Careful Not to Get Too Much Education...Or You Could Turn Liberal

[Janet]

Careful Not to Get Too Much Education...Or You Could Turn Liberal

Published on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst

I've been giving a lot of thought lately to a conversation I overheard at a Starbucks in Nashville last winter. It was a cold and rainy night as I worked away at my laptop, but the comforting aroma of cappuccino kept me going. My comfort was interrupted, however, by two young men who sat down in upholstered chairs near my table. One was talking, the other listening, in what appeared to be an informal college orientation.

"The only trouble with David Lipscomb (a conservative Christian college nearby) is that old man Lipscomb apparently didn't like football. So we don't have a football team, but we have a great faculty."

"But you do have to be careful about one thing," he said more quietly, coming closer and speaking in hushed tones, "My professor-I have this great professor-told me that you have to be careful not to get too much education, because you could lose your foundation, your core values."

The neophyte nodded solemnly, his eyebrows raised with worry.

"If you get a bachelors," the seasoned student reassured, "you'll probably be okay. But my professor said that when you get a master's, and definitely if you go beyond that, you can lose your values. He said that college students have to be watchful because if you get too much education, you could turn LIBERAL. He's seen it happen to a lot of good Christians."

Both young men looked around again to make sure no-one was listening (unfortunately my hearing is excellent, even when I wish it weren't), and shuddered visibly. They shook their heads at the terrifying fate that could befall them.

I found it hard to concentrate after that, my mind returning again and again to one question: "What would happen to higher education in America if this fear of "too much education", and this presumption that liberal views are the devil's snare rather than the logical consequences of exposure to science, philosophy, literature and diversity, became widespread?"

Sadly, it has already happened, and is growing on college campuses across the US. A recent article by Justin Pope, "Conservatives Flip Academic Freedom Debate: Liberal professors are accused of attempting to indoctrinate students. But some teachers say pupils are trying to avoid new ideas." (AP, 12/25/04) describes this anti-liberal movement, weakly disguised as "balancing" their courses with conservative views:

"Leading the movement is Students for Academic Freedom, with chapters on 135 campuses and close ties to David Horowitz, a onetime liberal campus activist turned conservative commentator. The group posts student complaints on its website about alleged episodes of grading bias and unbalanced, anti-American propaganda by professors - often in classes.

"Instructors "need to make students aware of the spectrum of scholarly opinion," Horowitz said. "You can't get a good education if you're only getting half the story."" The "other half" of the story may not be factual, however, but doctrinal. As the young man in Starbucks said just before he and the incoming freshman got up to leave,

"Even at Lipscomb, you have to be careful what you pay attention to. My professor said that a few faculty members might lead you astray without meaning to, by bringing in ideas that aren't biblical. He said that if you're ever taught anything that sounds questionable, you should talk about it with your minister to see if it's right."

Even as a Christian raised in the evangelical tradition, this shocked me. I suppose it shouldn't have; the Southern Baptist Convention recently considered a proposal to urge all parents to pull their children out of public schools to prevent their exposure to "non-biblical ideas" which, as it happens, run rampant in fields like medicine, physics, archeology, literature, philosophy, history, astronomy, psychology, theology-in short, everything.

What will happen to that innovative American spirit if radical "conservatives" have their way with our educational system? How will the US fare in the global marketplace when certain ideas, or entire fields, become off-limits to students who've been indoctrinated to consult their ministers before learning new information?

What will happen to medical research, for instance, if this movement proceeds to its logical conclusion: outlawing the scientific method, a method notorious for not relying on biblical principles?

I fear men like Horowitz because uncensored education is essential to our democracy, our people's well-being and the nation's long-term survival. The "conservative" movement that he's spearheading reminds me of the news reports coming out of Iran in the months just prior to the conservative religious takeover of that country when its professors were warned to present the "correct" views in class.

This movement pretends to be about "balancing" liberal with conservative views, but the reality is a lot uglier than that. As the conversation I overheard suggests, this movement isn't about balance, it's about censorship-or even better, self-censorship that's easily achieved by frightening students with social rejection, hellfire or both. Either way, scholarship is degraded in the process. According to the article, "many educators, while agreeing that students should never feel bullied, worry that they just want to avoid exposure to ideas that challenge their core beliefs - an essential part of education. Some also fear that teachers will shy away from sensitive topics or fend off criticism by "balancing" their syllabuses with opposing viewpoints, even if they represent inferior scholarship."

<snip>

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1228-32.htm

[cpwill]

:shrug: depends on how you take it.
the more educated you are, the more money you're likely to make in the general world; certainly we know that, as a class, doctors and business leaders aren't exactly democratic strongholds.
the proffessors, however are; but i'd label that more along the lines of never-getting-out-of-the-ivory-tower mode, combined with a bit of nostalgia for the 60's. as proffessors have gained control of the hiring process at most colleges, it's also a self-feeding self-perpetuating cycle of groupthink.
however, the charges of censorship are two sides of the same coin; often times what student's are protesting isn't just that proffessors seem to feel the need to throw in their political beliefs without disclaimers (but rather teach them as fact; interweaving them with the lecture and rather abusing the trust students then put in them), but that they themselves apply censorship in the classroom. if you're not going to let the other side be heard; then you shouldn't be preaching your side; is the general argument.

www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org, i believe, is the website

[barciad]

http://knowledge.typepad.com/ikms_newsletter/calvin.gif
I think this Calvin and Hobbes sums the whole notion up. The more you read, the more you begin to question, thus proving Socrates eternal saying "Doubt lies at the origin of all truth".
It has always puzzled me why religious, absolutest states would wish to suppress learning and creativity. Actually, scrub that last statement, it is blatantly obvious as to why conservative religious (All major world religions) would do such a thing. Knowledge is power, they have it, they know it, and that is the way they wish it to remain.
Fortuneately it is ultimately self defeating in he long term, as France, Spain, and the Ottomans would attest.

[xexon]

Education, has nothing to do with anything. You are a conservative or liberal before getting educated.

It only helps you decide.



x

[MrAmerica]

One of the men I admire most is Doctor Ben Carson. He is the neuro-surgeon who first separated siamese twins joined at the head. He is black, and was born poor. His mother scraped and saved to get him through college, and he did not have affirmative action or extra help. And the one thing that is interesting is that even though this man is one of the most respected physicians on the planet and has probably the most comprehensive knowledge of the human mind and anatomy of anyone alive, he is a bible believing Christian. Too much education did not harm his values or his spirituality.

[Missouri Mule]

I considered myself to be a liberal in my youth, during my college days and well into mid adult hood. Then we had Carter and I went to work in government. I then started to examine my own values and realized that I really couldn't escape personal responsibility for my own actions, be they good or bad decisions and I have made some doozies in my lifetime.

But a more interesting aspect of this liberal/conservative thing was revealed in our 40th high school class reunion. Most went on to college and several became quite successful. My great success was in marrying a wonderful woman. The interesting thing is that virtually to every man and woman from that class of 1961 is that we are virtually all conservative and Republicans. The school I went to was not particularly wealthy and we were all more or less middle class. Some went off to war and most returned. Most of us lived ordinary lives.

I take from my own experience that if people are raised in normal families, live normal lives and don't hang around with the wrong crowd they are likely as not to become more conservative as they age, pay taxes and see the real world and not a make believe world that is often the environment that one experiences in college.

