiced by anyone.
If those babies did not have a substantial paycheck coming with them, they would not be born in such numbers. If they did not get a check per baby, you would be seeing poor people practicing birth control religiously. :)

[Syn7]

come on blue... first, you should know by now that im not a liberal... second, i never said guns shouldnt be legal, not once... i do feel they are far too accessable but thats another convo alltogether...

and then theres the welfare trap... this isnt because of welfare, its because of poverty... thats the root issue here, not the cheque they get that keeps them somewhat fed, but not very well, somewhat clothed and somewhat housed... yeah some take it further and ,ake money illegally on the side, but again, thats a poverty issue, not a welfare one... dont attack the bandage that is trying to soak up the blood, dont blame the weapon that made the wound. blame the poeple that created the wounds, that facilitated a time and place in which this would actually happen...

[Syn7]

Maybe marriage is a spiritual and moral choice but male regard for preventing pregnancy occurence and female control to prevent having more babies can be practiced by anyone.
If those babies did not have a substantial paycheck coming with them, they would not be born in such numbers. If they did not get a check per baby, you would be seeing poor people practicing birth control religiously. :)

well then chinas polulation must make you want to puke huh... and what does marriage have to do with being able to afford a baby???

[curenado]

well then chinas polulation must make you want to puke huh... and what does marriage have to do with being able to afford a baby???

China's population makes EVERYONE want to puke! Lol!

Your example country has laws penalizing the overproduction of young! If America did that - can you imagine the population reduction we would enjoy?

Marriage does not necessarily indicate financial capability, it denotes premeditated intention and goals.
I was saying that I didn't think marriage is a cure for unwanted or enterprising pregnancy in and of itself.

[Drake]

China's population makes EVERYONE want to puke! Lol!

Your example country has laws penalizing the overproduction of young! If America did that - can you imagine the population reduction we would enjoy?

Marriage does not necessarily indicate financial capability, it denotes premeditated intention and goals.
I was saying that I didn't think marriage is a cure for unwanted or enterprising pregnancy in and of itself.

Controlling family size is a pretty big move towards communism.

[curenado]

Controlling family size is a pretty big move towards communism.

Indeed. That's why in our country it would have to be financially based ie if your family size doesn't match your last year's tax return, you owe more taxes.

When we needed industrial workers, families got a tax break per child. Now we do not need more children and so there would more likely be a extra tax after you had more children than you could support.

(Except in our country the people that create the most unwanted children and consume most tax monies don't pay taxes, so something would have to be developed.)

But yes - such a move would have to be American style after our politics and culture. I do not see it happening, especially with this administration, but if it did...

[BJJ-Blue]

Because that's exactly what you did, right...? :rolleyes:

My sex life is no one's business. I will say I have no children born or conceived out of wedlock.


Maybe marriage is a spiritual and moral choice but male regard for preventing pregnancy occurence and female control to prevent having more babies can be practiced by anyone.
If those babies did not have a substantial paycheck coming with them, they would not be born in such numbers. If they did not get a check per baby, you would be seeing poor people practicing birth control religiously. :)

Exactly!!!

And this is what the responsible 'community activists' say. It's natural for women to look for a provider for their children. It's been done since the dawn of time. But since the Gov't will be a provider financially for children, women no longer have to look for it in a man. Of course they are too ignorant, or flat out don't care, to look for a man who will provide for his children in other ways necessary and teach his sons to be men and to look out for his daughters as only a father can.

[BJJ-Blue]

come on blue... first, you should know by now that im not a liberal... second, i never said guns shouldnt be legal, not once... i do feel they are far too accessable but thats another convo alltogether...

I didn't say you specifically said it, but you must admit that's the argument every liberal makes regarding gun control.

Where do you place yourself politically, if you don't mind me asking?


and then theres the welfare trap... this isnt because of welfare, its because of poverty... thats the root issue here, not the cheque they get that keeps them somewhat fed, but not very well, somewhat clothed and somewhat housed... yeah some take it further and ,ake money illegally on the side, but again, thats a poverty issue, not a welfare one... dont attack the bandage that is trying to soak up the blood, dont blame the weapon that made the wound. blame the poeple that created the wounds, that facilitated a time and place in which this would actually happen...

When you have no incentive to do something, it's natural for some people to not bother to do it. If the Government sent people out everyday to tie people's shoes, there would be alot of people who wouldn't bother to learn how to tie shoes.

If you told people, 'If you cannot provide for your children, they go hungry' you can darn well bet the number of children born to parents unable to financially support them would go down. Look at the percentage of kids born out of wedlock before vs after the War on Poverty. It's amazing, and quite sad. I truly feel the #1 factor for successful parenting is for children to be raised by a responsible father and a responsible mother.

[Syn7]

China's population makes EVERYONE want to puke! Lol!

Your example country has laws penalizing the overproduction of young! If America did that - can you imagine the population reduction we would enjoy?

Marriage does not necessarily indicate financial capability, it denotes premeditated intention and goals.
I was saying that I didn't think marriage is a cure for unwanted or enterprising pregnancy in and of itself.

its not fair to say all welfare recipients have babies just for another cheque... thats like saying all black people in the hood are criminals of sorts...

maybe, just maybe, if there were more opportunities for young low income women, then just maybe they would have their eyes on a different prize... as it stands they dont have much of anything, having a child is fullfilling in alot of ways, even if you cant afford it...

so you deny their right to reproduce because of the class they were born to??? they get stuck having to play in a rich mans world and have slim chances of getting out of that trap and you want to take away what may be the only fullfilling thing they can still do???


and when its kids having kids, kids are stupid.... rich poor it doesnt matter, they all do dumb sh1t... its just the rich ones get bailed out by mommy or daddy and the poor one has to fall back on the system... so the sh1thead that stays under they rich mommas skirt deserves more than the poor woman who just happened to be born in a different class???


address the poverty issue and the rest just goes away... its that simple... what isnt simple is the poverty issue itself... too many people see it too differently to make any real change... as long as the US remains devided, these problems are gonna just grow and grow untill it either blows up and makes a huge mess or people actually come together and create positive change in this area...


poor people outnumber the rich... lets not forget the bastille... if it gets bad enough the mob will tear down anyone and everyone with any sort of wealth and no amount of guns and tanks will stop it... cant kill em all... like vietnam, or iraq... it will be a losing battle from the get go...

[Syn7]

I didn't say you specifically said it, but you must admit that's the argument every liberal makes regarding gun control.

Where do you place yourself politically, if you don't mind me asking?



When you have no incentive to do something, it's natural for some people to not bother to do it. If the Government sent people out everyday to tie people's shoes, there would be alot of people who wouldn't bother to learn how to tie shoes.



i already answered that question... im a political independant in every sense of the word... party politics mean nothing to me... but the consequences do matter and i dont mind discussing that... and i realise this may be a revolutionary thought for you, but i deal with each issue seperately and i try not to compare apples to oranges... like trans fats and guns for example...

i agree, without incentive, without hope, its easy to just give up... so instead of saying "you aint sh1t so stop making babies and spend the rest of your life scrounging"... instead how bout we say "here are some opportunities, if there is any way i can help get you and your fam outta the welfare trap, just let me know."

which is the moral choice? which is the most productive choice??? which choice better suits the majority and which choice suits a very small handful of very wealthy people???


you know, there was a time when kings didnt live all that differently than the rest of their tribe... but now the kings dont share like they used to... but hey thats communist... an evil evil idea... in america it is your god given right to keep all the water in your own jar while watching people die of thirst... thats not what the american way was supposed to be...

[pateticorecords]

ignorance is bliss:p

[GLW]

I WAS going to take that pile of stereotypes and platitudes posted on point by point...but to be honest, it is totally clear that the preconceptions about how other people live and the issues are so sop****ric as to not be worth the time.

The ideas presented show that certain people have never stepped outside of their own limited socioeconomic levels for any period of time, have never experienced hardships, have never experienced first hand the impact of illness, mental illness, drug abuse, mistakes, and so on.

I sincerely hope that people with such attitudes do not also profess to be Christians as such attitudes are antithetical to that religious beliefs.

I am constantly amazed at such people's ability to stereotype, label, and spout their opinions that are prepackaged and given to them by others.

I could go on but frankly, it is a waste of my time. The last time I did this, it took about 6 pages for said person to show their inconsistencies and disprove their own arguments.

[curenado]

[QUOTE=GLW;1073999]I could go on but frankly, it is a waste of my time. QUOTE]

Thank you.
It has gotten pretty far from the original topic....which I still agree with. Only a complete moron would cash a FED check thesed days without going over the funky strings with a fine toothed comb.

[mooyingmantis]

Some things to think about when assessing education in the US:

Changes in Education
Many complain that the US educational system has fallen behind other developed countries. This is true. However, are you aware how radically education has changed in the last four decades?

I am in my early fifties. When I was in school (60s & 70s), kids on the "college track" began studying Algebra in the ninth grade. Today algebra is begun in the third grade. Most parents with only a high school education are unable to help their child with math after sixth or seventh grade. Third graders are taught about variables. Fourth graders learn exponents. Fifth graders learn how to solve expressions and the order of operations. Sixth graders learn graphing, solving inequalities, scientific notation, and the use of positive and negative integers. Lost yet? How many of these concepts could you teach your child?

The Impact of Financial Cuts on Education
With cuts in education, usually the first financial cuts applied are in teachers specializing in elementary art and music. The second area cut is teacher's aides, cafeteria and playground assistants, special service therapies, tutors, counselors and teachers. Less teachers means larger class sizes. The loss of teacher's aides means less one on one guided learning. The loss of tutors means less help for academically struggling students.

Educational Benefits for the Economically Disadvantaged
Students who come from an economically disadvantaged background are given benefits not provided for those in the middle and upper classes. For example:
1. Headstart for pre-school children,
2. Free breakfasts and lunches,
3. Waivers for school fees,
4. State and Federal grants to provide tutoring,
5. Points added to qualify for Title One programs.

How YOU Can Help

Here are some suggestions my wife, a sixth grade teacher of students with learning disabilities, has to offer:
1. Volunteer in an elementary classroom.
2. Volunteer to read, or listen to children read in the classroom.
3. Serve in the local PTA, or Boy's and Girl's Clubs.
4. Attend school board meetings to keep in touch with what is going on in your local school system.
5. Offer to speak to your child's class on your particular vocational or hobby expertise. For example, I have taught scientific principles through demonstrations of martial arts skills for science classes and spoken about Judaism during World History classes. Teachers LOVE parents who are willing to make a positive impact in the classroom.

There are no easy answers for our educational dilemma. However, we can be a part of the solution.

[curenado]

I like that you are talking about people being a quality part of doing something for themselves. That is usually when you get rid of the hot air bags who just want to have a opinion without being realistic or accountable.

Plus, it is always very gratifying to see when work and solutions are offered and big mouth dregs carry themselves away in great haste :cool:

I'm not sure about points for a title program but there should be no handicap or "free" points added. It is bad psychology for all kids when we just "give" a level or privelege that others had to earn. The one that thinks they got something for nothing becomes a pattern failure and cheat while the one that had to earn what they got is bewildered. Rewards without merit not only doesn't last, it has negative side effects.

But at the botom line I think parents are better off to consider themselves primarily responcible and the public school as a helping entity because it can't manage, be trusted or provide everything they need anymore on it's own. You have to supplement your kid's learning and be a watchdog that they are even learning worthwhile things that will give them a competative edge in their life.

[Drake]

Nobody wants to pay taxes or support anything unless it directly benefits them. Stupid, selfish, and irresponsible behavior. It takes a village to raise a child. Gain a sense of community and common vision, and drop the selfish, memememe attitude. Pay your stupid taxes so your stupid roads, schools, and way of life can be maintained.

[curenado]

Funny, it didn't take a village to raise a child when parents were worth something?
Now they all say "Hey village! Raise my kid, because I am working on another marriage and doing my thing!"
No, whoops, it's "It takes a village to raise a child".....not mine.
I spent my time telling my kids that just because the world acts that way is no excuse and no help for them.

[SoCo KungFu]

its not fair to say all welfare recipients have babies just for another cheque... thats like saying all black people in the hood are criminals of sorts...

maybe, just maybe, if there were more opportunities for young low income women, then just maybe they would have their eyes on a different prize... as it stands they dont have much of anything, having a child is fullfilling in alot of ways, even if you cant afford it...

so you deny their right to reproduce because of the class they were born to??? they get stuck having to play in a rich mans world and have slim chances of getting out of that trap and you want to take away what may be the only fullfilling thing they can still do???


and when its kids having kids, kids are stupid.... rich poor it doesnt matter, they all do dumb sh1t... its just the rich ones get bailed out by mommy or daddy and the poor one has to fall back on the system... so the sh1thead that stays under they rich mommas skirt deserves more than the poor woman who just happened to be born in a different class???


address the poverty issue and the rest just goes away... its that simple... what isnt simple is the poverty issue itself... too many people see it too differently to make any real change... as long as the US remains devided, these problems are gonna just grow and grow untill it either blows up and makes a huge mess or people actually come together and create positive change in this area...


