President Bush

[BornAgainPagan]

Folks are no longer willing to abide by the pronouncements of the Dan Rathers, the Peter Jennings, the Courics, or the CNN's.

Addendum; Fox News, Limbaughs, O'Reilly's, Schlessingers, Savages, Imuses

Actually there is one significant difference between my list and yours. All of yours are so middle of the road, they have fenceposts up their a$$es. (Not exactly bastions of liberalism.) My list ranges from clearly right wing to right wing wackos.

 

[Timebuilder]

Addendum; Fox News, Limbaughs, O'Reilly's, Schlessingers, Savages, Imuses

Actually there is one significant difference between my list and yours. All of yours are so middle of the road, they have fenceposts up their a$$es. (Not exactly bastions of liberalism.) My list ranges from clearly right wing to right wing wackos.

Here is the real difference between your list and mine:

My list is a list, and just an abbreviated one at that, of "journalists" who have a liberal axe to grind. No conservative opinion or voice was EVER a part of their broadcasts.

Your list is a list of journmalists and commentators who welcome many liberal voices into their reporting AND their discussions. Fox news has folks like Maura Liasson from National Public Radio. Who does Dan Rather have come on with an opinion that does not agree with his own liberal opinion?

Answer: no one.

All of the commentators you mention WELCOME liberal opinions on their programs. How else to defeat someone in the arena of ideas unless you let them share their views?

Right wing wackos. Ya gotta love it. When someone can't defeat the ideas, they have to attack the person.

Brilliant.

 

[willi7]

Same

One of these days both sides are going to wake up and realize that large corporations run both party's. Most donate to both parties.
Until people wake up and change this, it will keep destroying this great country. Term limits on the Senate and Congress and campaign finance reform, would sure change the way this country is being run..
Until then, hal you said it all... It's interesting nobody responded to it. Facts are hard to argue with...

 

[Timebuilder]

I take it you fall into the category of "corporate hater," or hold some idea that corporations are intrinsically evil.

WE are the corporate owners. Of course both parties are supported by corporations. Corporate persons, just like the people who own them and work for them, need access to the political process.

Corporations are extensions of ourselves; our interests, our investments, our values.

Until people wake up and change this, it will keep destroying this great country.

On the contrary. Companies and their people are Americans who are working hard to keep America GREAT.

Term limits on the Senate and Congress and campaign finance reform, would sure change the way this country is being run..

In order to change the way America is run, you need to change the fact that America is run by lawyers.

You are not going to be successful in that attempt.

 

[TonyC]

Re: You're my kind of conservative

The point I'm trying to make is that the world is not like Happy Days or Lavernne and Shirley, you know?

There are muslim fanatics.
And gay ACT UP activists.
And environmental monkey-wrenchers.
And shady, duplicitous business men.
And lying, self-serving politicians.
And men in robes that would commit the most unspeakable acts on the most innocent of children.

You musn't hide your children from what seems distasteful to you because you're not protecting them from anything. In time they'll be in the world and have to deal with these challenges all on their own. You can either hide them from it and let them learn on their own *or* you can be there when they come home from school and ask, ...

Obvuiously you are not a parent, or you wouldn't be so clueless about how to raise children. Exposing a young child to all the evils of the world does no more protect them from those evils than holding a baby under the water teaches him to swim. Certainly, it is a parent's responsibility to prepare his children for an independent existance in the world that includes the horrors you describe. It is the responsibility of the parents, and NOT the responsibility of the public school system or any OTHER branch of the government. I'll decide when it's right for my kindergartener to learn about homosexuality, and the moral implications of its practice; it's none of her teacher's business, and it's not the business of primetime television.

[EDITED to remove offensive remark - - Thanks MAR]



Geeze that was rude. I apolgize. But you see what I mean.

Peace man.

Yes, it was very rude. Followed by a smile, and left in your post as it was, I find it difficult to believe your apology was sincere. The only appropriate course of action would have been to exercise the backspace key and delete it before clicking on "Submit Reply". Appparently, you weren't very sorry at all. Hypocritical - - but typical of the liberal mindset.

 

[mar]

The liberal mind set

Ok Tony. Very well. You're right. I was wrong.

I consider myself a reasonable man. If you felt my post was offensive then I sincerely apologize. As a gesture (the smallest) I've edited my post.

Unfortunately, by quoting me, you have preserved it, albeit slightly modified.

I'm not sure what you find more offensive, the words or the man who wrote the words.

At any rate, nope, I'm not a parent. But I stand by my original statements.

Timebuilder--corporations are not entitled to votes. Only citizens may vote. One vote, one person. Corporations and other interests represented by lobbyists have underminded American democracy...er...American representative republicanism...or whatever we're gonna call it.

<big sigh>

Some days it just doesn't pay to get out of bed.

Either one of you ever been wrong before?
Ever said something you regreted?
Ever done something ill-advised?

Nah. Not a Republican. Leave the transgressions to the hypocritical liberal mind set.

The rest are golden.
Sweet.

 

[TonyC]

Re: The liberal mind set

I consider myself a reasonable man. If you felt my post was offensive then I sincerely apologize. As a gesture (the smallest) I've edited my post.

Unfortunately, by quoting me, you have preserved it, albeit slightly modified.