[spork]

I take from my own experience that if people are raised in normal families, live normal lives and don't hang around with the wrong crowd they are likely as not to become more conservative as they age, pay taxes and see the real world and not a make believe world that is often the environment that one experiences in college.

I grew up in a household of lifelong Republicans. My mother chortled with glee in 1972 when Nixon beat McGovern. My father's boss was powerful enough to merit a personal audience with Reagan whenever he went to Washington. I grew up in suburbia, where we belonged to a country club. By your standards, I grew up in a normal family - which proves that your theory is horse manure. :lol:

[cpwill]

:confused: you have no idea from his post what his standards for a normal family are.

[skyraider]

Bah! Ignorant anti-value liberals drive me crazy. The reason liberals hate values is <MOD EDIT- Generalisation>. Take life, for example.

EDIT: Ok, edit my post... just trying to start up some controversy :p

[Missouri Mule]

I grew up in a household of lifelong Republicans. My mother chortled with glee in 1972 when Nixon beat McGovern. My father's boss was powerful enough to merit a personal audience with Reagan whenever he went to Washington. I grew up in suburbia, where we belonged to a country club. By your standards, I grew up in a normal family - which proves that your theory is horse manure. :lol:

For your information, I voted for McGovern and I also voted for Carter to my everlasting regret. My parents were lifelong Democrats having grown up in the Great Depression. I just changed over the years as I examined my own beliefs and realized that my future was in my own hands and I wasn't owed a living through any government handout. I actually worked as a welfare caseworker and saw the damage that welfarism inflicts on its recepients in that it provides a subsistence income and doesn't motivate them to work for a better life. I came to the view that government largesse is possibly the worst thing to have happened in the U.S. We need to be as self-reliant as is possible and reserve government help for only those individuals who are physically or mentally incapable of helping themselves.

[spork]

For your information, I voted for McGovern and I also voted for Carter to my everlasting regret. My parents were lifelong Democrats having grown up in the Great Depression. I just changed over the years as I examined my own beliefs and realized that my future was in my own hands and I wasn't owed a living through any government handout. I actually worked as a welfare caseworker and saw the damage that welfarism inflicts on its recepients in that it provides a subsistence income and doesn't motivate them to work for a better life. I came to the view that government largesse is possibly the worst thing to have happened in the U.S. We need to be as self-reliant as is possible and reserve government help for only those individuals who are physically or mentally incapable of helping themselves.

I guess you weren't brought up in a normal family, if you started out life as a Democrat. :lol:

Listen, Mule - I spent a brief period of time on AFDC. I found out The Pill was 99% effective when I was 18. I chose to have the baby - something a good rightwinger like yourself would applaud. When I was abandoned by the husband I was forced to marry, my daughter was about 3 months old. I was in no position to afford child care, or anything else. My family did nothing to help me. I spent about 2 years on AFDC, and went through an employment training program that enabled me to get off welfare and work. In the meantime, however, my infant had medical care, and I could pay the rent. Just barely. There was no sign of the largesse you mention. It was barely enough to squeak by on, if one ignored some neccessities.

People don't get to stay on welfare endlessly. Since the modernization, benefits last for 3 years. It's increasingly more difficult to get off, and move forward because of the lack of affordable health care, affordable housing, and affordable child care. The deck is stacked against these women, and the general disdain held by the majority of conservatives is not particularly helpful.

I should be lauded as a success story by the right - I didn't have an abortion, and I got off welfare. :angel:

[cpwill]

I should be lauded as a success story by the right - I didn't have an abortion, and I got off welfare. :angel:

:clap::clap::clap::clap::beer::beer: :tips hat:

[Janet]

I guess you weren't brought up in a normal family, if you started out life as a Democrat. :lol:

Listen, Mule - I spent a brief period of time on AFDC. I found out The Pill was 99% effective when I was 18. I chose to have the baby - something a good rightwinger like yourself would applaud. When I was abandoned by the husband I was forced to marry, my daughter was about 3 months old. I was in no position to afford child care, or anything else. My family did nothing to help me. I spent about 2 years on AFDC, and went through an employment training program that enabled me to get off welfare and work. In the meantime, however, my infant had medical care, and I could pay the rent. Just barely. There was no sign of the largesse you mention. It was barely enough to squeak by on, if one ignored some neccessities.

People don't get to stay on welfare endlessly. Since the modernization, benefits last for 3 years. It's increasingly more difficult to get off, and move forward because of the lack of affordable health care, affordable housing, and affordable child care. The deck is stacked against these women, and the general disdain held by the majority of conservatives is not particularly helpful.

I should be lauded as a success story by the right - I didn't have an abortion, and I got off welfare. :angel:

Beautiful post! I know of what you speak, having to get AFDC for my three children when their father neglected to pay child support. The puzzling thing about that was the fact that the man has a Master's degree in Agronomy but couldn't keep a job.

I have to commend you for your hard work and determination. It isn't easy to get off AFDC, as you stated, but I did it as well and was determined to do the best I could for my children. We didn't always have what we wanted, but we always had what we needed. In my opinion, far too many of our citizens need to learn the difference between "wants" and "needs."

Again, congratulations!

:flowers:

[MrAmerica]

Listen, Mule - I spent a brief period of time on AFDC. I found out The Pill was 99% effective when I was 18.
Wow, that's considerably more effective than the condom. But yet you Dem's are advocating the use of condoms to teenagers (and even younger). After what you have been through, I would think that the last thing you would want is to have your kid be exposed to some impersonal demonstration by a stranger on how to have good sex.
I chose to have the baby - something a good rightwinger like yourself would applaud. When I was abandoned by the husband I was forced to marry, my daughter was about 3 months old. I was in no position to afford child care, or anything else. My family did nothing to help me. I spent about 2 years on AFDC, and went through an employment training program that enabled me to get off welfare and work. In the meantime, however, my infant had medical care, and I could pay the rent. Just barely. There was no sign of the largesse you mention. It was barely enough to squeak by on, if one ignored some neccessities.

People don't get to stay on welfare endlessly. Since the modernization, benefits last for 3 years. It's increasingly more difficult to get off, and move forward because of the lack of affordable health care, affordable housing, and affordable child care. The deck is stacked against these women, and the general disdain held by the majority of conservatives is not particularly helpful.

I should be lauded as a success story by the right - I didn't have an abortion, and I got off welfare. :angel:
So what is the moral of this story? We don't know them, but should we just assume that your Evil Right-Wing parents never had a better life in mind for you? Should you blame them for your decisions? It sounds to me like you could have had as good a life as they did. I'm willing to bet they would have put you through college. Maybe they gave you a dose of "tough love" by not helping you, as my parents did for my sister when she had a baby at 17 and then expected everyone else to watch the kid while she went out partying.

Yes you should be congratulated for getting off of the government teet. But all you did was get yourself back to square one. You could have done better. The real accomplishment will be to get your kid to avoid the same mistakes. So how would you do that; by advocating the use of condoms? Because of course, they're going to have sex no matter what right? I mean there is no possible way to avoid it is there? Or could abstinance really work? I believe it has a 100% success rate every time it's tried.

[Simba]

I personally never liked condoms.

I suppose if they gave them out at mass as some sort of gimic to bring people in for attending I might snatch me up a handful. I hear some come in a lot of nice colors these days.

Still, its a little late for me and the wife, I mean, we ended up having 5, and all girls. Hell, life as you can imagine as a man has been just that, especially now that dating has really come into play around here for them.