As much as you might hate to admit it, Blue isn't entirely wrong. While he does fall short in acknowledging the overall mess that it is to fight you way out of poverty and all the social issues that come into play, there are a lot of people that simply choose to take advantage of it in their own ways. Meaning working the entitlement system. If you think there aren't, you're just as blind in your own side. And I have grown up in some of those areas, between SoCal and a couple places in the SE. I am one bad turn from being homeless (and was already for a short time once). You know what the irony is? I joined the military and worked my ass off to escape that. But now that I left the military and get to cash in on my benefits to further my education, I technically have no income but I have more money in the bank than I ever had before. Now I'm working my ass off just as much in my education (you know getting into med school ain't easy). But the fact that I'm not really contributing back, but still living comfortably and relatively stress free...it can be tempting. And there are a lot of people that take advantage. Why? Because in their world, they are living comfortable. Ghettos suck, they really do. But on the other hand, I really could get by and "survive" and just go play basketball all day. And I wouldn't be lacking in company around here. Of course, I suck at basketball...

As to the children. From a "cold" scientific point of view (meaning, not really based in any human emotion or notion of morality from whatever source: religion whatever), from a strictly biological view, yes it would be better for the species to restrict reproduction from those without the means to support their offspring. Anytime an organism is introduced to an environment, it is a strain on the whole. "Village to raise a child" and all that. Seeing as how I do not look at humanity much different than any other organism, I see no reason we should not be subject to the same laws of nature (and in fact we are as much as people try to fight it). Any other organism, if it exceeds the sustaining capacity, its members die. And as much as people may hate me to say it, may rail at my lack of humanity or whatever. The species as a whole would probably be better off to let a number of those without means to simply die off. The most logical being the places already in trouble (ie. with the least resources to sustain its current populations). Now, will we do that? No, of course not. But it would be the simplest and most readily achievable solution to the problem. A lot of problems actually. No parasite intends to kill its host, that would just be foolish. But we are bound by our evolution (technology included). And we are slowly killing ours. Kinda like Trypanosoma. We do our best not to hurt our host, but eventually we'll just be too much for the system to handle. Well, that's my morbid thought for the day...

[Drake]

Funny, it didn't take a village to raise a child when parents were worth something?
Now they all say "Hey village! Raise my kid, because I am working on another marriage and doing my thing!"
No, whoops, it's "It takes a village to raise a child".....not mine.
I spent my time telling my kids that just because the world acts that way is no excuse and no help for them.

It's actually an ancient African proverb, and has been used throughout American history. No sense of community and every man for himself? Is that your approach?

[SoCo KungFu]

It's actually an ancient African proverb, and has been used throughout American history. No sense of community and every man for himself? Is that your approach?

The greater our means to come together, the further we push apart. I blame texting...

[mooyingmantis]

It's actually an ancient African proverb...

Do you know what this phrase actually means? I mean besides the spin Hillary Clinton put on it during her husband's presidency?

Let me share the experience of a friend of mine who was born in Sierra Leone in the 1950s. Francis was the child of a man who had ten wives. Francis was one of sixty children fathered by this man and his ten wives. Francis' family WAS a village. And yes, it did take ten wives to raise sixty children. Do you really think they had time to raise any other "village's" children? That is the "ancient African proverb" in its historical and cultural context.

[Syn7]

As much as you might hate to admit it, Blue isn't entirely wrong.

you know that saying that goes "better to let fifty guilty men go free than to put one innocent man in prison."

i agree its a problem, but cutting everyone off isnt the solution...

also, its a bit different up here, but the core issues are pretty much the same...





and moooyingmantis.... wherever that saying came from, the way i was taught to understand it was that a whole community is involved in raising kids in that community... they will be influenced by friends whos parents dont think like you, from teachers, weird fam members at xmas and so on...

what spin did hillhill put on it??? that woman sure takes alot of liberties in her interpretations on so many issues...

[mooyingmantis]

and moooyingmantis.... wherever that saying came from, the way i was taught to understand it was that a whole community is involved in raising kids in that community... they will be influenced by friends whos parents dont think like you, from teachers, weird fam members at xmas and so on...

what spin did hillhill put on it??? that woman sure takes alot of liberties in her interpretations on so many issues...

Hillary made the saying popular and interpreted as you explained it.

I was just putting it back in its historical/cultural background.

Frankly, I don't want my "village" raising my child. In fact, I believe that is part of the problem today, because we have allowed it to happen.

Since both parents are working in many families, children are raised in their most important years of moral development by Headstart, preschool and the other children that they are thrown together with. Parents aren't there to monitor what goes into their children's little eyes and little ears.

As I look around my middle-class neighborhood, I see teenage girls from two families who have already contracted genital herpes, a man who beats his live-in girlfriend on a semi-regular basis, a registered sex offender who lives on the next block, and several children around my son's age that are on ritalin because of their behaviour. Do I really want this village raising my child? Not really!

[Syn7]

no doubt... if you arent active enough in your childs life, who knows what they learn at other peoples houses and whatnot... to me the answer is really simple... just be there... it gets complicated when you are like a single working mom but you need to bring in gramma or something... just be there, listen, learn, guide...

my mother was a single working mom when i was little... but i never went to daycare, not ever... family and friends picked up the slack... i spent most of the time when my mom was at work with her twin sister who was a stay at home mom/in house hairdresser... there was always somebody i knew very well taking care of me...

[Syn7]

As I look around my middle-class neighborhood, I see teenage girls from two families who have already contracted genital herpes, a man who beats his live-in girlfriend on a semi-regular basis, a registered sex offender who lives on the next block, and several children around my son's age that are on ritalin because of their behaviour. Do I really want this village raising my child? Not really!


and what chance do their kids ever have??? its a miracle that some kids from fam like that actually end up being doctors and sh1t...


uugghh ritalin... lets not even go there, lol... tooo much man, toooo much... dope em up, shut em up, lock em up...

[curenado]

It's actually an ancient African proverb, and has been used throughout American history. No sense of community and every man for himself? Is that your approach?

African or not, it has not been used throughout American history! (lol!) Why did you even try that?
"They celebrated Kwanza right after we signed the declaration!"

NUTS!

[BJJ-Blue]

and i realise this may be a revolutionary thought for you, but i deal with each issue seperately and i try not to compare apples to oranges... like trans fats and guns for example...

I have no idea why you'd say it might be a revolutionary thought for me to deal with issues separately. I'm the one who people say is a blind shill for the GOP, yet I'm for drugs and prostitution being legalized and anti-death penalty, hardly GOP positions.

I judge every issue separately, but I pretty much fall on the side of small, hands off Government and the rights of the individual first and foremost on issues.


i agree, without incentive, without hope, its easy to just give up... so instead of saying "you aint sh1t so stop making babies and spend the rest of your life scrounging"... instead how bout we say "here are some opportunities, if there is any way i can help get you and your fam outta the welfare trap, just let me know."

Which is how conservatism works. Of course we believe the smaller the Government, the more opportunities people will have. I've seen an industry massively grow in a small amount of time, high tech in the early to mid 1990s. During that time you saw people hired who would not have been qualified a few years before, but the industry grew so fast that these people were given opportunities. Capitialism is not this evil thing it's made out to be. The more the ecomony grows, the more jobs are out there. And the more freedom given to the private sector, the easier it is for them to grow. It's not a hard concept to grasp imo.


you know, there was a time when kings didnt live all that differently than the rest of their tribe... but now the kings dont share like they used to... but hey thats communist... an evil evil idea... in america it is your god given right to keep all the water in your own jar while watching people die of thirst... thats not what the american way was supposed to be...

It's not that the kings don't share, it's that they've become disconnected that's the problem. When you are passing important legislation and openly admitting you didn't bother to read it before voting on it, that's not good. It's actually frightfully similar to Rome before they fell. Politics became a game, those involved stopped caring about how legislation affected the country and the people, they just cared about whether they 'won' or 'lost' politically and **** the country.

As to Americans getting "to keep all the water in your own jar while watching people die of thirst" thats actually exactly how America is supposed to be. You may not like hearing it, but it is what it is. The Constitution grants every one of us the freedom to do as we please (legally of course) with our money. If you choose to donate massive amounts of your money to bums, that's your business. But if someone like me chooses to put my family first, that is also my right. But in no way does it call for We The People to take care of huge segments of our population.

[Drake]

African or not, it has not been used throughout American history! (lol!) Why did you even try that?
"They celebrated Kwanza right after we signed the declaration!"

NUTS!

It HAS. Do your research.

[David Jamieson]

It's actually an ancient African proverb, and has been used throughout American history. No sense of community and every man for himself? Is that your approach?

That is arguable although I have heard it attributed to an African proverb from Nigeria, but I have heard it attributed to native americans as well.

I don't think it is 100% clear and it is one of those quotes that is timeless and seemingly true, but it's hard to say where it came from without source literature.
Like say a ****ens quote or Shakespeare etc.

fwiw, kwanza didn't exist until 1966 and was created by an american for americans.

an also, most unattributable phrases will be claimed by whoever knows they are not clear source wise more often than not. :)

[David Jamieson]

"DICKENS? is censored?

I can say ass without using the workaround but not dick? (which I did just use the work around for :D )

come on Gene, have the powers that be remove that from the list, it's irritating and guys named richard are probably perplexed as to why they cannot say their short name here. lol

[Drake]

Suck my ****ens!

[Syn7]

I have no idea why you'd say it might be a revolutionary thought for me to deal with issues separately. I'm the one who people say is a blind shill for the GOP, yet I'm for drugs and prostitution being legalized and anti-death penalty, hardly GOP positions.

I judge every issue separately, but I pretty much fall on the side of small, hands off Government and the rights of the individual first and foremost on issues.



Which is how conservatism works. Of course we believe the smaller the Government, the more opportunities people will have. I've seen an industry massively grow in a small amount of time, high tech in the early to mid 1990s. During that time you saw people hired who would not have been qualified a few years before, but the industry grew so fast that these people were given opportunities. Capitialism is not this evil thing it's made out to be. The more the ecomony grows, the more jobs are out there. And the more freedom given to the private sector, the easier it is for them to grow. It's not a hard concept to grasp imo.



It's not that the kings don't share, it's that they've become disconnected that's the problem. When you are passing important legislation and openly admitting you didn't bother to read it before voting on it, that's not good. It's actually frightfully similar to Rome before they fell. Politics became a game, those involved stopped caring about how legislation affected the country and the people, they just cared about whether they 'won' or 'lost' politically and **** the country.

As to Americans getting "to keep all the water in your own jar while watching people die of thirst" thats actually exactly how America is supposed to be. You may not like hearing it, but it is what it is. The Constitution grants every one of us the freedom to do as we please (legally of course) with our money. If you choose to donate massive amounts of your money to bums, that's your business. But if someone like me chooses to put my family first, that is also my right. But in no way does it call for We The People to take care of huge segments of our population.

theories are all good, but if you take away all welfare money and shrink government those theories wont feed babies today and tomorrow... so you need to create the jobs and then get rid of welfare, not the other way around... nothing else will fly... i dont think anyone wants welfare around forever... its a bandaid, not a solution... so instead of attacking the bandaid, attack whatever created those wounds in the first place and create an environment that doesnt need the welfare bandaid... so far i havent heard any real solutions, just the same old he said she said political garbage...

[BJJ-Blue]

theories are all good, but if you take away all welfare money and shrink government those theories wont feed babies today and tomorrow... so you need to create the jobs and then get rid of welfare, not the other way around... nothing else will fly... i dont think anyone wants welfare around forever... its a bandaid, not a solution... so instead of attacking the bandaid, attack whatever created those wounds in the first place and create an environment that doesnt need the welfare bandaid... so far i havent heard any real solutions, just the same old he said she said political garbage...

I agree with alot of that. We obviously can't just get rid of it on a dime. But it keeps growing and growing and it shows no indication of it ever shrinking/getting better. And God help anyone who dares mentioning reforming/fixing/shrinking it.

