Protest Warrior HQ

[sarcasm]

So as long as the terrorists only kill foreigners, everything will be alright.

[/sarcasm]

Yes, because all those evil EH-RAHBS were plotting to blow up the NASCAR tracks.

All of them. Even the Iraqis we bombed the begeezus out of.

Even though Iraq actually hated Osama (Saddam was a secularlist, not terribly religious, he was in no mood to turn Iraq into an Islamist state like his neighbors).

Even though... nevermind, why am I shouting at people who won't listen?

LF

Here, I'll end this thread right now.

Nazis loved the bush administration and you do too. All of you.

There. Evoked Godwin's law, everyone loses.

Talk about something else.

Neither did Hitler my man.


Let me get this straight… you are arguing that Kuwait was selling oil to the US under cutting Iraq and that for this reason the US not only encouraged Saddam to attack them but actually “forced” him to? That does not make a lick of sense.


You use the words “suspect” and “possible” to explain your point and then use that as some kind of evidence against Bush Sr. I don’t think so.

OMG NAZI HITLER HITLER NAZI NAZI NAZI HITLER HITLER WWII HITLER.

My productive controbution to the thread: ending it.

Kiamat,

Starting a thread claiming to want an honest debate, while insulting the opposing group you want a discussion with is an odd strategy. You can put the word affectionately in front of an insult, but it is still an insult. I can put a smiley after "you're an asshole " but it hardly softens it (the general you, of course). Acting surprised that your "discussion" was not well received while starting off with a slur is disingenuous, and honestly just silly. You can put everyone into neat little boxes of conservative and liberal all you want to - there are widely divergent views on this topic, and you've added nothing to it with this thinly veiled bash thread.

I agree with you Cris, it was equaly distasteful when it was done recently at the start of a government thread. There really is no need for that if you want to have a healthy debate.

The surprise is to hear that I felt this discussion wasn't be well received as I thought it was very well received and the participants were bringing up very good points with plenty of evidence to support their cases.

Also, allow me to better clarify the debate here:

Should public education in the US be privatized?

Also, Lianne, I know you're ignoring me, but maybe someone will pass this along-I agree with you that we need to teach more about global affairs in schools.

-Kiamat Dusk
High School Graduate

First, feel free to comment on the previous topic if you like.

Second, I agree with religious studies, but I also believe that religious holidays should be practiced in school. It's amazing-Liberals talk endlessly about their "tolerance" but can't stand a Christmas party in school. So much for tolerance. A better way would be to encourage kids to celebrate all their holidays with the class. This would help promote understanding and appreciation of other cultures and religions. It doesn't mean every kid has to actively participate. If little Johnny doesn't believe in Jesus, by all means, don't bring Christmas cards to school. If the Muslim kids are celebrating Ramadan-by all means, don't feel pressured to fast along with them.

Third, sex is a very personal thing and something I firmly believe is the place of the parent to teach. Indeed, I could be accused of sexual harrassment for discussing the same topics in the work place. Movies that depict those acts are rated R and above as being *unsuitable* for HS kids.

-Kiamat Dusk
Feather ruffler

Thanks, Lianne. However, after reading the circumstances, it's not nearly so underhanded as Chip lead me to believe. As special envoy to Iraq during the war, OF COURSE he shook the man's hand. What was he supposed to do-slap him in the face? Yeah, that would have gotten things off to a good start.

-Kiamat Dusk
...would pay good money to pimp slap Saddam

"Ignoring" as in "your views are so extremely opposite of mine that neither of us will ever change how the other thinks."

Not as in "clicking the little option in the control panel."

Lianne,


I don't expect to change your mind anymore than you expect to change mine-however, I am not so egotistical (not saying that you are) as to believe that I know everything or that everything the Republicans do it right. I appreciate your participation because, while it may not *change* my mind-it may well *broaden* it.

-Kiamat Dusk
Cheese eater

I can't seem to find verification of the claim that Rummy met with Hussein four days after gassing Iran so I'd take that with a large grain of salt or three. The April Gilespie meeting with Hussein was widely reported in the year following the Gulf War. CSPAN had a video up of her testimony to congress about the meeting as recently as 3 years ago. The only mentions about the whole affair I can find now are all on very left biased sources so I won't bother pointing you at them. This is a good overview of the Reagain administrations involvement with Iraq from Newsweek...