In regards to the original topic point, I should point out that edcuation and learning are not the same thing. Learning is a process of acquiring knowledge. It requires facilitation, usually be means of what has traditionally been called a teacher, but not necessarily. Abe Lincoln is one example of a self educated man. Education is but one means to acquire the knowledge. It is often used as a verb, but it is a noun. There are different forms of education, just as there are different types of metaprogramming.

So, education does not lead one to become a liberal. If intentionally planned, one form of education facilitation could convince you that you are the Ant King.

[green lantern]

Wow, that's considerably more effective than the condom. But yet you Dem's are advocating the use of condoms to teenagers (and even younger). After what you have been through, I would think that the last thing you would want is to have your kid be exposed to some impersonal demonstration by a stranger on how to have good sex.

So what is the moral of this story? We don't know them, but should we just assume that your Evil Right-Wing parents never had a better life in mind for you? Should you blame them for your decisions? It sounds to me like you could have had as good a life as they did. I'm willing to bet they would have put you through college. Maybe they gave you a dose of "tough love" by not helping you, as my parents did for my sister when she had a baby at 17 and then expected everyone else to watch the kid while she went out partying.

Yes you should be congratulated for getting off of the government teet. But all you did was get yourself back to square one. You could have done better. The real accomplishment will be to get your kid to avoid the same mistakes. So how would you do that; by advocating the use of condoms? Because of course, they're going to have sex no matter what right? I mean there is no possible way to avoid it is there? Or could abstinance really work? I believe it has a 100% success rate every time it's tried.
i'm conservative, i support condom use. would this shock you??

[MrAmerica]

i'm conservative, i support condom use. would this shock you??
No, I know there are a lot of us who do, and it is better than not using one. But the problem I have is when they refuse to teach abstinance as an alternative. When they assume that there is no way we can teach our kids right from wrong. They feel that they have to teach our kids everything, including things that should only be learned from a loving parent who has the child's best interest at heart. In fact they take away our ability to teach our kids right from wrong by stripping of us of our right to use corporal punishment on our kids. For all this talk about how corporal punishment hurts kids "self esteem," the lack of it has produced two or three generations of selfish and spoiled young people who live simply to find the next amusement or gratification.

When we allow ourselves to stoop to the level of acknowledging an inability to exercise control over ourselves as humans, then we are placing ourselves on the same ground as the criminally insane who "just can't help themselves" when they rape someone, or molest a kid. At what point do we finally find our self control? Or do we just admit that we have none?

Conservative or not, the answer to this dilema is spiritual. We need to have a sense of self worth as human beings. If we think of ourselves as animals, we will act like animals. If we recognize that we are created in the image of God, we will treat life and it's consequences with more respect.

[green lantern]

No, I know there are a lot of us who do, and it is better than not using one. But the problem I have is when they refuse to teach abstinance as an alternative. When they assume that there is no way we can teach our kids right from wrong. They feel that they have to teach our kids everything, including things that should only be learned from a loving parent who has the child's best interest at heart. In fact they take away our ability to teach our kids right from wrong by stripping of us of our right to use corporal punishment on our kids. For all this talk about how corporal punishment hurts kids "self esteem," the lack of it has produced two or three generations of selfish and spoiled young people who live simply to find the next amusement or gratification.

When we allow ourselves to stoop to the level of acknowledging an inability to exercise control over ourselves as humans, then we are placing ourselves on the same ground as the criminally insane who "just can't help themselves" when they rape someone, or molest a kid. At what point do we finally find our self control? Or do we just admit that we have none?

Conservative or not, the answer to this dilema is spiritual. We need to have a sense of self worth as human beings. If we think of ourselves as animals, we will act like animals. If we recognize that we are created in the image of God, we will treat life and it's consequences with more respect.
i have no problem with teaching abstinence, just by itself, i feel that it is ineffective. you try and tell a 15-16 yr old whose hormones are in over drive that abstinence is the only way and that they should not be sexually active , 90% of them will look at you like you are crazy. i'm all for teaching kids about birth control, less lifes will be sidetracked with unwanted/unplanned for children, and this i'm sure would lead to less abortions. As for schools taking away parents rights to teach their children, unfortunately, many parents use schools as a "babysitter" , and neglect to teach their children the facts of life.

as for corporal punishment, i'm all in favor of cracking a kid on the behind when he/she is out of line/ misbehaving, this whole you will hurt their "self esteem" stuff is a bunch of garbage, you do them more harm by letting them get their way all time and by letting them get away with murder. a crack across the butt would do alot of these spoiled brats of this generation a world of good. notice i said when they misbehave, not for the adult to have a power trip or to take their anger out on them. their is a difference between discipline and abuse.

[jamesrage]

I considered myself to be a liberal in my youth

I was the same way too when I was a teenager.Then I grew up.

[Missouri Mule]

I guess you weren't brought up in a normal family, if you started out life as a Democrat. :lol:

Listen, Mule - I spent a brief period of time on AFDC. I found out The Pill was 99% effective when I was 18. I chose to have the baby - something a good rightwinger like yourself would applaud. When I was abandoned by the husband I was forced to marry, my daughter was about 3 months old. I was in no position to afford child care, or anything else. My family did nothing to help me. I spent about 2 years on AFDC, and went through an employment training program that enabled me to get off welfare and work. In the meantime, however, my infant had medical care, and I could pay the rent. Just barely. There was no sign of the largesse you mention. It was barely enough to squeak by on, if one ignored some neccessities.

People don't get to stay on welfare endlessly. Since the modernization, benefits last for 3 years. It's increasingly more difficult to get off, and move forward because of the lack of affordable health care, affordable housing, and affordable child care. The deck is stacked against these women, and the general disdain held by the majority of conservatives is not particularly helpful.

I should be lauded as a success story by the right - I didn't have an abortion, and I got off welfare. :angel:

Look, I'm not against welfare, per se. In fact, I am in favor of increased benefits FOR the ones who really need it. I just saw too many people who abused the system and were ultimately worse off for getting into the welfare rut. To a large extent unemployment benefits is a welfare benefit and it is surprising to see the numbers of people who magically find work about the time their checks are about to run out.

I'm not sure what you mean about a normal family. I had a mother, a father and two brothers we grew up during the 1950s when most people held to the same values. In those days most people did happen to be Democrats. The Democratic party of that day bears little resemblence to the Democratic party of today. FDR, Harry Truman, JFK and Scoop Jackson would be spinning in their graves to see what it has become. They were all patriots in the truest sense and tried to do their level best to lead the country. All of this other baloney started during the latter part of the Vietnam War with the feel good generation taking over and the values went to hell in a handbasket. LBJ went hog wild with his "Great Society" and it took another 30 years to get rid of it because it was such a monumental failure.

My grandparents didn't have a pot to piss in but they never held their hands out to get a welfare check. I used to stay with them in my early childhood on their farm where they worked as sharecroppers. They got up at 4:30 each morning and went to bed when the sun went down. They had no running water, no toilet, no television, no air conditioning, no electricity and no phone. My grandmother thought she had died and gone to heaven when her children installed a window fan in the kitchen. Up to then it was the old church type fans. I used to get my exercise from going about the house swatting flies with those old fabric and screen type fly swatters. Our idea of fun was the occasional movie when it cost 25 cents and popcorn was a nickle. They never considered themselves to be poor. They were just like everyone else. Everyone was poor and in the same boat. They did what they had to do. My aunt told me recently that during the Great Depression she had one dress to wear to school. It was washed daily. A typical meal was navy beans, bisquits and home grown chicken or pork. We took our baths in a wash tub in the kitchen. The water came from a hand pump in the sink and the warm water was added after it was heated over the cook stove. And we got our light from a coal oil lamp on the kitchen table. Thinking back to those days, they were the happiest days of my life. My uncle said many times that what this country needed to get straightened out was another depression. Sometimes I think he is right.