I will say this, you watch the next two years closely, especially tonight and the next few days. If the GOP mentions reforming ANY entitlement, the Democrats will say the same things they've said for 20+ years, 'You guys want to starve children', 'You guys want old people to choose between eating and medical care', 'You guys created homelessness and now you want even more people starving in the streets', and on and on. I'm not exactly being Nostradamus here, I'm just observing their past behavior. And I'd hope you agree that kind of rhetoric is not helping fix the problem one bit.

[Syn7]

I agree with alot of that. We obviously can't just get rid of it on a dime. But it keeps growing and growing and it shows no indication of it ever shrinking/getting better. And God help anyone who dares mentioning reforming/fixing/shrinking it.

I will say this, you watch the next two years closely, especially tonight and the next few days. If the GOP mentions reforming ANY entitlement, the Democrats will say the same things they've said for 20+ years, 'You guys want to starve children', 'You guys want old people to choose between eating and medical care', 'You guys created homelessness and now you want even more people starving in the streets', and on and on. I'm not exactly being Nostradamus here, I'm just observing their past behavior. And I'd hope you agree that kind of rhetoric is not helping fix the problem one bit.

well republicans have had the majority of control on the executive branch in the last 40 years... why didnt they fix it???

[BJJ-Blue]

well republicans have had the majority of control on the executive branch in the last 40 years... why didnt they fix it???

Because once the Democrats use that rhetoric I mentioned, they lose their resolve. It happens over and over. And remember, those receiving the entitlements are eligible voters. It's just that now we are dead broke and we have to make cuts, and many are calling for cuts in entitlements.

Again, I've put my predictions out there for all to see. I'm convinced I'll be correct, but I fully understand if the Democrats actually argue the issue itself and dont use their normal fear-mongering rhetoric, I'll be called out for being wrong.

[Syn7]

Because once the Democrats use that rhetoric I mentioned, they lose their resolve. It happens over and over. And remember, those receiving the entitlements are eligible voters. It's just that now we are dead broke and we have to make cuts, and many are calling for cuts in entitlements.

Again, I've put my predictions out there for all to see. I'm convinced I'll be correct, but I fully understand if the Democrats actually argue the issue itself and dont use their normal fear-mongering rhetoric, I'll be called out for being wrong.

well, if the accusations are false, just show them as such and trust the american people to be smart enough to make the right choices at the ballot box... or do you not believe in the average american?

[BJJ-Blue]

well, if the accusations are false, just show them as such and trust the american people to be smart enough to make the right choices at the ballot box... or do you not believe in the average american?

I'm addressing the rhetoric itself, not whether it's effective or not.

We just had a political Party blame political rhetoric for a tragedy, yet they are the same Party that say certain people want to starve children and force old people to eat dog food. That's incindiary rhetoric if I've heard it.

Do you condemn such rhetoric?

As to the ballot box, I clearly stated that those receiving entitlements are voters as well. FYI, I do not consider welfare recipients to be 'average Americans', but they are a large voting bloc that sadly cannot be ignored.

[curenado]

well republicans have had the majority of control on the executive branch in the last 40 years... why didnt they fix it???

I did not think anyone ever meant to fix it. I think it was seen as something that would take it's natural course and eventually fail.
I think those who did it at that time were fixing it for them, knowing that this is what it would most likely come to. (a bit like antibiotics which are currently ni trouble too - it had a predestined poop-out)

That is what I think would profit the struggling people most right now - to discover, learn, plant, preserve and establish very basic things to help them on their own initiative for hteir own sake.

It seems to me if you have expensive welfare then you just crunch it down until people have to live in camps and poor farms and the money they do get is recirculated "on their behalf".

We have had three things in this country in just the last 100 years people alive today can't believe:
1) Depression to the extent of no money or food in areas - and when they went to other areas, there were people with guns saying "you can't stop here"

2) Starvation. Not hunger, but people dying of starvation.

3) Poor "Farms" where homeless people go or are sent and it usually seems worse....

So I feel like you maybe make some good enough arguments in a situation where the logic or outcomes were similar - but I think we just say that for politially correct and don't put the stories on the news.

It's time in zone 7 for onions, lettude and peas if you keep the frost off of them.....

Here we are on a kung fu forum, talking about the few and the many.......I am sure a monk would spend careful time on his garden and stores in a season like this.
If people want to do more than "complain about the man" and actually help people they are sympathetic to, they should plant victory gardens BIG TIME and get ready to help people learn to make good food with little of nothing as well as maybe prepare for a soup kitchen. That too has been done before in this country and it was literally all some people had for a few years....

The thing that freaks me out the most is that when this happened last time, MOST people were just one step off of a farm even if they were in town. They had food knowledge and skills as well as tons of "make it your self" kung fu.
NOW, MOST people don't know how to milk and make butter. They don't know how to preserve the food they do acquire or how to produce more. The majority have been urban for enough generations to lose all regular earth living skills and capability at a time when there are at least ten times more than before too.

[BJJ-Blue]

I did not think anyone ever meant to fix it. I think it was seen as something that would take it's natural course and eventually fail.
I think those who did it at that time were fixing it for them, knowing that this is what it would most likely come to. (a bit like antibiotics which are currently ni trouble too - it had a predestined poop-out)

I read a book once called "Inside the White House". The authors sourced Secret Service agents, cooks, the White House barbers, staffers, cleaning staffs, etc for the book and it covered Administrations from Kennedy to Clinton's first term. If you read what LBJ said in private about why he signed the Civil Rights Act you would be disgusted, but really not surpised if you knew anything about LBJ as a person.

[BJJ-Blue]

Also, make sure you read my thread about Austin's school budget problem.

[Syn7]

there would be alot more money for education in general if the US hadnt deregulated the banks... like, "oh they wont take stupid risks, they will be honest... its thier right to run thier business as they see fit... thats whats best for the country..."

well... that sure worked out didnt it... the financial crisis inquiry commission was very adamant that this economic meltdown was preventable, foreseeable and was caused by human action, inaction and misjudgement... not the kind of misjudgement where you make a mitske, but the kind where you make a judgement that you know is good for you and bad for everyone else...

this is a bi partisan problem... started by the bush administration and continued by the obama admin... i mean, paulson and gietner arent so different...

read the financial crisis inquiry commissions report... its brutal...

[zhugeliang]

The situation in San Antonio is becoming severe. The NEISD superintendent is talking about laying off 500 teachers.

[BJJ-Blue]

there would be alot more money for education in general if the US hadnt deregulated the banks... like, "oh they wont take stupid risks, they will be honest... its thier right to run thier business as they see fit... thats whats best for the country..."

And we wouldn't have had anyone willing to take risks, ie buying junk mortgages, if the Gov't hadn't guaranteed said mortgages. There is plenty of blame to go around, so just sticking it all on the banks is flat-out worng.


well... that sure worked out didnt it... the financial crisis inquiry commission was very adamant that this economic meltdown was preventable, foreseeable and was caused by human action, inaction and misjudgement... not the kind of misjudgement where you make a mitske, but the kind where you make a judgement that you know is good for you and bad for everyone else...

Agreed. But the bad judgement at the foundation of the problem were idiots buying houses with ARMs they could not afford. Of course there were other mistakes caused by humans, but had there been no idiots buying houses they couldn't afford, the problem would never have happened. IMO, that was the core problem.

And yes, I was offered an ARM. My response was to say 'No' and find a new realtor.


this is a bi partisan problem... started by the bush administration and continued by the obama admin... i mean, paulson and gietner arent so different...

It started before them. Carter signed in the Community Reinvestment Act, which FORCED banks to make a certain percentage of high risk morgages, and Clinton deregulated more than any other recent President. Bush actually tried to put new regulations in effect in 2004, but was stopped by Congressional Democrats playing the race card, as Franklin Raines (the CEO of Fannie Mae) was black. I've repeatedly posted the YouTube clip of the Congressional hearings in 2004, and will do so again if you ask. Video doesn't lie.

As to Obama, he is for tougher regulation. My only fear is he will go too far, and thus hurt banks abilities to operate, make profits, etc. And lets be honest, so far his record on economic issues has been pretty bad.


The situation in San Antonio is becoming severe. The NEISD superintendent is talking about laying off 500 teachers.

Hopefully they don't have to start closing high perfoming schools like AISD is seriously considering doing to close the budget gap, while adhering to the 'Robin Hood laws' signed into law by Democrat Ann Richards.

[Syn7]

so tell me... WTF is up with lil kids getting charged with misdemeanors for being disruptive in class??? just heard about that one girl who was being bullied, kids say she smells bad so she put on some perfume or something... i guess she did the whole italian shower thang, coz apparently it was distracting the class and sure enough police were called and she was charged and fined... no hearing, just guilty, pay the fine and sit down and shut the fukc up...

GOOD JOB TEXAS... the great state it is...

funny how its always republican states that get involved in criminalizing children for profit.... i mean, those for profit prisons for children that were being filled by those paid off judges, they werent democrats...

not to say dems dont have their own issues, but criminalizing babies doesnt seem to be on their radar the same way it is with the right... and dont come at me with what dems do wrong coz im not defending them...

criminalizing childish behavious in children is just wrong.... nothing good will come of this... atleast not for the proletariat...

[Syn7]

275,000 class C misdemeanors handed out to children as young as 6...


good job texas... i had no idea it was this bad... man we have it good where im at... i can sit on a bench on a well groomed avenue and smoke a cone and the police will just gawk and keep on moving... now thats freedom... and honestly, i feel we have little freedom in reality, so where does that put texas???

[BJJ-Blue]

Don't act like Texas has the market cornered on this foolishness of freaking out when kids misbehave. It happens everywhere. Also, this is not up the State, it's up to the individual school districts.

Also, I don't recall Texas having any school shootings despite the fact there are plenty of Republicans and guns in this State. Heck, when I went to high school (and I graduated in 1990), we had several guys who carried their rifles in gun racks in their trucks at school.

[BJJ-Blue]

good job texas... i had no idea it was this bad... man we have it good where im at... i can sit on a bench on a well groomed avenue and smoke a cone and the police will just gawk and keep on moving... now thats freedom... and honestly, i feel we have little freedom in reality, so where does that put texas???

Austin has a 'tag and release' policy concerning weed. An ounce or less and you are just given a ticket/summons to appear in court. You are not arrested. People (including me) will toke up right in front of cops at music fests here (SXSW, ACL Fest, Marley Fest) and not be hassled at all.

[Syn7]

yet you can get charged for wearing perfume in a desperate attempt to stop bullying... thats just great...


technically you cant smoke weed here... but we all do and we dont hide it... you have to walk up and blow it in thier face to get charged... although if you go down for something worse, they will tack on the weed charge for good measure... and ofcourse everywhere you have the odd officer hardass who gets off and handing out paperwork and will cuff you for jaywalking... but they arent that common...

now im not saying our cops are nice guys... its just the sheer amount of pot smoking makes them have SOOOOO much paperwork if they do something about it... so they dont... coz that would be like, you know, work:rolleyes:....

[Syn7]

Don't act like Texas has the market cornered on this foolishness of freaking out when kids misbehave. It happens everywhere. Also, this is not up the State, it's up to the individual school districts.

Also, I don't recall Texas having any school shootings despite the fact there are plenty of Republicans and guns in this State. Heck, when I went to high school (and I graduated in 1990), we had several guys who carried their rifles in gun racks in their trucks at school.

no school shootings? well, that must be becoz they give records to a 6 year old for crying too long after stubbing his toe... you cant justify that sh1t man, dont even try... its wrong.... iittts wrrrrooooonnnngggg!!!!!!!

[BJJ-Blue]

no school shootings? well, that must be becoz they give records to a 6 year old for crying too long after stubbing his toe... you cant justify that sh1t man, dont even try... its wrong.... iittts wrrrrooooonnnngggg!!!!!!!

What? :confused:

We haven't any school shootings here, thats a fact. We also have very liberal gun laws down here too, and still no school shootings.

As to bullying, it's a part of life. With all these ridiculous anti-bullying laws (including what kids post online!), we are raising a generation of pansies.

[MasterKiller]

What? :confused:

We haven't any school shootings here, thats a fact. We also have very liberal gun laws down here too, and still no school shootings..


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Whitman1963.jpg

[BJJ-Blue]

We're talking about school shootings, not Whitman's shootings. He was a grown man, an ex-Marine, and married. He was not a school child. Stay on topic please.

[MasterKiller]

We're talking about school shootings, not Whitman's shootings. He was a grown man, an ex-Marine, and married. He was not a school child. Stay on topic please.

Austin college student killing 16 other college students I think qualifies.

[BJJ-Blue]

Austin college student killing 16 other college students I think qualifies.