Source: How the U.S. Helped Create Saddam Hussein
By Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas
Newsweek | MSNBC.com
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.18A.neswk.us.iraq.htm

The federal govt actually plays a very small role in the funding of public schools (about 6 percent of all monies spent on education in the US come from the federal govt). The funding and regulation of public schools is left up to the states and the local school systems as it should be. Now through a couple of carefully drafted bills and a ton of lobbying by the national pta and the teachers unions the govt has recently made efforts to expand federal influence by threatening to decrease funding to the states and such.
But of course most folks forget that the states actually have rights which surpass the rights of the federal govt and that is why we have a constitution in the first place to protect those rights. We are the United States of America...not just America. So no it isn't the Federal Governments right to abolish the public school system because Fed-Co doesn't pay for it and has little control over what the states choose to do with it beyond lobbying and blackmail. If you don't believe me take a gander at the dept of edu site...very informative.
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html?src=ln



Again nobody wants to end prayer in schools but most of us do not want forced prayer either. Religious pageantry has a place in church, at your home, have a parade if you want to but using state tax dollars to fund a nativity scene, giant flaming menorah, golden bull or wailing wall in an ethnically diverse public school system is a misuse of funds. Either way the fed-co should keep their noses out of it unless they plan on footing the bill for the education system nationwide. Instead of funding some cheesy PSA's on the need to read while pulling books off of the library shelves to kiss the ass of some soccer mom who got bent because little Buffy was caught reading Faulkner and learned a new potty word, fed-co could reach back into the coffers and spend a bit on some science books written within this decade.



It ain't the gov-co's money to give, it is the states money. If the states want to give tuition vouchers that is fine and dandy. I wish that my state would do the same. But religious schools need to get something straight as well. Everytime I see a new multi million dollar house of the holy facade being erected like some hard on for Jesus, I weep. Really I do. The same people erecting these churches on the wallet of tithing christians will charge 3000 dollars more per year for tuition than the school systems spend per student per year. I have stated before that these religious organizations are tax exempt as is their land, they are not required to adhere to the same contracting obligations as the school system (if you have ever taken a look at what the contractors charge the schools for construction, lawn maintenance ect you would likely not retain your lunch) and they pay their teachers on average 10% less than the average public school teacher. In other words ask your local scout for the Holy of Holies why they are charging so much for tuition that the flock can't get into the pasture.

Again the federal government does not provide public education, they pay 6% of the cost the states foot the rest of the bill.



Here I agree on one hand but not on the other. As a resident of a state I consider it an investment in my future to help with the costs of public education. These kids afterall will be taking over and I would like to know that they have a couple of braincells worth of usefull information knocking around under their retro beatnik hair cuts. On the otherhand I do agree that more states should look into tuition vouchers for those who wish to send their children to private schools. Again that is a state egg to fry.



Sex ed- Yes due to public health issues and the fact that parents are not picking up the slack on this one. Now I don't believe the schools are doing a whole lot better but at least they are making an effort. I do think that the classes should be less about falacio and more about what herpes really looks like and how pregnancy isn't really cool.

Political indoctrination- Teaching political science and understanding the inner workings of the governmental system, yes. Teaching republicans are gods and liberals are the sons and daughters of satan himself, no. That was a silly question anyhow.

Homosexuality- So far as understanding that different people live different lifestyles and teaching tolerance yes. This goes along hand in claw with religious studies and political studies in that we are all different and though we disagree we should not drag each other behind pickup trucks after downing a 40 at the football game.



Allowing religion and funding religious pageantry are very different. All religions should be taught with regards to the study of history, philosophy and culture. Sorry though little Blain does not need to hang decorations on a christmas tree to learn the cultural significance of christianity.



The US is not a religious country; some of the people in the US are religious people. There is a big difference between the baptists and the catholics so which religion is the US?
Tell you what, when the christians can get together on the subject and just believe in God, Jesus and the Spirit without spitting venom at each other from across the pews over vague and subtle differences in interpretation then maybe I'll take it a bit more seriously.

Nobody is saying hide religion, I am saying that I don't want to fund religion. Churches do not pay taxes therefore religious institutions have little right to say what the government does or doesn't do anyhow.