[freckled fanny]

"I used to stay with them in my early childhood on their farm where they worked as sharecroppers."

You stayed with your grandparents on "their" farm. Curious. Were they landowners, or were they sharecroppers?

[spork]

Wow, that's considerably more effective than the condom. But yet you Dem's are advocating the use of condoms to teenagers (and even younger). After what you have been through, I would think that the last thing you would want is to have your kid be exposed to some impersonal demonstration by a stranger on how to have good sex.

Bwaaahahaha. Typical rightwing misrepresentation. Teaching kids that condoms exist, and help prevent the spread of STDs and help prevent pregnancy is hardly the same as advocating their use. Congratulations on wonderfully dishonest prose.

My daughter recieved comprehensive, honest sex ed - FROM ME. One of her schoolmates was pregnant at 14. She is perhaps the only girl in her class who does not have any children. Many of them have 3 kids by different fathers. She's gone on to educate young women she's worked with over the years who didn't get any sex ed at all from their parents.

So what is the moral of this story? We don't know them, but should we just assume that your Evil Right-Wing parents never had a better life in mind for you? Should you blame them for your decisions? It sounds to me like you could have had as good a life as they did. I'm willing to bet they would have put you through college. Maybe they gave you a dose of "tough love" by not helping you, as my parents did for my sister when she had a baby at 17 and then expected everyone else to watch the kid while she went out partying.

Bwaaaahahaha. My evil right wing parents did have a better life in mind for me, but apparently it was supposed to happen through osmosis. No one in my family ever taught anything remotely like personal responsibility. My parents had no intention of putting me through college. You see, the year the Pill failed me, was the same year my father went to prison for embezzling. Supporting the country club lifestyle of his alcoholic spouse was beyond the scope of his salary, so he did what so many Republicans do - he stole!! Dad wasn't going to be sending me to college from the Big House. There was no tough love - there was no love, period. My mother sent my daughter a birthday card this year, for the first time in her life. My daughter turned 30 this year. :rolleyes:

Yes you should be congratulated for getting off of the government teet. But all you did was get yourself back to square one. You could have done better.

And you know this, how? You're a judgemental dolt.

Or could abstinance really work? I believe it has a 100% success rate every time it's tried.

Well, you'll contribute many new children to be left behind by the current administration, with that line of logic. I have a better idea - when boys are born, and going under the knife to be circumsised, why not give them a vasectomy? It could be reversed later in life, when they're ready to be fathers. Save us all a lot of trouble.

[Missouri Mule]

"I used to stay with them in my early childhood on their farm where they worked as sharecroppers."

You stayed with your grandparents on "their" farm. Curious. Were they landowners, or were they sharecroppers?

They were sharecroppers. The landlord was generous and provided them a small farm house to live in. They lived there until they died in the late 1970s. They never owned their own home or much of anything else for that matter, except for that 1952 Chevrolet they drove to church. But they were rich in spirit. I used to visit with them during much of my early life. The best times of my life were spent living with them.

My grandmother used to make her own butter, prepare the chickens for the cookpot by wringing their heads off (two at a time) and washed the work clothes in a big kettle in the back yard. My uncle used to plow the fields with a hand plow and mule. I can't imagine how they could get much poorer.

[MrAmerica]

i have no problem with teaching abstinence, just by itself, i feel that it is ineffective. you try and tell a 15-16 yr old whose hormones are in over drive that abstinence is the only way and that they should not be sexually active , 90% of them will look at you like you are crazy.
I actually agree with you to an extent. But how can you teach abstinance side by side with condom use? On one hand you are telling them not to do it, but then you say, but if you must, here is how to do it right. I think that what we should be teaching them is more about the consequences of their actions.

Kids hormones do run wild, but you have to ask yourself why. Could it have anything to do with the so called "culture" that kids are exposed to every day? I don't know about you, but when it becomes normal for pre-pubescent girls to wear clothing that used to be suitable only for hookers, then I can't help but think that something is wrong. Do we have to allow our kids to wear stuff like that? Will they die if we don't let them go to a Britney Spears concert? I don't think so.

I agree with you completely about appropriate punishment. There is a line between corporal punishment and abuse, but the politically correct crowd have redrawn it so that there is no room for what should be appropriate.

[MrAmerica]

Bwaaahahaha. Typical rightwing misrepresentation. Teaching kids that condoms exist, and help prevent the spread of STDs and help prevent pregnancy is hardly the same as advocating their use. Congratulations on wonderfully dishonest prose.
Well, condoms have been issued in schools. Sex Ed has been taught. And you know what? STD's and teen pregnancies have dropped since the early 90's. Yeahhhh!!! :D But it's not because of condom distribution or sex ed, it's because of ABSTINANCE! Here's the proof;
http://www.w-cpc.org/sexuality/teens.html
About half of all teens aged 15-19 have not had sex.
Teen pregnancy rates in the US have been declining since the early 1990's.
Increased abstinence accounted for most, and in some cases all, of the declines during the early 1990s in pregnancy rates and birthrates among women aged 15-19.
Am I still being dishonest? Also, I have heard many examples of how some of these teachers go about "not advocating sex." Some of these schools brought in people from outside to demonstrate these things. I have seen actual tape, and it was anything but non-sexual.

When I was in high school sex ed was new. Most of the kids at school did not look at it as education, they looked at it as entertainment and stimulation. Sex Ed was one class that no one ditched. It was something to giggle about, and it made for great conversation between kids who wanted to experience sex just as soon as possible.

My daughter recieved comprehensive, honest sex ed - FROM ME. One of her schoolmates was pregnant at 14. She is perhaps the only girl in her class who does not have any children. Many of them have 3 kids by different fathers. She's gone on to educate young women she's worked with over the years who didn't get any sex ed at all from their parents.
Excellent. That's the way it should be done. You are succeeding in keeping your daughter from making the same mistakes you made. There is redemption in life no matter how bad or numerous our mistakes are. I do sincerely congratulate you.
Bwaaaahahaha. My evil right wing parents did have a better life in mind for me, but apparently it was supposed to happen through osmosis. No one in my family ever taught anything remotely like personal responsibility. My parents had no intention of putting me through college. You see, the year the Pill failed me, was the same year my father went to prison for embezzling. Supporting the country club lifestyle of his alcoholic spouse was beyond the scope of his salary, so he did what so many Republicans do - he stole!! Dad wasn't going to be sending me to college from the Big House. There was no tough love - there was no love, period. My mother sent my daughter a birthday card this year, for the first time in her life. My daughter turned 30 this year. :rolleyes:
Well, as I said; I don't know your parents. I was only speaking theoretically. I do not claim saint hood for any and all republicans. But you should not make blanket statements like; "he did what so many Republicans do - he stole!!" And you call ME judgmental! I would have a good long look in the mirror if I were you before you call anyone else judgmental. And as for making the same mistakes as our parents; It seems that you have inherited a good deal of their bitterness and lack of respect. Don't make the same mistake, or your daughter will inherit it from you too.