Whatever. You're grasping at straws by using a married, grown man with a brain tumor as an example when we are discussing school shootings and bullying. And he killed plenty of people who were not students or teachers.

But thanks for proving one of my points, more guns equals less crime. Whitman's shootings happened BEFORE Texans had concealed/carry rights. Since that law was enacted, we've had NO mass shootings that qualify even by your standards. Thanks buddy! ;)

[MasterKiller]

Whatever. You're grasping at straws by using a married, grown man with a brain tumor as an example when we are discussing school shootings and bullying. And he killed plenty of people who were not students or teachers.

But thanks for proving one of my points, more guns equals less crime. Whitman's shootings happened BEFORE Texans had concealed/carry rights. Since that law was enacted, we've had NO mass shootings that qualify even by your standards. Thanks buddy! ;)

Student Wounds 6 at High School

AMARILLO, Tex., Sept. 11 — Six youths were wounded by gunfire today when a teen-ager carrying a handgun inside a high school began shooting at a fellow student with whom he had feuded.

A seventh student was trampled in the pandemonium that followed the shooting, which occurred at Palo Duro High School in this Texas Panhandle city near the Oklahoma border.

The target of the attack, Delmond Carruthers, 18 years old, later underwent surgery at Northwest Texas Hospital here for .38-caliber bullet wounds to the chest and shoulder. The hospital said late today that his condition was critical but that the five other students wounded by the young gunman and the one student trampled were all in satisfactory condition.

The police arrested as a suspect Randy Earl Matthews, 17, along with a 15-year-old boy who had fled the scene with him.

The shooting occurred in a crowded hallway of the 1,400-student school soon after a morning pep rally.

[Syn7]

in switzerland the state pays for and regulates the facty that there is a rifle in EVERY home... its your duty as a citizen to keep your weapon and uniform in good working condition that is subject to random inspection... so every home has a state sponsored gun, and they have a very low gun crime rate... why? because every home has a gun? NO, its because every home has a gun but not before the people are schooled on proper use and conduct... if the staes put more into gun safety and made sure everyone had one your crime rates would change... and there would be alot of dead crooks...

personally, i think all nations should demand that every citizen does atleast 3 years millitary service and is afterwards required to keep and mainbtain their gear... that would make for a better place, thats a fact...

but when almost any idiot can buy a nine on the street corner or at a pawn shop, this is not a good recipe for positive change... more education and less "its my right to have a cannon" would do you guys alot of good... the guns arent the problem, its the people that are the problem...

[MasterKiller]

Ennis, Texas. May 15, 2001. A 16-year-old sop****re upset over his relationship with a girl, took 17 hostages in English class, and shot and killed himself and the girl.

[MasterKiller]

September 2010: A gunman wielding an AK-47 and wearing a ski mask opened fire and then killed himself in a University of Texas library this morning, the Austin-American Statesman reports.

[Syn7]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g&feature=player_embedded


watch and learn something from a country that enjoys true personal sovereignty... this is freedom...


the swiss also stick back all their currency with bullion... which is why that they have a better economy per capita than most other countries in the world...

another thing about the guns tho, one could argue that the swiss should take more credit for ending WW2 than anyone else... why were they able to stay nuetral? because they were able to repel german forces... they held germany at a standstill and are the only country bordering germany that didnt get run thru... they did their part and more IMO... we could all learn from switzerland...

here in canada, not so good with th registry... we are so afraid of ending up like the US that we are demonizing guns here... when i was a kid all my friends parents had atleast a hunting rifle in the home... my fam has many... im armed right now... but you cant go buy one on the corner as easy as in the states... i lived in frisco for awhile a few years back and i was personally offered weapons on the street by people i'd never seen before... just tryna move some hot peice... that **** just dont happen in switzerland... care to guess why????


food is cheaper, clothes are cheaper, everything is cheaper...

[BJJ-Blue]

in switzerland the state pays for and regulates the facty that there is a rifle in EVERY home... its your duty as a citizen to keep your weapon and uniform in good working condition that is subject to random inspection... so every home has a state sponsored gun, and they have a very low gun crime rate... why? because every home has a gun? NO, its because every home has a gun but not before the people are schooled on proper use and conduct... if the staes put more into gun safety and made sure everyone had one your crime rates would change... and there would be alot of dead crooks...

personally, i think all nations should demand that every citizen does atleast 3 years millitary service and is afterwards required to keep and mainbtain their gear... that would make for a better place, thats a fact...

And Switzerland was the only European country Hitler didn't invade...

As for classes, it's not required by the Constitution. But in Texas at least, you must take classes (and shooting is part of the test/curriculum) to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun.

[Syn7]

ooriginally, my understanding was that americans were taught to all own guns and learn to hide them from the government should the gov get taken over and try to take them away... and this was a gov sponsored program to hide weapons from the gov... what happened??? yall got hijacked is what happened...

[Syn7]

And Switzerland was the only European country Hitler didn't invade...

oh, hitler tried, he just failed... they repelled him... they can call up the whole population as a force in like 2 to 3 days at the most... most can mobilize within hours...

the swiss were so concerned and so busy protecting there own selves that they said they werent gonna help with the offensive... and i support them in that decision...


im seriously thinking of moving to europe... northwestern europe... its just a better place to live and i have roots there... i have maaad fam i can fall on over there...

[BJJ-Blue]

So we have some school shootings, and college ones. Notice that guns are banned at schools, yet alot of mass shootings happen there. How can this be? I thought banning guns solved the problem?

Also, the 1997 HS shooting in Pearl, MS was stopped by an assistant principal who retrieved a gun from his car. He physically immobilized the gunman for over 40 minutes until police arrived, no doubt saving many lives.

So my point remains, it's safer now that we can carry concealed guns here than it was before, unless you are in an area the guns are banned.

[BJJ-Blue]

ooriginally, my understanding was that americans were taught to all own guns and learn to hide them from the government should the gov get taken over and try to take them away... and this was a gov sponsored program to hide weapons from the gov... what happened??? yall got hijacked is what happened...

I'm not familiar with this.


oh, hitler tried, he just failed... they repelled him... they can call up the whole population as a force in like 2 to 3 days at the most... most can mobilize within hours...

I don't recall Hitler invading Switzerland. Are you sure you are not mistaken?

[Syn7]

I'm not familiar with this.



I don't recall Hitler invading Switzerland. Are you sure you are not mistaken?

he didnt invade because he couldnt invade... and had all other nations that were invaded acted like switzerland and had that sort of militia then they wouldnt have needed british and american and canadian and russian help... theres no way hitler could have taken czech had every citizen been armed to the teeth... no way...


do you really think hitler didnt invade the swiss coz he liked them? he invaded EVERYONE ELSE... why not thye swiss??? think about that for a minute... the swiss are right there, if anyone was gonna get hit, they would have been a prime geographically strategical position...


i'll try and find some info on the hiding weapons thing... the swiss are taught that by the way... i'll see what i find... and dont worry, i wont go and post any alex jones clips lol... i'll look for real evidence...

[Syn7]

So we have some school shootings, and college ones. Notice that guns are banned at schools, yet alot of mass shootings happen there. How can this be? I thought banning guns solved the problem?

Also, the 1997 HS shooting in Pearl, MS was stopped by an assistant principal who retrieved a gun from his car. He physically immobilized the gunman for over 40 minutes until police arrived, no doubt saving many lives.

So my point remains, it's safer now that we can carry concealed guns here than it was before, unless you are in an area the guns are banned.

i agree, but your guys problems arent the guns themselves... its your culture that is the problem... getting rid of guns is only a temp solution which as a major drawback which is a complete loss of peronal sovereignty... in that respect, im a total libertarian...

but i consider these ideas to be progressive aswell as conservative... im also fiscally quite conservative... yet i believe christians need to back off and im pro choice down the line... esspecially with abortions... it doesnt get any more big gov intrusive than to regulate a womans womb... thats not conservative at all... thats christian...

[BJJ-Blue]

he didnt invade because he couldnt invade... and had all other nations that were invaded acted like switzerland and had that sort of militia then they wouldnt have needed british and american and canadian and russian help... theres no way hitler could have taken czech had every citizen been armed to the teeth... no way...

do you really think hitler didnt invade the swiss coz he liked them? he invaded EVERYONE ELSE... why not thye swiss??? think about that for a minute... the swiss are right there, if anyone was gonna get hit, they would have been a prime geographically strategical position...

Oh, the point I was trying to make was what you just posted, Hitler left them alone because they had an armed populace. Unlike every other country he invaded.

Even Yamamoto cautioned the political rulers of Japan the US would not surrender but would have to be invaded, and that every American citizen would become an armed enemy. Of course they didn't listen to him, but he was right.

[Syn7]

http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/MiddleSouthernColonialGunControl.PDF


heres an interesting article full of info on early gun laws... like how it was the law that you had to bring ALL your weapons to church... why? so the black and natives cant steal em from you while youre at church then shoot you when you get home or use them to arm up and defend their own interests... lots of neat info in that article...

[BJJ-Blue]

i agree, but your guys problems arent the guns themselves... its your culture that is the problem... getting rid of guns is only a temp solution which as a major drawback which is a complete loss of peronal sovereignty... in that respect, im a total libertarian...

but i consider these ideas to be progressive aswell as conservative... im also fiscally quite conservative... yet i believe christians need to back off and im pro choice down the line... esspecially with abortions... it doesnt get any more big gov intrusive than to regulate a womans womb... thats not conservative at all... thats christian...

We agree completely on guns then. But you know the American liberals do believe the guns are the problem. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

I'm pro-life. Both as a Chrisitian and as an American. The Constitution grants everyone life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And it's big on personal responsibility. I will never be convinced the Founders would allow an unborn child to be killed because someone doesn't want to be responsible for their actions. Now cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's life is in danger are a different story. But abortion as a form of birth control is horrible imo.

[Syn7]

Oh, the point I was trying to make was what you just posted, Hitler left them alone because they had an armed populace. Unlike every other country he invaded.

Even Yamamoto cautioned the political rulers of Japan the US would not surrender but would have to be invaded, and that every American citizen would become an armed enemy. Of course they didn't listen to him, but he was right.

word... i guess the proper terminology would be that the swiss repelled the germans... they werent invaded coz they couldnyt be invaded without unacceptable losses... it was clear that every swiss man was willing to die for his own personal sovereignty... that i love...

[BJJ-Blue]

word... i guess the proper terminology would be that the swiss repelled the germans... they werent invaded coz they couldnyt be invaded without unacceptable losses... it was clear that every swiss man was willing to die for his own personal sovereignty... that i love...

That's it exactly. When you said "repelled", I took that as an actual invasion occured and was fought off.

[Syn7]

nice to have concensus once in a while...


i dont think yall need new gun laws, but you may want to start enforcing the ones you do have to try and temper that culture that seems to be dragging you guys down to your knees... i see it spilling into canada and unless yall fix it, we will end up the same because of the geography involved... we are too close to be so seperate in a world where you can fly to OZ in a day or so... i can talk to people in space on my cell phone... how can we not be influenced by yall...

[BJJ-Blue]

i dont think yall need new gun laws, but you may want to start enforcing the ones you do have to try and temper that culture that seems to be dragging you guys down to your knees... i see it spilling into canada and unless yall fix it, we will end up the same because of the geography involved... we are too close to be so seperate in a world where you can fly to OZ in a day or so... i can talk to people in space on my cell phone... how can we not be influenced by yall...

It may sound crazy, but what we need are MORE guns. Of course I mean guns in the hands of good people, not convicted felons, kids, etc. Look at the cities with the worst crime rates, NYC, Chicago, Washington DC, etc. They have the toughest anti-gun laws on the books (Chicago just had a handgun ban overturned by the Supreme Court). While cities where people are allowed to carry concealed guns never rank in the Top 10 for most violent cities.

Heck, just look at this serial stabber in NYC. Had he ran across someone carrying a concealed handgun, his rampage would have ended then and there. And as an added bonus, the taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for a trial, appeals, and incarceration (assuming he convicted).

[curenado]

I do not think we will have to worry about more guns or Americans arming up. Where I live it is increasing all the time.

<<But abortion as a form of birth control is horrible imo>>

That is what we all thought. 30 years later we have millions of surplus, unskilled, angry "enemies of everything" with no intention of valuing or regarding the life someone defended. Theirs or any others. They do seem intent on "sharing the misery" tho -

Drunks and crack heads, 2nd generation downward spiral parents who only had young for benefits or plain callous disregard.

That "pro-life" philosophy or ideal is in every way appealing to man, but it is in no way helpful to him.