I'm not sure what you find more offensive, the words or the man who wrote the words.

Thanks, MAR. I edited my quote of your remark as well. For the record, I do not find you personally offensive, and I have heard and read remarks that are far more offensive than your "question." The feigned apology was more offensive than the question. What OFFENDS me is the IDEA that someone other than their parent is better equipped and/or has more right than their parents to raise children and instill in them the proper morals and ethics. It's nobody's business but mine how I raise my kids - - that fits in with your "live and let live" philosophy, by the way. You can't tell me I MUST expose my young children to Gay ACT UP activists just because they're going to run across them one day. Every child is different, and nobody is more qualified to determine what each individual child should or could be exposed to than that child's parents.

By removing the offensive part of your remark, a more subtle truth shines through. That is, I can choose to be home when "they come home from school and ask the most surprising question..." Far too many parents these days choose to NOT be home for whatever reason. Leaving the job of raising children to the school system, or the day care center, or the babysitter, or the television or video game is irresponsible, in my view, and leads to situations where the child HAS noone to ask those "surprising" questions. I am a firm believer that one cannot overestimate the value of being home to field the questions of the growing, curious child.

<big sigh>

Some days it just doesn't pay to get out of bed.

Either one of you ever been wrong before?
Ever said something you regreted?
Ever done something ill-advised?

Nah. Not a Republican. Leave the transgressions to the hypocritical liberal mind set.

We all make mistakes, and it has nothing to do with political affiliation or ideology. Just ask my kids - - I'm always wrong!

Again, thanks for cleaning up the post.

 

[mar]

Of course it's better to be home!

No question about it!

Look, I may not have kids but I understand role modeling. And young males in particular need positive, consistent and very firm role modeling.

If I can give you the benefit of the doubt Tony and say, Yes, you do in fact know what issues your daughter is ready to handle then can I ask you for the same benefit of the doubt?

I'm asking you to let down your guard and your pride for just a moment to consider the possibility that I'm not asserting the school system should take over parenting. On the contrary.

What I'm saying is that it is a big complicated world out there with lots of conflicting interests and if the parent is a strong role model then the child won't need to go find a substitute--which is exactly what gangs provide: a strong role model.

One family is just one fiber of a huge and intricate tapestry (to exploit another well worn cliche). And the strength of that fiber is determined by the parent.

As you say, you can either be there or not.

If you're there as a consistent, permanent fixture providing shelter, comfort and safety then temporary, inconsistent and injurous influences are diluted.

Does the seven year old child need to be exposed to ACT UP?

No.

Does the 18 year old who just registered to vote need to be exposed to different political agendas?

Yes. Absolutely.

Is that the job of the school system? Or the family?

Let's hope the family has provided some real positive role modeling as to what it means to be affliated with thier politics.

And let's hope that the teachers are doing their jobs and teaching from a diverse background with no bias or prejudice.

After all, what's the point of education if it's only going to regurgitate the status quo? In that case it truly becomes day care.

If we politicize the family; and if we politicize the schools then we have corrupted both.

Let the schools teach.
And let the families live.

In between there is flightinfo.

[Edited only for punctuation this time.]

 

[HueyPilot]

That's why I'm for private schooling

Public schools used to be just that...public school. You went there to learn math, history, grammar, science and maybe a foreign language.

Now, some public schools are being used as a social petri dish. My wife is a teacher (or was) and she's burned out. She no longer teaches and will not return to the profession. There are several complaints.

First, the parents seem to have abdicated their responsibilities to the state. She spent most of her time babysitting, not teaching. Kids getting up and walking out of class. Telling her "F*ck you b*tch". Kids showing up without any homework done, and parents complaining about their kids failing class when the kids did absolutely nothing...didn't do homework, didn't do in-class work, and blew off tests.

She'd have parent-teacher conferences, and implored parents (those that showed up) to assist their children with their homework...often the response was "that's your job...you're the teacher".

Second reason is the agenda that some public schools try to push on your kids. Some organizations out there feel that the government can raise your kids better than you can, and try to take that from you. For example...I plan on raising my children with regards to sex my way...abstinence will be taught from day one as the best way, and if they do decide to have sex, they had better use their heads. That was the same method taught to me and my brother, and both of us had a very healthy respect for the subject.

On the other hand, some schools are teaching sex with the approach "well, we KNOW you're gonna do it at age 14, so here are a bunch of free condoms, and here's how to have sex". Sorry, but it makes me very angry to imagine some teacher who barely knows my child teaching them about safe sex. There are even some schools that go so far as having programs about drug use in the same fashion...the attitude of "we KNOW you'll try it".

Same goes for things like homosexuality. I don't want my kids taught that "you should like and accept gays". As far as I'm concerned, what you do with any sexual "partner" is up to you and should be a private matter, not something to parade before young kids. I have no intentions of teaching my kids that gays are evil or anything hateful like that...but I refuse to allow someone else to raise my children with regards to subjects like that.

I understand that many parents are failing their children in this regard...and if they want to send their kids to the public child-rearing facilities that USED to be our public school system, go for it. I won't be one of those parents.

If the private school my kids attend tries to tell my kids that sex is "OK" and hands condoms to them...then I'm going to pull them out (so to speak).