[green lantern]

I actually agree with you to an extent. But how can you teach abstinance side by side with condom use? On one hand you are telling them not to do it, but then you say, but if you must, here is how to do it right. I think that what we should be teaching them is more about the consequences of their actions.

Kids hormones do run wild, but you have to ask yourself why. Could it have anything to do with the so called "culture" that kids are exposed to every day? I don't know about you, but when it becomes normal for pre-pubescent girls to wear clothing that used to be suitable only for hookers, then I can't help but think that something is wrong. Do we have to allow our kids to wear stuff like that? Will they die if we don't let them go to a Britney Spears concert? I don't think so.

I agree with you completely about appropriate punishment. There is a line between corporal punishment and abuse, but the politically correct crowd have redrawn it so that there is no room for what should be appropriate.
i agree, culture does play a roll, parents of today dont seem to care what their kids where, i see 12-13 yr old girls in my neighborhood wearing mini-skirts or "low rider" jeans, boys wearing pants so baggy that they literally hang to their knees. i've had to fight the urge to walk up behind these boys and pull those pants up for them!! :eek: :lol:

[spork]

Mr AmericaWell, condoms have been issued in schools. Sex Ed has been taught. And you know what? STD's and teen pregnancies have dropped since the early 90's. Yeahhhh!!! But it's not because of condom distribution or sex ed, it's because of ABSTINANCE! Here's the proof;
Quote:
http://www.w-cpc.org/sexuality/teens.html
About half of all teens aged 15-19 have not had sex.
Teen pregnancy rates in the US have been declining since the early 1990's.
Increased abstinence accounted for most, and in some cases all, of the declines during the early 1990s in pregnancy rates and birthrates among women aged 15-19.

D'oh - it is in fact because of comprehensive sex ed, and birth control. What's this source you cite, anyhow?

When I was in high school sex ed was new. Most of the kids at school did not look at it as education, they looked at it as entertainment and stimulation. Sex Ed was one class that no one ditched. It was something to giggle about, and it made for great conversation between kids who wanted to experience sex just as soon as possible.

And your experience is universal? Is that maybe a leeeetle bit egotistical?

Excellent. That's the way it should be done. You are succeeding in keeping your daughter from making the same mistakes you made. There is redemption in life no matter how bad or numerous our mistakes are. I do sincerely congratulate you.

For you to even imply that I needed some sort of redemption is amazingly fatuous and insulting.

Well, as I said; I don't know your parents. I was only speaking theoretically. I do not claim saint hood for any and all republicans. But you should not make blanket statements like; "he did what so many Republicans do - he stole!!"

Oh, I thought it was a Republican family value. It certainly is in the Bush family - look at Neil's career with Silverado, Jebby's shady Cuban land deals, and George's insider trading.

And you call ME judgmental! I would have a good long look in the mirror if I were you before you call anyone else judgmental. And as for making the same mistakes as our parents; It seems that you have inherited a good deal of their bitterness and lack of respect. Don't make the same mistake, or your daughter will inherit it from you too.

Well, you're right about one thing - you don't know my parents. Since I do, I have the right to pass judgement, thank you very much. Your willingness to lecture me on what I should or should not do is highly presumptuous.

[huck]

The topic of the thread is "Careful Not to Get Too Much Education . . . Or You Could Turn Liberal."

From personal experience (take it for what it's worth), my own observation is that "conservatives" are by nature more likely to accept the teachings/opinions of authority figures. They are by definition . . . conservative. Cautious of change, slow to encourage change on their own.

This quality is neither bad nor good.

"Liberals" seem to be more likely to encourage change in the political, social, and scientific arenas. This attitude falls more in line with the spirit of academic inquiry.

So it is not surprising that "liberals" are more comfortable than "conservatives" in academia. One of the primary roles of university study is not just to build upon the foundation of knowledge students have learned since childhood, but to teach students to think independently.

Independent, thorough thought is the hallmark of a good education, IMHO. But I can understand why a "conservative" thinker might not be comfortable with this concept.

[MrAmerica]

i've had to fight the urge to walk up behind these boys and pull those pants up for them!! :eek: :lol:
I can't believe other kids can resist the urge to pull them down!

[MrAmerica]

D'oh - it is in fact because of comprehensive sex ed, and birth control. What's this source you cite, anyhow?
I gave you the link, but if that's not enough here's a report cited in the Washington Times;

http://www.sexrespect.com/DropBirth.html
A review of national data indicates that teen birthrates have been falling because teens are abstaining from sex, not because they’re using more condoms, a group of doctors say in a study released on Feb. 10.

This conclusion "refutes" efforts by federal agencies and advocacy groups to attribute the birthrate declines to contraceptive use, said the Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils (PRC), which represents 2,000 health care professionals.

The PRC said the data show that both condom use and out-of-wedlock birthrates have increased among sexually active teen-age girls.

If improved condom use was bringing down birthrates overall, its impact should have been seen in this category of girls, said Dr. Joanna K. Mohn of Rahway, NJ.

Instead, the correlation is the "exact opposite"—"increased condom use and higher illegitimacy rates have gone hand in hand," she said.

National data further show that more teens – especially boys – are abstaining from sex, said Dr. John Diggs of South Hadley, Mass.

This behavioral change, which tracts the decline in teen birthrates, is likely due to HIV-AIDS education, abstinence education and growing cultural acceptance of saving sex for marriage, said Dr. Diggs.

Oh, I thought it was a Republican family value. It certainly is in the Bush family - look at Neil's career with Silverado, Jebby's shady Cuban land deals, and George's insider trading.
Insider trading? Aren't you talking about Hillary Clinton? How about the White Water Land Deal, and illegal campaign contributions by the Chinese Buddhist Monks?

Well, you're right about one thing - you don't know my parents. Since I do, I have the right to pass judgement, thank you very much. Your willingness to lecture me on what I should or should not do is highly presumptuous.
I'm not accusing you of passing judgment on your parents. I'm accusing you of saying that theft is a republican "value."

But actually, I'm so glad that people like you and the rest of the Michael Moore crowd are at the political forefront. You are the reason why we won the election. Keep up the good work. :lol:

[Rivet]

I agree with you completely about appropriate punishment. There is a line between corporal punishment and abuse, but the politically correct crowd have redrawn it so that there is no room for what should be appropriate.
I don't think it has anything to with being PC or liberal.
It's just that corporal punishment doesn't work.

Here's an anlogy.
Think about training a dog. Can you train a dog by hitting it? Whipping it into shape? No respected dog-trainer would use these techniques. It only teaches the dog to fear you.

You can punish by ways other than spankings.

Make your own conclusions.

[spork]

But actually, I'm so glad that people like you and the rest of the Michael Moore crowd are at the political forefront.

Since I have yet to mention Michael Moore at all, your assumptions here lack any merit whatsoever. It seems anyone who doesn't fall in with your narrow belief system is a Michael Moore "crowd" member. I hope my membership comes with a secret decoder ring - I have a feeling that with you, I'm going to need it.

I'm accusing you of saying that theft is a republican "value."

I did say that, and rather than defend the Republicans you tried the old bait and switch again. No surprise. Trying to defend the Bush family from their numerous ethics lapses is akin to shoveling out the Augean stables. :lol:

[green lantern]

I don't think it has anything to with being PC or liberal.
It's just that corporal punishment doesn't work.