Last year I saw a terminal 13 year old who had multiple problems going on - drug and alcohol syndrome.

I can dream angels here in moloch, but the simple fact is that we have millions of angry young with no other real function or option but crime and welfare. What I have seen children born into and what became of them has changed my thinking on the whole abortion issue.

If they do not have the regard of a child to the desire to carry it, then what can anyone expect?
Our orphanages are packed and lots more anticipated. If you wish to support pro-life, I suggest you adopt 3-4 of these little creatures and love them because taxes won't support them all anymore and it's easy enough to bring or say to bring more life into this world - that we don't have to pay the price for, especially the less easy price of love and value.

If they did not get vital care and affection in the first 90 days......I used to think that was pretty horrible........25 years ago, before I'd seen it proved out over and over.

[Syn7]

We agree completely on guns then. But you know the American liberals do believe the guns are the problem. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

I'm pro-life. Both as a Chrisitian and as an American. The Constitution grants everyone life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And it's big on personal responsibility. I will never be convinced the Founders would allow an unborn child to be killed because someone doesn't want to be responsible for their actions. Now cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's life is in danger are a different story. But abortion as a form of birth control is horrible imo.

abortions arent a new idea... even the romans used medicine to kill the fetus...

so you are willing to control someones body in order to protect life??? then you are for MANDATORY vaccination... right??? there is tons of data to show when vaccines are shunned, the sickness rates go up... whether vaccines cause problems or not, they certainly solve more problems than they create... right???

well thats not how i think... i believe its my right to decline any vaccine even if it means i infect and kill my whole city... MY CHOICE!!!
i wanna gun MY CHOICE!!!

[Syn7]

also blue, i dont have a problem with conservatives... i have a problem with republicans... they have been bought, wholesale... very few examples of republicans that ALWAY vote their concience... now the tea baggers, they are more pure in that respect... now if they didnt say the dumbest sh1t i would like some of what they say... i love that video where the guy asks teabaggers at a rally what they think... apparently not much, he gave them every opportunity to not look retarded, but they just couldnt manage to get anything right about what their candidate stood for let alone anything factually correct... sure they knew words like cap n trade etc but none of them could say any more... "ok so what are your issues with cap n trade" they all just turn pale and try to weasle... no respect for them, NONE... their base is actually retarded...

democrats... well, they have their problems too, i believe more of them vote their concience but most still are bought just like their counterparts...

if i had a gun to my head and had to choose an american ideology i suppose i'd be like a progressive libertarian...


what really bothers me about people trashing obama is that they criticize stupid sh1t and dont even look at the real crazy stuff he's done...

[Syn7]

I do not think we will have to worry about more guns or Americans arming up. Where I live it is increasing all the time.

<<But abortion as a form of birth control is horrible imo>>

That is what we all thought. 30 years later we have millions of surplus, unskilled, angry "enemies of everything" with no intention of valuing or regarding the life someone defended. Theirs or any others. They do seem intent on "sharing the misery" tho -

Drunks and crack heads, 2nd generation downward spiral parents who only had young for benefits or plain callous disregard.

That "pro-life" philosophy or ideal is in every way appealing to man, but it is in no way helpful to him.

Last year I saw a terminal 13 year old who had multiple problems going on - drug and alcohol syndrome.

I can dream angels here in moloch, but the simple fact is that we have millions of angry young with no other real function or option but crime and welfare. What I have seen children born into and what became of them has changed my thinking on the whole abortion issue.

If they do not have the regard of a child to the desire to carry it, then what can anyone expect?
Our orphanages are packed and lots more anticipated. If you wish to support pro-life, I suggest you adopt 3-4 of these little creatures and love them because taxes won't support them all anymore and it's easy enough to bring or say to bring more life into this world - that we don't have to pay the price for, especially the less easy price of love and value.

If they did not get vital care and affection in the first 90 days......I used to think that was pretty horrible........25 years ago, before I'd seen it proved out over and over.

look at it this way... the average crook is around 25 years old... 25 years after roe v wade, the crime rate syddenly and unexpectedly plunges...

[curenado]

Nobody is expecting a plunge as much as they are a skyrocket. Especially if things keep going pretty much as they have been and prices keep going up while jobs keep going down.

I'm not trying to pigeon hole the blame either - the whole thing seems like part of a larger inertia that compels.

I can't see how the average crook is 25 years old unless we had 3 times the 25 year olds! When you cover all age groups I feel like that average may be a little misleading.

[BJJ-Blue]

so you are willing to control someones body in order to protect life??? then you are for MANDATORY vaccination... right??? there is tons of data to show when vaccines are shunned, the sickness rates go up... whether vaccines cause problems or not, they certainly solve more problems than they create... right???

Only in order to protect someone else's life, and especially when that someone has no voice.

I'm against helmet/seat belt laws, drug laws, prostitution laws, because the Gov't has no business protecting you from you. However, they do have the duty to guarantee others LIFE as documented in the Constitution.

Liberals are amazing on the abortion issue. They are against my wife's right to drive a low gas mileage car or smoke a cigarette in public because they say it's harmful to others, but they would allow her to suck a child out of her womb if she so desired. That's just madness imo.


well thats not how i think... i believe its my right to decline any vaccine even if it means i infect and kill my whole city... MY CHOICE!!!
i wanna gun MY CHOICE!!!

I'm also against mandatory vaccines. Again, it should be up to the individual. Again though, you should have to accept responsibility for that choice.

[BJJ-Blue]

i love that video where the guy asks teabaggers at a rally what they think... apparently not much, he gave them every opportunity to not look retarded, but they just couldnt manage to get anything right about what their candidate stood for let alone anything factually correct... sure they knew words like cap n trade etc but none of them could say any more... "ok so what are your issues with cap n trade" they all just turn pale and try to weasle... no respect for them, NONE... their base is actually retarded...

On the flip side I'm sure you've seen the clueless Obama voters clips on YouTube, correct?

Stupid is stupid, you can't just say one group of clueless people are stupid, but not mention the stupidity of another group of clueless people simply because you agree more with one group.

The fact that the "teabaggers" even knew the names of the issues at all put them ahead of the Obama voters I saw. ;)

[MasterKiller]

Only in order to protect someone else's life, and especially when that someone has no voice.

I'm also against mandatory vaccines. Again, it should be up to the individual. Again though, you should have to accept responsibility for that choice.

What "voice" does an infant have to decide if it wants a vaccine? Most vaccines prevent diseases that occur well before a child has the frame of mind to be able to decide for themselves.

[Syn7]

yeah sure... 90% of voters have no idea what they are voting for... and thats a generous number... but personally, i find democrats to be slightly more informed... but as a party, i find both republicans and democrats to be pathetic... they are not polar opposites like people seem to think and they arent there for the betterment of everyday americans... thats just a fact... for every honest politician that sacrifices for their people you will find 10,000 that are willing to sell out one way or another...

[Syn7]

Only in order to protect someone else's life, and especially when that someone has no voice.

I'm against helmet/seat belt laws, drug laws, prostitution laws, because the Gov't has no business protecting you from you. However, they do have the duty to guarantee others LIFE as documented in the Constitution.

Liberals are amazing on the abortion issue. They are against my wife's right to drive a low gas mileage car or smoke a cigarette in public because they say it's harmful to others, but they would allow her to suck a child out of her womb if she so desired. That's just madness imo.





I'm also against mandatory vaccines. Again, it should be up to the individual. Again though, you should have to accept responsibility for that choice.

so what? a baby has a voice??? i find it amazing how far people will go to justify hypocracy...

and dont throw liberal bull**** back at me coz im not a liberal... save that argument for the card carrying retards, im an independant...


and your constitution had no problem calling a black man not a man at all... sub human... but im sure the fathers specifically meant that a fetus in early stages is a life... but not a dirty negro... oh no no no... is that the constitution you are refering to??? my experience has taught me that inerpretations of this document are far and wide... whos to say your perception is the right perception...


and you consistantly use supreme court decisions to justify other points in other threads... you cite them as if they are wise and all knowing and their decisions should be respected as precedent... yet you seem to have no problem ignoring roe v wade... you pick and choose, and that is, as fox news would say, unamerican...

[BJJ-Blue]

What "voice" does an infant have to decide if it wants a vaccine? Most vaccines prevent diseases that occur well before a child has the frame of mind to be able to decide for themselves.

I should have been more clear.

It's the parents decision about whether or not to give chilren vaccines, medicines, etc. Of course you have to live with the repercussions. If your kid has lice and you refuse to medicate the kid to get rid of the lice, the school has every right to deny the kid access to the school until the lice are gone. Of course no one should have the right to murder their own children though.

[BJJ-Blue]

so what? a baby has a voice??? i find it amazing how far people will go to justify hypocracy...

How so?

Again, hypocracy to me is saying a woman cannot smoke in a bar where the owner wants to allow smoking because its dengerous to others, but she has every right to kill her unborn child. That's the ultimate in hypocracy imo.


and dont throw liberal bull**** back at me coz im not a liberal... save that argument for the card carrying retards, im an independant...

Calm down, I didn't call you anything. I was pointing out how liberals are hypocritical on the issues I mentioned. I never called you anything. Heck, I don't even know what your stance is on smoking in public or on MPG restrictions, so I can't very well attack your views on those issues.


and your constitution had no problem calling a black man not a man at all... sub human... but im sure the fathers specifically meant that a fetus in early stages is a life... but not a dirty negro... oh no no no... is that the constitution you are refering to??? my experience has taught me that inerpretations of this document are far and wide... whos to say your perception is the right perception...

Let's not go there. The Founders were not one voice on that issue in any way. Many were dead set against allowing it. They compromised to keep the Union together, while allowing for the Constitution to be ammended. I myself feel that issue was the main reason they allowed for ammendments to be passed. They wrote a wonderful document (the greatest document ever written by man imo), yet they allowed it to be changed. Thus there had to be a very good reason to allow it to be altered. IMO, slavery was that reason.


and you consistantly use supreme court decisions to justify other points in other threads... you cite them as if they are wise and all knowing and their decisions should be respected as precedent... yet you seem to have no problem ignoring roe v wade... you pick and choose, and that is, as fox news would say, unamerican...

Do what?!?!?

First off, I don't do it "constantly". And second, I do not cite them as "all knowing". I openly admit they get things wrong, the Dred Scott decision comes to mind.

[Syn7]

i dont agree with abortions as a means of birth control, but i would rather see a fetus aborted than a child born to the completely unprepared... the numbers dont lie, abortion has more social positives than it has negatives... crime just being one of those numbers...

we will never agree on this becoz you are basing your decision on what you view as a decree by god... i dont...

you can argue constitution this constitution that but ultimately we both know where you get it from... so in that respect, its really pointless for us to even talk about it any more...

[curenado]

What "voice" does an infant have to decide if it wants a vaccine? Most vaccines prevent diseases that occur well before a child has the frame of mind to be able to decide for themselves.

Oh dude - not any more! The vaccine-profit-machine has gone NUTS and people will be amazed at how many vaccines ACROSS the age groups come out as "recommended" this year.
It is like a fad of profiteering and our Gov is letting all standards go lax on them too.
But yeah - just to note that I get emails about all the vaccines I should be giving adolescents, women and older people, not just childhood immunizations.

The thing is, the science only shows them to be about 30% effective at best, but people are led to believe they are safe to take them and will be protected.

I can see how some people may not have other options, like a decent health grocer or TCMA person, but it's not for us. ALL our people avoid them because we bulk in health foods/mushrooms and we don't get the flu.

Sorry - didn't mean to divert with the current vaccine madness, but it is gross and it is irritating how they force feed it to us as if we are just supposed to start pushing it open season (like we had no knowledge of disease or medicine, just industry salesmen all "Gung Ho!")

[Syn7]

ive was never vaccinated as a child... and since then ive only taken 1... hep B vac... and it was a nightmare... i got jaundice and tested positive for hep B... i flipped right out, IT WAS NASTY... ****ing out cola, lookin like i had yellow paint on... i was also very infectious at the time so i was isolated... ****ed me right off... lucky ive tested clean for about ten years now... so we know now it was for sure the vaccine... never again man, NEVER AGAIN!!!

thats one of my major issues with the millitary... coz if i was in a high risk area i may choose to take it, but i dont like the idea of being forced to... i'd prolly get myself locked up over it... thats what kept me away from service... well, that and when i was considering it we were about to go to war... i love the idea of training to be a soldier... but kicking in doors, not so much... i'd prolly go the sniper route like SR...