The funny thing about this war on terrorism, and how the US invasion of Iraq has somehow been brought into this when it was originally waged to eradicate some nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, is that before we arrived in Iraq, there weren't any terrorists there.

As despicable as Saddam is, he never tolerated such extremism when he was in charge.

So... In our war against terrorism, we have brewed a chaotic country filled with them. BRAVO!

- Ace

1. Most US ports and trains have still not been given the funding they need to be secure, and remain a wide open target.
2. If you list the USS Cole as an example of terrorism during the Clinton administration, then you have to accept the dozens of terrorist attacks going on in the middle east; even if you exclude Iraq.
3. Our huge economic debt from the war is putting the US in economic jeopardy.
4. All of those people in GITMO that we aren't charging will eventually be released and be really pissed at us. All accounts I've read show that most detainees never fired a shot against a US soldier, or even necessarily held a gun.
5. Usama bin laden is still at large and Al Quaida has a distributed terror network that replaces leaders quickly.
6. The whole US talks about terrorism almost every fucking day and has clearly been in a state of frantic fear for the last 4 years.
7. The 9/11 attacks took years to plan and execute. How do we know one isn't being planned, and waiting for things to calm down to enact? Unfortunately, the bottom line is that we don't know that we're safer or not until another attack happens or we foil a plot in planning. Given that Bush wants everyone to believe we're safer, I'm certain any evidence of the latter is being hush-hushed. Perhaps, as it should be, but there it is, nevertheless.
8. I have not heard any evidence to indicate we are safer from a dirty bomb or bioterror attack. If, as many conservatives would argue, the WMDs that were in Iraq were moved, then we do not know where they are. That's pretty fucking dangerous, in my book.
9. While we spent our time money and lives in Iraq, Iran has been developing nukes and North Korea has nukes. YAY SAFETY!!!! Cheney has stated the most dangerous thing the US faces is a nuclear threat... gee, maybe we should have dealt with the nuclear threat before Iraq?
10. China's trade advantage and abuse of currency manipulation grows stronger against the US.
11. Our border with Mexico is wide open and we don't care about illegals that are in this country.
12. ... the list goes on.

:::::Go, Ace it's yer birthday:::::::::Go, Ace it's yer birthday:::::::::Go, Ace it's yer birthday::::

I was sent to post in the SL forums in order to keep elephants out of the forums by saying "neener, neener". Since I have done that, there have been no major elephant sightings in the forums.

I claim that my actions have been almost 100% effective in keeping elephants of mass destruction out of the forums. In fact, it's been hard work, but I am proud of my record in keeping elephants away.

I now feel confident in lowering the Elephant Threat Advisory to fluorescent pink which mean "Semi-Significant Threat of Elephant Activity: Duck and Cover!"

It ain't my birthday... yet.

And I still tip my cap to all of those men and women over there who are mucked in this muck.

Dammit... this all sux.

- Ace

Isis,


Thank you for your well thought out and well written reply.

1) You're right-the states pay for the bulk of publc school funding. So that brings up two issues:
a) Since the quality of education varies from state to state, indeed, from district to district-should the federal government then step in and take over completely so that it can ensure money is being distributed and spent evenly?
b) Should the federal government stop funding altogether and leave it completely up to the states? Why should I be paying for schools in a state of which I am not a resident?

2) While I mentioned "religion" in schools you felt it necessary to use it as an occassion to tear into Christianity and insult the religion and it's followers left and right, pausing just long enough to get in a little dig on the Jews Such behavior is indicative of people in the Left. Thousands upon thousands of Muslim fanatics are blowing up busses, flying planes into building, murdering school kids, but the only people you can find contempt for are the ones running soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Spew that much venom on Islam or Wicca or some other such more en vogue religion and watch your fellow Liberals tear you down like you were Rush Limbaugh. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple. Out of one side of your mouth you preach tolerance, while out of the other you're spitting on Christians.

3) As for the Catholics and Protestants, we're all Christians. They are denominations of the same faith-not separate religions.

4) The tuition for perochial schools is not as outrageous as you may think. In fact I manage to send my daughter to one without breaking the bank. Why? Because that "holy facade" and "hard on for Jesus" that she attends provides tuition assistance to ensure that the flock can indeed get into the pasture.

5) Please, someone show me a link to an article about kids being "forced" to pray in school.