Here's an anlogy.
Think about training a dog. Can you train a dog by hitting it? Whipping it into shape? No respected dog-trainer would use these techniques. It only teaches the dog to fear you.

You can punish by ways other than spankings.

Make your own conclusions. i disagree. a good spanking every now and then, does no long term harm to a child, as long as the parent understands where the line between punishment and abuse is. spanking should not be the only discipline tool used, but should be included with taking toys/priviledges away, and grounding the kids. i'm sorry, but "time out" doesnt work , and is a joke.

to quote a buddy of mine when one day in the grocery store and his oldest acted up and he gave him a smack on the rear, and a woman had the nerve to say something about it " when you pay my bills, when you buy the food the goes on his plate, and the clothes that go on his back, then you may handle his discipline, he will respect me, respect my rules, and be respectful in public, and he will learn to respect himself, untill such time as you meet my requirements to handle his discipline.....mind your own business"

[Rivet]

taking toys/priviledges away, and grounding the kids. i'm sorry, but "time out" doesnt work , and is a joke.


I agree with all the above. I would never tell anyone how to raise their kids.

I don't think these techniques are used enough. Kids are spoiled because we spoil them. If a kid receives an unconditional allowance, what does that teach? If you send a kid to his room, and he can sit there and play video games or watch TV, that's not real discipline.

I understand what you're saying though. Sometimes you have to adminster tough love. I just think it doesn't have to be of a physical nature. My opinion that's all.

[MrAmerica]

I don't think it has anything to with being PC or liberal.
It's just that corporal punishment doesn't work.

Here's an anlogy.
Think about training a dog. Can you train a dog by hitting it? Whipping it into shape? No respected dog-trainer would use these techniques. It only teaches the dog to fear you.

You can punish by ways other than spankings.

This is typical of what I am saying. You seem to think of spankings as "whippings" or "beatings," which are nothing more than an angry big parent unleashing their anger on a poor helpless child. Not so.

Yes there are other ways, and corporal punishment should only be used as a last resort, or when there is no other way to communicate with a child. When my daughters were 1 year old, they would try to get into things that were potentially dangerous. You cannot reason with a 1 year old, timeouts mean nothing to them because their little attention spans are limited to a few seconds. Sometimes the only thing they understand is a swat. Not a beating, not a whipping, but a good swat that is just enough to help their little minds make the connection between the dangerous action and an unpleasant consequence. Also, there are times when even older kids like toddlers or pre-teens get rebellious, and will be brave enough to risk conventional punishments. There may come a time when they need a good smack as well. My parents did it, and I didn't die, even though in this day and age, they probably would have been arrested. But I thank thenm for all they did, and would never have thought it a good thing to see the DCFS step in and tell them how to raise me.

As for dogs, and other animals. Yes, corporal punishment is used. If you don't think so, ask a trainer. It's just not used in the manner that you think I was talking about (beatings). Horses are trained with the whip, dogs are swatted on the snout. Cats are successfully taught not to scratch the furniture by swatting them. Have you ever tried to reason with a cat, and convince it not to scratch your furniture? It doesn't work.

[MrAmerica]

Since I have yet to mention Michael Moore at all, your assumptions here lack any merit whatsoever. It seems anyone who doesn't fall in with your narrow belief system is a Michael Moore "crowd" member. I hope my membership comes with a secret decoder ring - I have a feeling that with you, I'm going to need it.

What? No comment on the teen pregancy/STD study I linked in the Washington Times article??!! I did all of that work for nothing? You disappoint me.

No you didn't mention Michael Moore, but you did mention the Bush/Saudi/Badhar link which is one of the M.M. pontifications. In fact the only people who harp on that half truth are the ones who have seen Farenheit 911 5 or 6 times and believe it is the gospel truth.

[huck]

MrAmerica wrote:

As for dogs, and other animals. Yes, corporal punishment is used. If you don't think so, ask a trainer. It's just not used in the manner that you think I was talking about (beatings). Horses are trained with the whip, dogs are swatted on the snout.

OT--but what the heck--most of the posts here are OT--to clarify:

Horses are trained with whips, but the whip is not used as punishment. A light tap or brush with the whip is typically used as the cue in asking for forward. The touch with the whip comes before the request, so it is not punishment. A horse can feel a fly landing on his flank, so there is no need to be harsh with a whip--a tap is all that is needed, in conjunction with seat and leg aids. Voice aids are not permitted in many equestrian disciplines.

Also--if you swat your dog on the snout, you will end up with a head shy dog. This is not to say that physical corrections are never needed, but in many instances better results can be had through shaping and timely, consistent reinforcement of verbal cues.

I don't know what most people do with their young humans.

Back to your regularly scheduled topic.

[::Major_Baker::]

"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing." -- Karl Rove

[spork]

No you didn't mention Michael Moore, but you did mention the Bush/Saudi/Badhar link which is one of the M.M. pontifications. In fact the only people who harp on that half truth are the ones who have seen Farenheit 911 5 or 6 times and believe it is the gospel truth.

Oh, I see. The Bush Saudi link is all a fabrication by Michael Moore?? :lol: :lol:

A google search of Bush Saudi connections will open up a whole undiscovered world for you, Mr. America. You will learn that a whole lot of people are writing about the connections, including a fellow named Craig Unger, who has written a whole entire book about it - called House of Bush, House of Saud.

Craig Unger is analyst on terrorism, Saudi-American relations and the oil industry, frequently seen on CNN, the ABC Radio Network and many other broadcast outlets. He has served as deputy editor of the New York Observer and was the editor of Boston Magazine. He has written about George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush for the New Yorker, Esquire Magazine and Vanity Fair.

This is a wonderful opportunity for you to stop jerking your knee, and move beyond your obsession with Michael Moore. There are plenty of other writers out there - go forth and learn!! :clap:

[MrAmerica]

Oh, I see. The Bush Saudi link is all a fabrication by Michael Moore?? :lol: :lol:

A google search of Bush Saudi connections will open up a whole undiscovered world for you, Mr. America. You will learn that a whole lot of people are writing about the connections, including a fellow named Craig Unger, who has written a whole entire book about it - called House of Bush, House of Saud.

Craig Unger is analyst on terrorism, Saudi-American relations and the oil industry, frequently seen on CNN, the ABC Radio Network and many other broadcast outlets. He has served as deputy editor of the New York Observer and was the editor of Boston Magazine. He has written about George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush for the New Yorker, Esquire Magazine and Vanity Fair.

This is a wonderful opportunity for you to stop jerking your knee, and move beyond your obsession with Michael Moore. There are plenty of other writers out there - go forth and learn!! :clap:

Now do a similar search on Saudi connections with Clinton/Gore and Carter, not to mention every other President since the invention of the cumbustible engine, and you will get similar results. As I have posted, but you ignored; ""One year we went out to Aspen and Prince Bandar—who is a good friend of mine—from Saudi Arabia..." Jimmy Carter - Wednesday, Dec. 15 2004) on NBC's "Tonight Show with Jay Leno". Wasn't Michael Moore sitting with Jimmy Carter at the DNC? Yes, I'm pretty sure he was. Therefore, Michael Moore must be in league with the Saudi's also. It all starts to make sense when you put on the tinfoil hat. :lol:

[spork]

Now do a similar search on Saudi connections with Clinton/Gore and Carter, not to mention every other President since the invention of the cumbustible engine, and you will get similar results. As I have posted, but you ignored; ""One year we went out to Aspen and Prince Bandar—who is a good friend of mine—from Saudi Arabia..." Jimmy Carter - Wednesday, Dec. 15 2004) on NBC's "Tonight Show with Jay Leno". Wasn't Michael Moore sitting with Jimmy Carter at the DNC? Yes, I'm pretty sure he was. Therefore, Michael Moore must be in league with the Saudi's also. It all starts to make sense when you put on the tinfoil hat. :lol:

And your point is? You seem to have forgotten that the whole reason for this exchange is that YOU said this:

No you didn't mention Michael Moore, but you did mention the Bush/Saudi/Badhar link which is one of the M.M. pontifications. In fact the only people who harp on that half truth are the ones who have seen Farenheit 911 5 or 6 times and believe it is the gospel truth.