[BJJ-Blue]

i dont agree with abortions as a means of birth control, but i would rather see a fetus aborted than a child born to the completely unprepared... the numbers dont lie, abortion has more social positives than it has negatives... crime just being one of those numbers...

we will never agree on this becoz you are basing your decision on what you view as a decree by god... i dont...

That's not all I base my decision on.

All those who mention the line of 'Well its unfair to the child to be born to parents who dont want/cant care for/etc seem to forget that there is a waiting list for those couples who want to adopt children.


you can argue constitution this constitution that but ultimately we both know where you get it from... so in that respect, its really pointless for us to even talk about it any more...

First off, I just showed you that you were wrong on why my stance is what it is, and second the Constitution is clear; LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The fact is, sucking a child out of a womb denies him/her all three of those rights.

Also, I thought you were above telling me what/how/why I think without me saying so. I've never known you to use that type of debate/discussion tactics. So please, next time you are unsure of why I have a particular stance on an issue, just ask. I'll answer you.

[MasterKiller]

First off, I just showed you that you were wrong on why my stance is what it is, and second the Constitution is clear; LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The fact is, sucking a child out of a womb denies him/her all three of those rights. Your constitution argument falls apart because you would deny men the right to pursue happiness by marrying another man just because you think it's gross and immoral.

You don't want the government telling you what car to drive, but you have no problem with the government telling people who they can and can't marry.

[curenado]

<<All those who mention the line of 'Well its unfair to the child to be born to parents who dont want/cant care for/etc seem to forget that there is a waiting list for those couples who want to adopt children.>>

Uhhh.....those couples are on a list because they want a "fresh" baby. Meanwhile, orphanges are overflowing. The only people on lists are those who are waiting for a newborn that has to be from crack free parents and other conditions - that is why they are on a list.

Nobody wants over2 or damaged goods - so the argument that we should keep letting it run rampant to ensure a good slection pool for yuppies shopping for ONE they like is a BIG 'OL STRETCH if you ask me...

Don't get me wrong - love God and worked for him a lot of years, but he sure is HELL on them little babies......and it seems like a LOT of his devotees are still saying "No abortion!" right in the same mouth as "Well I CAN'T BE EXPECTED to take CARE of them! I just rightly gave a right opinion because that is what GOOD PEOPLE DO!"

Sorry but we are back to (and have never left) if that is how you feel, why aren't you down adopting 4 crack babies right now? Because some of God's people are about as full of **** as he is..... (Sorry boss, but you know it's true. Don't worry boss! Because of the Catholics loyally serving you there will be at least 10,000 dead babies on your altar by sundown! Born to suffer and die the right way! Oh! and don't forget all the millions of little prayers you LOVE! "Dear God, can I be a baby again so someone will want me?" Fresh every night Lord! What a GLORY!)

(Sorry - I got to laughing typing that! It's not really a rant it was just too funny!)

[BJJ-Blue]

Your constitution argument falls apart because you would deny men the right to pursue happiness by marrying another man just because you think it's gross and immoral.

You don't want the government telling you what car to drive, but you have no problem with the government telling people who they can and can't marry.

There have to be limits. Do you feel a man should be able to marry multiple wives? Do you feel a 45 year old man should be able to marry an 8 year old girl whose parents consent to it?

"pursuit of happiness" does have limits, obviously. Someone can't just rape women because it's their "pursuit of happiness". And not allowing gays to marry may well deprive them of "pursuit of happioness", ok. But an abortion denies the child of ALL THREE, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[BJJ-Blue]

Uhhh.....those couples are on a list because they want a "fresh" baby. Meanwhile, orphanges are overflowing. The only people on lists are those who are waiting for a newborn that has to be from crack free parents and other conditions - that is why they are on a list.

So because few people want to adopt certain children we should just allow the murder of unborn children???? :eek:

[curenado]

So because few people want to adopt certain children we should just allow the murder of unborn children???? :eek:

No - every one who wants to vote pro-life gets to adopt some of these children and put thier GOD where their mouth is.

You talk high and mighty about "murder!" but you utterly avoid the suffering and horror as well as murder that happens to unwanted children. They are veal and you seem to demand that we continue to allow more veal to be processed so your mind can be comforted.

"What! We should allow 10,000 children to be born, suffer and die so certain people can pick the right ONE they want for a pet!" :eek:

and ike I said - it is all case by case for me. I was just pointing out the heartless and thoughtless cruelty of the "life is SACRED!" side. Because they are not taking responcibility for the life they save (B-I-B-L-E) nor are they doing anything but telling others what they should do when it is not really their place.
You take responcibility for the life you save or you are just saving it to indulge yourself.

I am not trying to offend God as much as he offends us - I just can't be on any cause that blindly champions "life" without the slightest bit of personal responcibility for it.

I bet if we took a survey of pro-lifers "How many orphans did you even throw a rock at today, much less say hi to or care about?" they would not look so high and mighty - or very christian either?

[SoCo KungFu]

There have to be limits. Do you feel a man should be able to marry multiple wives? Do you feel a 45 year old man should be able to marry an 8 year old girl whose parents consent to it?

And what does this have a all to do with two consenting adults seeking a legally bound partnership out of love and to have the practical, legal benefits of family (spousal health coverage, etc.)?

No, it has nothing do with it. But you're knee jerk answer is all telling. All I see is page after page of proclamations of championing freedom. But no, you only care about the freedoms YOU want. Same sex marriage has NOTHING to do with you. It effects your life in NO way. And its not hurting ANYONE. In fact, its probably better. Because same sex couples are probably the ones most likely to adopt those kids that you pro-lifers want to hurl into the orphanages.

This is why religion needs to be kept behind closed doors.

And MF'ers telling me I can't drink on Sunday.....

[KC Elbows]

There have to be limits. Do you feel a man should be able to marry multiple wives?

Polygamy is not illegal because of cultural mores, but because the forms of polygamy that existed in the West and East have such a high rate of men making servants out of girls, and so, to protect the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of women and make it a crime to create little power cults, it's illegal. That same has never applied to gay marriage.


Do you feel a 45 year old man should be able to marry an 8 year old girl whose parents consent to it?

Again, poor example. Such a situation is not only prone to heavy abuse, but a clear sign of it, unlike gay marriage. Laws against pedophilia and polygamy are protecting someone's rights, laws against gay marriage protect no one's rights, and limit a group's.

[Syn7]

blue, you are such a tit... you preach high and mighty morals, you say you are for personal liberties but thats bullsh1t... you are only for the personal liberties you agree with... how does two men or two women getting married affect anyone else??? it doesnt, unless they allow it to becoz of their bigotry... you are such a piece of work man...


again, you arent a conservative or a libertarian... you are a card carrying rank and file republican christian to the T... you are right out of a cookie cutter... i havent heard one original thought from you in the year ive been here...

a true libertarian is pro choice on all issues...


if it were up to people like you, all so called sins would be subject to prosecution... like adutery... but then you prolly couldnt land a fine piece of a$$ without flossin' the cream anyways...

[BJJ-Blue]

Can you people read? :rolleyes:

I mean, what part of 'the Government should not be involved in marriage in the first place' do you people not understand?

Here is where I've said it before. Notice the consistancy.


If the Government got out of marriage, it would be a non-issue. But since Gov't has decided married couples are taxed differently than non-married couples, it's a political issue when it should not be.

Me, I'm morally and religiously against ****sexuality. Honestly, I'm also disgusted by it. But it's a personal choice. If they want to live that way, it's their business. Not yours, not mine, and not the Governments. I am consistant here. I'm also against sodomy laws. What people do in their own bedrooms is their business.

[BJJ-Blue]

a true libertarian is pro choice on all issues...

Not the right to murder an unborn child.

[BJJ-Blue]

if it were up to people like you, all so called sins would be subject to prosecution... like adutery...

Once again, please stop telling me how I feel. Please just ask me instead.

The older quote of mine I posted above should show you A)you are wrong B) you really should stop telling others what they think and either read their posts to figure it out or just ask them.

[MasterKiller]

Not the right to murder an unborn child.

uh......

Objectivist Ayn Rand, whose writings inspired the libertarian movement, called the idea that a fetus should have a right to life "vicious nonsense" and also flatly stated, "An embryo has no rights...a child cannot acquire any rights until it is born."

The U.S. Libertarian Party political platform (2010) states: "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

[BJJ-Blue]

Who cares what a political Party or an author's views are on an issue? We are are discussing MY views. I have my own views, I don't blindy follow others. Heck, I admire Thomas Jefferson, but do not agree with him in his religious views. Just because you read/admire/vote for, etc someone, doesn't mean everything they think, you think.

[MasterKiller]

Who cares what a political Party or an author's views are on an issue? We are are discussing MY views. I have my own views, I don't blindy follow others. Heck, I admire Thomas Jefferson, but do not agree with him in his religious views. Just because you read/admire/vote for, etc someone, doesn't mean everything they think, you think.

Right, but then you are not a true libertarian...

[curenado]

Who cares what a political Party or an author's views are on an issue? We are are discussing MY views. I have my own views, I don't blindy follow others. Heck, I admire Thomas Jefferson, but do not agree with him in his religious views. Just because you read/admire/vote for, etc someone, doesn't mean everything they think, you think.

...and I made a mistake. I thought it was putting our views out and why. I didn't realize it was about discussing BJ"s and tearing them up. I like BJ and don't just want to tear up his feelings or beliefs.

I have always paid for the unwanted and taken care of them, I often do without many things so that they will have better. These last years it's different, due to the current state of human children in our country I currently work with rescue animals instead.

I actually can perform an abortion and so the matter is more serious to me and much more than a ideal or belief - our ideals and beliefs only matter to us and don't affect the rest of the world. I was not expressing what I wish, I was just being what I see as realistic and pragmatic in the sense of the good of the whole, or at least the young that someone did wish to nurture and culture.

It is my fault for not reading the thread better.
(and, for all concerned, no - I have not yet in my life performed an abortion or had the occaision to have to chose between saving the mother or the child. In that respect, I have certainly been blessed.)

[Syn7]

...and I made a mistake. I thought it was putting our views out and why. I didn't realize it was about discussing BJ"s and tearing them up. I like BJ and don't just want to tear up his feelings or beliefs.

I have always paid for the unwanted and taken care of them, I often do without many things so that they will have better. These last years it's different, due to the current state of human children in our country I currently work with rescue animals instead.

I actually can perform an abortion and so the matter is more serious to me and much more than a ideal or belief - our ideals and beliefs only matter to us and don't affect the rest of the world. I was not expressing what I wish, I was just being what I see as realistic and pragmatic in the sense of the good of the whole, or at least the young that someone did wish to nurture and culture.

It is my fault for not reading the thread better.
(and, for all concerned, no - I have not yet in my life performed an abortion or had the occaision to have to chose between saving the mother or the child. In that respect, I have certainly been blessed.)

so you are a social worker of sorts???

i read a sh1tload of articles on the DCF recently and was absolutely horrified to hear about the massive amount of systemic corruption in guarunteeing their grant monies... kids taken away from their fams without due process, without following the rules which state one must do all they can to keep a child in their homes... florida especially sounds bad... judges and cops litterally backing up the DCF when the DCf was in the wrong, morally and legally... any info on that you can give me would be much appreciated...

i would like to see stats in particular ones that show how many kids go home vs foster care for good... but most important, how many kids went home with the help of an attourney that specialices in dcf cases vs kids that go home to parents who either didnt have a lawyer or had some legal aid or downtown cheapo lawyer... you see where im going with this???? i would love to see some stats... any help would be much appreciated...

[curenado]

No, suprising as it may be for Arkansas, the social workers usually do not do the abortions or try to decide which has a better chance and go for it. (lol)

If it was the progress of the NDM1 gene and mortality or MRSA stats I could give you a password - but this is what I think you want:

http://www.hhs-stat.net/OMH/ - I don't know if it is pro only or not, but that is where you would start. If it is pro just approach a social worker or write me back and I'll go see....

But what you are spot on about is the state-by-state and certainly here, county by county. Two hours away in Carrol county you better not hurt a kid, but the next three counties across (Boone, Marion, Baxter) are havens for child abuse and also interestingly enough, predators.
People actually move here to flee child services so they "don hav tew go to NO "parentin" classes or "ainger mannigmunt" crap!
People here who try to intervene get thier dog shot or burned out. The police do not care and think a lot of it is cutesy.
They don't want to be bothered about wimmin and kids! They are GREAT DRUG WARRIORS! (in a place that doesn't really even have drugs to speak of...) because it is easy, lazy and lucrative.