-Kiamat Dusk
....remembers packing bags full of food at his church to deliver for free to people who didn't have any...

Terrorist supported by Iraq
http://www.terrorismanswers.org/sponsors/iraq.html
http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_ties.php

Iraqi links with Al Qeada
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0%2C%2C4296646%2C00.html

Hey, Kendra, you'll note that the last link comes from your favorite paper.

-Kiamat Dusk

Malachi,


Your analogy, while cute (elephants...GOP mascot...c'mon!), misses the mark. What you are saying is that no news isn't a sign of prevention, but a sign of planning. In which case, we could claim that at no time in America's history have we ever been safe nor can we ever hope to be no matter what. Because no matter how many years go by wiithout another 9/11 it only means that the forces are still planning.

Wow, and Liberals say *Bush* is a fear monger!


-Kiamat Dusk
Is not afraid of the big bad wolf

In my response, I am assuming that you mean actually eliminating public schools and not privatization of contractual services, which is already done at many levels in public education. In that light, I am against the banning of public schools for the simple reason that privatization of schools put profit before children. It is inevitable and what privatization is all about.

Public education was founded on the principle of preparing America's children to serve a common societal goal of self governance. *Davis (1983). In order to make a profit, you must have one system, one text, one routine, and one school design. This does not bode well for areas such as Dade County where the student body is multi-cultural and multi-lingual.

Brown and Contreras (1991) postulate that "a market place system of schooling (as characterized solely by private schools) is unlikely to address the problems of social class stratification," which equally impinges on education and contributes an array of concerns in the public school environment.

I agree with them. This in fact is my greatest concern about privatization of public education. Dade County in Florida has adopted an experimental privatization plan and it has not proved to be the resounding success that everyone thought it would be. Privatization cannot be construed as an "easy fix" to the education ills of this country.

With regard to taxes, speaking as a soon to be retired person, no school age children, I wish more of my tax dollars were actually applied to education. I have a personal responsibility as a member of my community to assure that all children in my community are fed, clothed, have their medical needs met and are educated. It's just how I feel. I do not begrudge one tax dollar that goes into doing any of the above.

With regard to what should be taught - I believe that theology should be a part of the curriculum. But, it should be just that with no favoritism toward any religion. Children should be taught about cultures and religions that exist in this world, it is important to understand them. They should also be taught Philosophy, Political Science and critical thinking. Evolution is a theory, teach it as such (other scientific theory may one day over ride evolution or at best further explain it). Creationism is postulation and should be taught in theology.

With regard to sex education, I have always wondered why a straight forward biology class should be called sex education. Human biology should be no more uncomfortable or restricted to teach than amoeba cell division. Facts are facts. Humans copulate, get pregnant and give birth. Pregnancy and diseases can be prevented and that too, is simple medicine and biology. Leave the moralization to the children’s parents. If they can't overide a 1 semester class with what they have taught the child in 18 years then they aren't very effective parents or perhaps what they are teaching their children is not very logical and the child has tuned into that.

I do believe that a public education blitz that informs parents as to their responsibility to their children would be very beneficial to this country, our education system and ultimately our children. Parents need to assume more responsibility for their childrens actions and their future.

That said, I am also a strong proponent of birth control and the wide availability of birth control for those individuals that do not wish to or who are not capable of assuming this responsibility.

1. I agree.
2. I have.
3. Our deficit, while larger in dollar terms, is actually smaller than it has been in years when figured as a percentage of our GDP. So, no, it's not.
http://www.cepr.org/pubs/bulletin/meets/157.htm
4. While some where inevitably captured by mistake-what about these guys?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040706-125552-4477r.htm
5. Agreed
6. If we were in such panic why has holiday travel not only picked up, but increased?
7. Or maybe we're foiling plots left and right. Or maybe terrorists are too busy being killed in the Iraq "quagmire".
8. Good point. Next stop-Syria.
9. Liberals constantly point out Iran and North Korea. Are you suggesting then, that we invade those two countries? I'd really like to hear what you guys think is the proper course of action.
10. What does this have to do with any of the two topics mentioned in this thread?
11. Agreed. I say put up a big wall just like the Israelis are doing.
12. ...and it always will.

-Kiamat Dusk

Protest Warrior? You know what you can do.

Stick your far-right, xenophobic, warmongering, bigoted shite up your Donald Rumsfeld.