You said it was a half truth. I showed you otherwise. Rather than acknowledge that - you make a nonsense post, aimed at distracting me from noticing. Well, I noticed, in fact I've observed this behavior in more than one of your posts. When your back is against the wall, you start dancing, accusing, and babbling.

[cpwill]

"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing." -- Karl Rove


:) he's a funny man.
but, as the guy who just outwitted the entire democratic party; the majority of the news media; and the rest of the world's political pressure combined: i think i'll cut him a bit of slack :D

ya'll are free to call us stupid as long as you want; and we are free to laugh at you and ask you how it is that such stupid people keep beating you:D

[green lantern]

:) he's a funny man.
but, as the guy who just outwitted the entire democratic party; the majority of the news media; and the rest of the world's political pressure combined: i think i'll cut him a bit of slack :D

ya'll are free to call us stupid as long as you want; and we are free to laugh at you and ask you how it is that such stupid people keep beating you:D boy, it got quiet in here!!
:eek: :lol:

[spork]

ya'll are free to call us stupid as long as you want; and we are free to laugh at you and ask you how it is that such stupid people keep beating you

Through dirty tricks, intimidation, and payola - and that's something to be proud of?

[green lantern]

Through dirty tricks, intimidation, and payola - and that's something to be proud of? we know the democrats did all that, but we still prevailed!!!
:eek: :lol:

[cpwill]

we know the democrats did all that, but we still prevailed!!!
:eek: :lol:

ZING! :D

it also raises the question: taking it as common knowledge that both teams will resort to dirty tricks; how is it that such stupid people keep beating you at that; too?
;)


furthermore, if we're such stupid people; how come the classes which are least educated (inner city poor) are also the most heavily democratic?

do you remember florida; where the democrats openly claimed that their votes were undercounted because of all the votes that went to buchanan? they openly stated that they lost the election because all their voters happened to be either too old or unable to read in order to understand the ballot. (personally; if my constituency were made up of the senile and illiterate; i don't think i'd try to push for a national election based on it;))

[MrAmerica]

You said it was a half truth. I showed you otherwise. Rather than acknowledge that - you make a nonsense post, aimed at distracting me from noticing. Well, I noticed, in fact I've observed this behavior in more than one of your posts. When your back is against the wall, you start dancing, accusing, and babbling.
Half of the truth is this: Yes, there is a Bush/Saudi connection.
The other half of the truth is this: There is alao a Saudi connection with all other Presidents. It's the OIL stupid. Unfortunately oil is the life blood of all national economies. We can't live without it in this day and age, and you liberals won't let us drill for it in our own country. So you might as well get used to being chummy with the Saudi's. Like it or not we need them, and they need us.

[peavine]

the more educated, the more money, the dems want to tax you more if you have acheived top bracket status, so why should any educated person rich or not want to be liberal(democrat) same thing, the dems want more of your tax money. duh, so vote republican, everytime, stay conservative.

[Strel]

I am certain that the conservatism was educated out of me over the years. I can recall thinking and acting just like the conservatives here...when I was 15.

the more educated, the more money, the dems want to tax you more if you have acheived top bracket status, so why should any educated person rich or not want to be liberal(democrat) same thing, the dems want more of your tax money. duh, so vote republican, everytime, stay conservative.

This post demonstrates a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think only in their immediate best interests - immediate in the sense of both time and proximity. If the status quo satisfies them personally, they will fight to keep it. If changes threaten their personal socioeconomic status, they will oppose it. If the culture of a country offends their personal sensibilities, they will try to eliminate or control it.

That's why I think conservatism is ultimately about selfishness: my money, my morals, my way or the highway.

Liberals think differently. They also vote and argue in their own best interests, but they define those interests much more broadly. A rich liberal is so because he or she sees the indirect benefit to himself or herself and to the future as well of "fixing" things or improving things in a way that benefits the society as a whole, not necessarily for altruistic reasons but because a stable society with a minimal underclass (if any) is not only going to benefit them, but their children and everybody else's too. "Fixing" things mean change and risk, something liberals are comfortable with but conservatives fear greatly.

Some things are more important than the size of the number on your tax bill.

[::Major_Baker::]

:) he's a funny man.
but, as the guy who just outwitted the entire democratic party; the majority of the news media; and the rest of the world's political pressure combined: i think i'll cut him a bit of slack :D

ya'll are free to call us stupid as long as you want; and we are free to laugh at you and ask you how it is that such stupid people keep beating you:D
The only funny thing is that you don't realize that you guys were actually the ones that were duped!
ha, conservative agenda my ***.......
All it took is for Rove to play on your faith and he molded you like a bunch of clay!

[cpwill]

:shrug: the religious right is a pretty ideological right; if they don't get action they want they will eventually walk.

[spork]

we know the democrats did all that, but we still prevailed!!!
:eek: :lol:

The voter machine issue is something that undermines democracy. States that contract with Diebold or any of the other companies that make voting machines agree that the company will tabulate the votes in secret. No observers. Democracy and secrecy are incompatable.

In my small town, we vote on paper ballots that are counted by volunteers. Observers are welcome. This transparency is part of democracy. It's my opinion that until we can develop a voter machine system that works, we should all vote on paper, and count by hand, with obervers present. Then we will all know that every vote was counted. I don't give a hoot how long it takes, either. I want to know that the CEO of Diebold, who promised to deliver the election to Bush didn't influence the way votes were tabulated.

I should think we'd all agree on that. It's really disillusioning to see the peppy cheerleaders of the right defend this, as long as you're winning. The ends apparently justify any means. That's reprehensible. That's not how democracy was explained to me in ninth grade civics. Of course, we've been on an ethical slide now for a long time. How else can we explain the attempt to change House ethics rules to allow a moral pygmy like Tom DeLay to keep his position? How else can we explain the nomination of someone like Alberto Gonzalez to be Attorney General? This is moral bankruptcy.

You'd be hard pressed to show dirty Democratic tricks that even make a dent in the mountain that the Republican party is currently amassing.

[JD3]

:) he's a funny man.
but, as the guy who just outwitted the entire democratic party; the majority of the news media; and the rest of the world's political pressure combined: i think i'll cut him a bit of slack :D

ya'll are free to call us stupid as long as you want; and we are free to laugh at you and ask you how it is that such stupid people keep beating you:D

Oh, a couple of things. 1. You don't have to be smart to win a popularity contest. Lot's of people like Bush, but few are in awe of his intellect. 2. You don't have to be smart to vote for a con either. Frankly, a good con can take an intellect or two. Doesn't make the con smarter either. Just a different skill in a different arena.