In my contact with social workers, they are usually pretty blunt and straight up about the condition of the orphanages, the foster scene and what helps you try to figure which is the lesser evil.
Here, they pretty much leave the kid in the home because not only is there a lack of beds - lots of arky kid pits are run by fundy christians. Not the happy, sweet and kind bunch, the ones when you think of "everything wrong about christians" - so the social workers have to try and decide "frying pan or fire?"

The sit where you are is bad in many places and ways, but you have more havens that are trying to do better and when you are getting into the people thing, the first thing to do is get to know the SW's, shelters and such - here they pass out a list of shelters, but you have to call and try to find a bed and transport etc. There is no real integrated or cooperative system - where you are, I am betting that is all much better coordinated and can be done "push button".

Hey good luck! I feel crummy encouraging anyone to SW because it is "Seeing the worst and trying to do something with nothing - and seeing the worst" - I can't because I am too.......used to having the control and calling the shots. If I saw some of those parents, there is a real risk I could shoot a few of them.

So if you can - they need you and I'll be ready with burn ointment and pedialyte. Just bring 'em on in and we'll do our best to make some of it up to them while they wait to hear what will be happening to them next.....

[Syn7]

thanx... its like a directory to stat sites... its alot to process... thanx...

[BJJ-Blue]

Right, but then you are not a true libertarian...

Who cares?

I believe what I believe. I could care less if I don't agree with every plank of a particular Party. I believe in the Constitution, and it clearly says we all have the right to "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". How anyone can say that document gives anyone the right to murder an unborn child is beyond me.

[curenado]

I am not completely confident in this interpretation of the constitution. Even if it is very gray area, it was written by men who sent their women for abortions to keep their wives from finding out. I am not sure the fetus was even on the table there...

I am curious (still) as to your plan of what to do with millions more little things and how you intend to finance and most importantly, love them. Just making them live and casting them into a orphanage is not love of them at all really. It seems more like serving the needs of somebody else to "correct wrong in the world" to comfort themselves.

How can any of my self gratifying, vain and indulgent ideas, theories and philosophies need so much comfort as to require life of someone I never even touch, feed or know?

Why shall I say "Abortions are unrighteous!" in the daylight and look good, when I know that just means in the dark more will go to worse fates after surviving birth?

If you stop their ability to do this, they will still do it. They will also no longer go to the trouble of doing it at all, because if it costs money and is stigmatized or illegal it is just practical to go ahead then and have the child and dispose of it. That is what happens "regularly".

The original Hippocratic oath contained specifically "...I will not administer an abortifacient"....but that is NOT the oath taken today. It is called the Declaration of Geneva and if the US approves it via it's physicians, then the US does not find fetal termination to be in conflict with the constitution for some reason or it couldn't be as it is.

Anyway - I'm not commenting as a industry pundit or a fundy. I just hate the reality of the mess and being part of what has to clean it up. I know from real life experience about the desolation of life and I also know it won't matter if they can get abortions or not - the numbers of thrown out babies are going to keep increasing exponentially and there will soon be a larger public awareness of the orphan crisis here, even if not much is done about it.

My grandfather saw children starve to death in Tenn during the depression. He never forgot it. Abortion is bad, but the alternatives any more are not so good either and you are really choosing that for another life and it's "progenitors" in the name of the constituition - I am not sure we have the right to do that.

Anyway - here are the versions FYI and do understand that the problem is getting bad for the living and until we can put more of them into smaller spaces and have robot surrogates to pretend to love them and etc it is very challenging fighting life, nature, the whole world and individuals to enforce the pro-life ideal and I feel obliged to repeat I usually never see any pro lifers hanging around for the money, heartache and 24 hour shift part. They, having enforced life to their satisfaction, carry themselves far away where the consequences of their "ideals" are not real or able to compel them to endure as others they have made to.
That's what makes me feel like even if they don't realize and are really sweet people their talk is pretty hollow because they don't pay for, cry with or try to explain to anybody it really affects - that makes it pretty easy to have a opinion when you don't have to pay it's price.

When someone who is paying for and taking care of 40 or more little souls has something to say, you feel like that comes from more realistic and heartfelt consideration and if they are pro life, then they are earning the voice to be by the direct action of supporting it beyond their own created.

But in the end, case by case and right of choice are where I have to stand. Since I can do it, I am pretty much at the mercy of everybody else anyway - except in my personal right to say "I won't do it" because everything else is about the life and body of the one I would have to do it for, and therefor subject to their wishes.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Declaration of Geneva
The Declaration of Geneva was adopted by the General Assembly of the World Medical Association at Geneva in 1948 and amended in 1968, 1984, 1994, 2005 and 2006. It is a declaration of physicians' dedication to the humanitarian goals of medicine, a declaration that was especially important in view of the medical crimes which had just been committed in Nazi Germany. The Declaration of Geneva was intended as a revision [1] of the Oath of Hippocrates to a formulation of that oath's moral truths that could be comprehended and acknowledged modernly.[2]

The original Declaration of Geneva reads:[3]

At the time of being admitted as a Member of the medical profession:
I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity
I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due;
I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity;
The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration;
I will respect the secrets which are confided in me;
I will maintain by all means in my power, the honor and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
My colleagues will be my brothers
I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient;
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of its conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity;
I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honor.

The Declaration of Geneva, as currently amended, reads[2]:

At the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession:
I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;
I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity;
The health of my patient will be my first consideration;
I will respect the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honor and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
My colleagues will be my sisters and brothers;
I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life;
I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honor.

The amendments to the Declaration have been criticised as "imping[ing] on the inviolability of human life" because, for example, the original made "health and life" the doctor's "first consideration" whereas the amended version removes the words "and life", and the original required respect for human life "from the time of its conception" which was changed to "from its beginning" in 1984 and deleted in 2005.[4] These changes have been criticised as straying from the Hippocratic tradition and as a deviation from the post Nuremberg concern of lack of respect for human life


Compared to the original Hippocratic:
Original, translated into English:[4]

“ I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.”

[BJJ-Blue]

I am not completely confident in this interpretation of the constitution. Even if it is very gray area, it was written by men who sent their women for abortions to keep their wives from finding out. I am not sure the fetus was even on the table there...

Can you back that up?

As we all know Sally Hemmings was impregnated by Thomas Jefferson (or a close male relative) and the baby was born despite the political damage it did to Jefferson. If Thomas Jefferson, who was writing most of the rules, didn't abort an unplanned child I don't see how anyone can say the Founders would have allowed it.

[MasterKiller]

Can you back that up?

As we all know Sally Hemmings was impregnated by Thomas Jefferson (or a close male relative) and the baby was born despite the political damage it did to Jefferson. If Thomas Jefferson, who was writing most of the rules, didn't abort an unplanned child I don't see how anyone can say the Founders would have allowed it.

LOL!


They [Native Americans] raise fewer children than we do. The causes of this are to be found, not in a difference of nature, but of circumstance. The women very frequently attending the men in their parties of war and of hunting, child-bearing becomes extremely inconvenient to them. It is said, therefore, that they have learnt the practice of procuring abortion by the use of some vegetable; and that it even extends to prevent conception for a considerable time after.--Thomas Jefferson

No moral outrage. As a Deist, he seems to see it as just part of the natural lifestyle of these people.

[Lucas]

more importanly, what vegitable is that!!!! prevents pregnacy for some time after WOW they had the super moring after vegitable!

[curenado]

Yeah, more than pennyroyal out there that will affect them with essentially the same result.
In those times they were called "Women's Clinics" and no one even uttered the A word aloud.
I am not trying to make any man look bad who, in those times, thought it was more merciful that if there was a risk of pregnancy, it go that way instead of buried or the river.
In more primitive times, they were simply left out and their cries drew predators.

But you know what - I'm just illustrating some things here. My soul stands "mute, aghast.." at the whole deal and part of the human condition is being confronted with such things as these.

I don't wish or ask you to radically change your beliefs BJ because I don't believe a man can do that on demand and only his own experience and wisdom will he ultimately take as counsel. I think there needs to be forces colliding because that is how the spontaneous or predestined occur.

Life seems more about forces colliding than flowing together in harmony.
I am betting you are one fine specimen of a man. I bet little kids look up to you and are planning how they are gonna be superheroes too.
The virtue of that naturally finds repulsion in this, but at least perhaps it is more understandable now and that not every pro choice person has taken that position because they are "pro promiscuity" and hold a loveless disregard for life, or because they believe "philosophies" and "ideas" like the "A woman's body..." justification.

Those things would be the last thing I would care about, because it is largely vain old blah-blah to me that doesn't have any more tangible value than air that has already been used up. (heh)

[Syn7]

more importanly, what vegitable is that!!!! prevents pregnacy for some time after WOW they had the super moring after vegitable!

the romans would chew herbs... cant remember the name, but it was a pretty common one... it did have side effects tho...

[BJJ-Blue]

No moral outrage. As a Deist, he seems to see it as just part of the natural lifestyle of these people.

I'm just asking for examples of any of the Founders who "sent their women for abortions to keep their wives from finding out".

And notice Jefferson didn't mention Americans (or Westerners) doing that. He just observed another culture doing it. He didn't say it was ok or not ok, but he did write that Americans are entitled to "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

[BJJ-Blue]

I don't wish or ask you to radically change your beliefs BJ because I don't believe a man can do that on demand and only his own experience and wisdom will he ultimately take as counsel. I think there needs to be forces colliding because that is how the spontaneous or predestined occur.

I understand. But I do like discussing topics with both people who agree and people who disagree with me.

I do also (I admit) look at it as an opportunity to teach others. Some people forget, or are not aware of, past history. People forget the Carter years, and thus felt Obama's very similar policies would work. I predicted they would fail, and cited past history as to why I said so. So far, I've been proven right a few times, and not proven wrong on his policies yet. I hope maybe when some people 'on the fence' see a guy who will openly make predicitions, and be shown to be right, as someone who might actually know what they are talking about.

[MasterKiller]

And notice Jefferson didn't mention Americans (or Westerners) doing that. He just observed another culture doing it. He didn't say it was ok or not ok, but he did write that Americans are entitled to "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." His indifference to the practice speaks volumes.

[BJJ-Blue]

His indifference to the practice speaks volumes.

Again, I say that him writing all Americans have the 'right to LIFE,...' covers it.

Of course you will likely disagree, but I'll never change on this issue. And it's obviously one people do disagree on, it's been involved in alot of court cases, including the Supreme Court. But how anyone can read those words and say the Constitution allows abortion is beyond me. It's just 3 words written in plain English, it can't be that tough to figure out.

[Lucas]

are you an american before you are born?

:p:p

just being a jerk

[MasterKiller]

Again, I say that him writing all Americans have the 'right to LIFE,...' covers it.

Of course you will likely disagree, but I'll never change on this issue. And it's obviously one people do disagree on, it's been involved in alot of court cases, including the Supreme Court. But how anyone can read those words and say the Constitution allows abortion is beyond me. It's just 3 words written in plain English, it can't be that tough to figure out.

You do realize that the preamble makes no attempt to assign powers to the federal government or provide specific limitations on government action? "Endowed by our creator" is hardly the same thing as signifying it as the law of the land.

[KC Elbows]

The founding fathers, before they were founding fathers, were influential residents of an English colony. Well-to-do in the English empire who had embarrassing accidents with servants had a looong history of abandoning the child and mother, or requiring something be done about it. The nice Englishman might see that the child and mother had support, but not usually a name.

Since that aspect of the culture is one of those that we have really no evidence that the founding fathers disagreed with, since they were culturally not that far off from being Englishmen for the most part, and since the practice was clearly carried on here by the people who became "Americans", suggests that their views were consistent with their contemporaries in England.

And Jefferson routinely denied some the right to liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and, whenever he sent a troublesome slave to the deep South as punishment, probably life.

Regardless, killing babies happened, and it is seriously unlikely that the colonies in the Americas were the only colonies where magically, the well-to-do and status-conscious didn't see to it that babies were abandoned or aborted when their presence might spell ruin.

Which is positively saintly compared to Columbus, who bragged about selling ten year old girls as sex slaves.

But, I could be wrong, perhaps there's a whole slew of cases from the times of the Founding Fathers where they themselves convicted peers for abortions. However, human biology and survival pressures pretty much guarantee that abortion will always exist, which is why laws against it have generally done nothing but damage women's rights and lead to abandoned babies and more abortion.

What's funny to me is the intersect between the groups that are against abortion and the groups that are against contraception. Moronic, really.

[Syn7]

And notice Jefferson didn't mention Americans (or Westerners) doing that. He just observed another culture doing it. He didn't say it was ok or not ok, but he did write that Americans are entitled to "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

what im noticing is how easilly and how quick you are to typecast segments of your fellow americans based on scio-economic class and race... these are your brothers... you have such an "us vs. them" mentality... its people like you that are preventing social cohesion that your country needs very VERY badly...

[Syn7]

Can you back that up?

As we all know Sally Hemmings was impregnated by Thomas Jefferson (or a close male relative) and the baby was born despite the political damage it did to Jefferson. If Thomas Jefferson, who was writing most of the rules, didn't abort an unplanned child I don't see how anyone can say the Founders would have allowed it.

did it ever occur to you that jefferson may have wanted that child to be born???

no of course not... in your mind it was a discracefull scandelous thing that he would want to hide... but because he was righteous, instead he had the lil bundle of embarassment anyways like a good christian should and simply kept it all real quiet...

and you wonder why DJ calls you racist... you dont have to say it to put it out there... people who truly are not racist are very sensitive to it and can smell it from a mile away... racists always expose themselves one way or another if you give em enough rope...

whereas most racists dont even realise they are racist... i believe that you believe that you arent racist blue... or classist... or a plutocracist... or a oligarchist... or better yet a plutarcracist(look it up, its a real word)...

[Syn7]

I'm just asking for examples of any of the Founders who "sent their women for abortions to keep their wives from finding out".

what a stupid thing to ask... if they hid it how are we going to know??? info was very compartmentalized back then and it was very easy to hide things like that from the general public... the very few people who did know wont talk or have nobody to tell...

but we know that people in general did have abortions back then... for many different reasons... it isnt unreasonable to believe that politicians are a part of that group and subject to the same conditions as the general population...

[Syn7]

The founding fathers, before they were founding fathers, were influential residents of an English colony. Well-to-do in the English empire who had embarrassing accidents with servants had a looong history of abandoning the child and mother, or requiring something be done about it. The nice Englishman might see that the child and mother had support, but not usually a name.

Since that aspect of the culture is one of those that we have really no evidence that the founding fathers disagreed with, since they were culturally not that far off from being Englishmen for the most part, and since the practice was clearly carried on here by the people who became "Americans", suggests that their views were consistent with their contemporaries in England.

And Jefferson routinely denied some the right to liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and, whenever he sent a troublesome slave to the deep South as punishment, probably life.

Regardless, killing babies happened, and it is seriously unlikely that the colonies in the Americas were the only colonies where magically, the well-to-do and status-conscious didn't see to it that babies were abandoned or aborted when their presence might spell ruin.

Which is positively saintly compared to Columbus, who bragged about selling ten year old girls as sex slaves.

But, I could be wrong, perhaps there's a whole slew of cases from the times of the Founding Fathers where they themselves convicted peers for abortions. However, human biology and survival pressures pretty much guarantee that abortion will always exist, which is why laws against it have generally done nothing but damage women's rights and lead to abandoned babies and more abortion.

What's funny to me is the intersect between the groups that are against abortion and the groups that are against contraception. Moronic, really.


well said man...

[KC Elbows]

well said man...

I got it off of Fox news and newsmax, in case bjj asks.

[Syn7]

gotta link???

[curenado]

Just as matters of time and culture...

One of the reasons that the hippocratic oath prohibits abortion is because that was a poisoner's job or a street herbalist - it was socially too low for the college of doctors and went on pretty much in the open in ancient times.
Poisoning was it's own whole profession and which a noble college would never touch openly.

200 years ago no! It would never have been said even when it was being talked about and it had it's own known "nomenclature and custom" which were polite and dignified. It was done behind closed doors and delicate words. In that time, it would be par for a big man to provide it, but it would not be spoken or even hinted at the way our politicians are all publicly raunchy today. (or the way we openly talk about it now)

I thought some perspective on that may help.

I honestly don't know what scrambles my rain man worse - the sluaghterhouse environment of the clinic or the satanic sludge of the meth pit.
Either way, poor little things.

Makes me think we should all grab the ones we can protect and keep up out of the fates and just love them all they can stand. Be the person that molds them smart and strong so they don't become part of the problem, or have to have their kids see that kind of dead living.

[mooyingmantis]

what im noticing is how easilly and how quick you are to typecast segments of your fellow americans based on scio-economic class and race... these are your brothers... you have such an "us vs. them" mentality... its people like you that are preventing social cohesion that your country needs very VERY badly...

...these are your brothers...

No, they are not our brothers. However, I wish whoever their brothers are, they will start to take care of them so the rest of us don't have to.

[SoCo KungFu]

Am I the only one that sees the irony in that so many high and mighty creationists are trying to turn America into a Darwinist society?

[BJJ-Blue]

what im noticing is how easilly and how quick you are to typecast segments of your fellow americans based on scio-economic class and race... these are your brothers... you have such an "us vs. them" mentality... its people like you that are preventing social cohesion that your country needs very VERY badly...

Not at all. My point was that he mentioned a group of people who lived quite differently than the people he had lived with. I was just saying those cultures are quite different, not playing 'us vs them' at all.

[BJJ-Blue]

no of course not... in your mind it was a discracefull scandelous thing that he would want to hide... but because he was righteous, instead he had the lil bundle of embarassment anyways like a good christian should and simply kept it all real quiet...

Again, you are wrong about me. Jefferson's political opponents used it against him in scandalous ways. And to be honest, I would think he would want to hide it for quite a different reason, I myself would consider it horrible to have sex with a slave. And not because of race or anything, but because its awful close to rape in my opinion. I mean a housekeeper is an employee, but back then a slave was literally property. What were they gonna say, 'No'?


and you wonder why DJ calls you racist... you dont have to say it to put it out there... people who truly are not racist are very sensitive to it and can smell it from a mile away... racists always expose themselves one way or another if you give em enough rope...

Which is why he has been asked before to provide examples of my alleged racism. And he never does....


what a stupid thing to ask... if they hid it how are we going to know??? info was very compartmentalized back then and it was very easy to hide things like that from the general public... the very few people who did know wont talk or have nobody to tell...

So by that logic we could say alot of them were pedophiles then, right? After all, if they hid it, how are we giong to know? Info was very compartmentalized back then and it was very easy to hide things like that from the general public.

[BJJ-Blue]

No, they are not our brothers. However, I wish whoever their brothers are, they will start to take care of them so the rest of us don't have to.

Very, very well put.

Speaking of taking care of your brother, take a look at how/where Obama's half-brother lives.....

[Syn7]

Which is why he has been asked before to provide examples of my alleged racism. And he never does.....

i just did... whats wrong with you???

you dont have to say it outright to expose yourself...






and yes they are your brothers... your countrymen... im suprised how easy it is for you to write off human beings... to me that is very unchristian... its that attitude that ends up with train tracks leading to massive barbed wired complexes...

just look at germany... thats how it all started... us vs. them, they are fukcing up our country yadda yadda... and then a few years down the road you got people being thrown into ovens...

yeah i said it... what...

[BJJ-Blue]

Whatever. I'm not "writing off" anyone based on race. I'm discussing people based on productivity. I've openly said if you don't work, you shouldn't be taken care of by taxpayers. I never mentioned race.

I was told at a very young age "***holes come in all colors". I've pretty much looked at racial issues through those glasses. I've dealt with people of many colors who are absolutely worthless. I've also dealt with people of many colors who are wonderful, intelligent, and productive individuals. I judge people based solely on their actions.

[curenado]

i just did... whats wrong with you???

you dont have to say it outright to expose yourself...

and yes they are your brothers... your countrymen... im suprised how easy it is for you to write off human beings... to me that is very unchristian... its that attitude that ends up with train tracks leading to massive barbed wired complexes...

just look at germany... thats how it all started... us vs. them, they are fukcing up our country yadda yadda... and then a few years down the road you got people being thrown into ovens...

yeah i said it... what...

It seems to me that people can also be highly sensitive and easily translate what is a simple fact of some sort into something more - I mean, maybe it is, maybe it isn't but often it seems thst there could be a degree of projection involved.

To support or not support human rights is one thing. What you have to keep in perspective is that there really is no such thing - humans made it up in certain places and enforced it at the tip of a sword.
So they really don't exist per se, they are something we argue for and don't always win.

Incidentally, I doubt Germans of the day woud have said "...yadda yadda.." (it was funny though.)

The barbed wire complexes are already there. So are the ovens. So are the so called storage "caskets" made of plastic and capable of holding 3 bodies deep. (You can only incenerate so many in so much time)

While all of that is already in place as well as law to enforce it in most places, I am not too sure race will be the primary factor involved when those facilities are in operation.

But I don't think that just because someone points out a statistic that happens to apply to a particular demographic in a larger degree, it makes them racist. That is slaying the messenger, so you gotta factor that in......

[BJJ-Blue]

to me that is very unchristian... its that attitude that ends up with train tracks leading to massive barbed wired complexes...

just look at germany... thats how it all started... us vs. them, they are fukcing up our country yadda yadda... and then a few years down the road you got people being thrown into ovens...

yeah i said it... what...

Well I really don't appreciate that. I have Jewish blood in me, enough I'd have been sent to the camps myself had I lived under Nazi rule. And I also had ancestors murdered during the Holocaust (they were from Krakow, Poland). Think about that the next time you use the worn out Democrat tactic of calling/comparing other people Nazis during political disagreements please.

[Syn7]

oh come on... what a fukcing cop out... your a joke blue... my point was about how it happened, not about jewish this and that... stay focussed here, man, you always misdirect and deflect... and again you called me a democrat... i guess you dont have anything other than attacks on dems in your cookie cutter playbook... how many times do i have to tell you im not a democrat... besides, most americans wouldnt know "hard left" if it climbed up your ass... americas center sits on the right of the worlds center... on a world scale, most democrats are right of center...

just because you are jewish, it doesnt give you a pass when creating an environment similar to what led to the camps in nazi occupied territories... you spout the same sh1t, just different wording and directed at different people...

take as much offence as you want, it wasnt even close to an attack on anything jewish... stop making yourself a victim... be a man...

to suggest that i was dissing jews in any way there is a pathetic sad cop out... man up...

[BJJ-Blue]

SYN, please just stop.

I didn't call you a Democrat, I said you are using their tactics. And I'm not creating anything similar to Germany in the 1930s. If you think I am, please tell me how my belief that able-bodied people who refuse to work should not get taxpayer money for things is similar to the Nazi laws.

And I am being a man, I'm not the one calling others racists and comparing them to Nazis. I'm actually sticking to my beliefs in the face of being called those names. IMO, that's a perfect example of not making excuses as well as being a man.

[Syn7]

It seems to me that people can also be highly sensitive and easily translate what is a simple fact of some sort into something more - I mean, maybe it is, maybe it isn't but often it seems thst there could be a degree of projection involved.

To support or not support human rights is one thing. What you have to keep in perspective is that there really is no such thing - humans made it up in certain places and enforced it at the tip of a sword.
So they really don't exist per se, they are something we argue for and don't always win.

Incidentally, I doubt Germans of the day woud have said "...yadda yadda.." (it was funny though.)

The barbed wire complexes are already there. So are the ovens. So are the so called storage "caskets" made of plastic and capable of holding 3 bodies deep. (You can only incenerate so many in so much time)

While all of that is already in place as well as law to enforce it in most places, I am not too sure race will be the primary factor involved when those facilities are in operation.

But I don't think that just because someone points out a statistic that happens to apply to a particular demographic in a larger degree, it makes them racist. That is slaying the messenger, so you gotta factor that in......


no no... i dont think race will be what sends people to camps... im saying that racism, along with other factors, have led to situations where marginalized people are looked at as worthless because they are caught in the poverty trap...


and as for bjjblue, im not saying you base all this on race... i never said that... im just saying he hatefull, quick to judge whole groups of people, and yes in some cases he is racist...

those who agree with blue will be mortified at that statement... those who are truly sensitive to racism will have spotted blue for what he is a long time ago... like i said before, you dont have to say overtly racist things to be racist.... and to gloss over the fact that racism got alot these poverty stricken people stuck in that trap is racist in itself...

for those who dont get that, im not sure what to say to make them understand... how do you undo so many years of conditioning with a few words on a kungfu forum??? i dont expect much... im just here for the duels...

[KC Elbows]

And I am being a man, I'm not the one calling others racists and comparing them to Nazis.



Before the presidential-election you did exactly that. You CONSTANTLY use tactics that you later whine about when people use them on you.

Nice try, though.

[KC Elbows]

BTW, for those willing to look, a CONSERVATIVE thinktank laid into Texas' board over the textbook BS that was in the news a few months back.