:D ;)

[spork]

:shrug: the religious right is a pretty ideological right; if they don't get action they want they will eventually walk.

They're running the government - they're getting exactly what they want.

For a good scary read I recommend: "With God on Their Side: How Christian Fundamentalists Trampled Science, Policy, and Democracy in George W. Bush's White House" by Esther Kaplan." It shows how right wing Christian idealogues are replacing scientists, in places like the Center for Disease Control. Chilling stuff.

[cpwill]

Oh, a couple of things. 1. You don't have to be smart to win a popularity contest.

no, but you do have to be in order to win a national presidential election :)

Lot's of people like Bush, but few are in awe of his intellect.

"in awe"??? the only intellect in politics that i've ever been really impressed by is cheney's. that being said; i'm not positive that a multilingual double graduate of yale and harvard fighter jet pilot is a bumbling retard due to the fact that he doesn't have a silver toungue; as many would wish to paint him. imo; it just show's how rather shallow the electorate is getting.

2. You don't have to be smart to vote for a con either.

nope, just right;) :sorry:, or lucky :shrug:

Frankly, a good con can take an intellect or two. Doesn't make the con smarter either. Just a different skill in a different arena.

:lol: nice

[cpwill]

They're running the government - they're getting exactly what they want.

good:)

For a good scary read I recommend: "With God on Their Side: How Christian Fundamentalists Trampled Science, Policy, and Democracy in George W. Bush's White House" by Esther Kaplan." It shows how right wing Christian idealogues are replacing scientists, in places like the Center for Disease Control. Chilling stuff.

:lol: heaven forbid :)

[spork]

cpwill said:that being said; i'm not positive that a multilingual double graduate of yale and harvard fighter jet pilot is a bumbling retard due to the fact that he doesn't have a silver toungue; as many would wish to paint him. imo; it just show's how rather shallow the electorate is getting.

Multilingual? George Bush??? Bwaaaahahahaha

He's illiterate in 2 languages that I know of, his native tongue, and Spanish. He does not speak fluent Spanish. :lol:

It's amusing that you find the electorate shallow because so many would like to have an inteligent articulate president. Count me amongst the shallow. Bush is an embarassment. He admits he doesn't read - he relies on advisors to give him news and information. His school records from Phillips Andover are under lock and key - so we can't know how bad his grades are. As for college - he was a Yale legacy. They had to take him. He got in the last year that being a legacy was sole qualification. He did not get good grades, he barely scraped by. His grades were so bad he was rejected by the University of Texas Law School. You can deny that family influence and money didn't get him into schools like Yale and Harvard - and you can deny the world is round while you're at it.

Not only does he not have a silver tongue, he can't speak coherent English most of the time. I don't think anyone is asking for another orator like Bill Clinton, (Rhodes Scholar and excellent public speaker) - but most of us would like to be represented to the world by someone who can do better than "I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004

[cpwill]

cpwill said:

Multilingual? George Bush??? Bwaaaahahahaha

He's illiterate in 2 languages that I know of, his native tongue, and Spanish. He does not speak fluent Spanish. :lol:

It's amusing that you find the electorate shallow because so many would like to have an inteligent articulate president. Count me amongst the shallow. Bush is an embarassment. He admits he doesn't read - he relies on advisors to give him news and information. His school records from Phillips Andover are under lock and key - so we can't know how bad his grades are. As for college - he was a Yale legacy. They had to take him. He got in the last year that being a legacy was sole qualification. He did not get good grades, he barely scraped by. His grades were so bad he was rejected by the University of Texas Law School. You can deny that family influence and money didn't get him into schools like Yale and Harvard - and you can deny the world is round while you're at it.

Not only does he not have a silver tongue, he can't speak coherent English most of the time. I don't think anyone is asking for another orator like Bill Clinton, (Rhodes Scholar and excellent public speaker) - but most of us would like to be represented to the world by someone who can do better than

ladies and gentlemen; i present to you evidence piece no. 1.

"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004

err... i hate to be the one to break this to you; .... people have two hands...:sorry:

[JD3]

no, but you do have to be in order to win a national presidential election :)



"in awe"??? the only intellect in politics that i've ever been really impressed by is cheney's. that being said; i'm not positive that a multilingual double graduate of yale and harvard fighter jet pilot is a bumbling retard due to the fact that he doesn't have a silver toungue; as many would wish to paint him. imo; it just show's how rather shallow the electorate is getting.



nope, just right;) :sorry:, or lucky :shrug:



:lol: nice


Nah, you don't have to be smart. Rove is smart. Bush, like all canidates today, just ahs to be likable. He fills that role. Rove and people like him take care of the rest.

Bush is what his friends say he is: Intellectually lazy. It hurts his performance and the country. He understands too little. In essence, he is not a thinker.

A speaking as a fellow who once sold the idea of a car to a group of fellow paratroopers for money to go out on a date, sometimes people don't even mind being conned. Everyone knew I wasn't building a car for the unit, but they liked the pretense enough they forked it over anyway. ;) There is some of that with Bush as well. Many people know he is full of it, but they like the pretend.

[spork]

err... i hate to be the one to break this to you; .... people have two hands

No feces, Sherlock. No matter how many hands the guy has, it's a stupid thing to say. Smart would have been "I'm honored to meet a man...blah blah blah." Defending the dolt doesn't make either one of you look any smarter.

[JoeR]

"furthermore, if we're such stupid people; how come the classes which are least educated (inner city poor) are also the most heavily democratic?"

What about college professors?


"nope, just right , or lucky "

how would voting for a con make you right or lucky??? you do realize he means con as in con-artist and not conservative, right?


"the only intellect in politics that i've ever been really impressed by is cheney's."

Definetly have to agree with you there. Condi Rice impresses me more with her rediculous list of things that she is able to do.



Also, I can't comprehend how replacing scientists with people who have a vested interest in certain policies and decisions based on their faith is a good thing. For examples, the national guidline for rape treatment didn't even include a mention of emergency contraception, and the FDA for restricting access to it because of an anti-abortion doctor.

[JoeR]

Oops double post

[cpwill]

No feces, Sherlock. No matter how many hands the guy has, it's a stupid thing to say. Smart would have been "I'm honored to meet a man...blah blah blah." Defending the dolt doesn't make either one of you look any smarter.

:) bush didn't misspeak; and i think that attacking him for this rather speaks to other things than him.

[cpwill]

"furthermore, if we're such stupid people; how come the classes which are least educated (inner city poor) are also the most heavily democratic?"

What about college professors?

easy; they live in a theoretical world where because something works on paper it works in real life :)

"nope, just right , or lucky "

how would voting for a con make you right or lucky??? you do realize he means con as in con-artist and not conservative, right?

yup, that's why i end it by laughing; but i was turning it around on him:)

the only intellect in politics that i've ever been really impressed by is cheney's."

Definetly have to agree with you there. Condi Rice impresses me more with her rediculous list of things that she is able to do.

i've never gotten to listen to rice, unfortunately; however, i have a friend who's been to dinner with her, and he does say she's quite impressive.

Also, I can't comprehend how replacing scientists with people who have a vested interest in certain policies and decisions based on their faith is a good thing.

you're assuming the scientists don't have a vested interest in certain policies and decisions based on their faith;) they are not demigods; to be lacking in that basic human characteristic.

For examples, the national guidline for rape treatment didn't even include a mention of emergency contraception, and the FDA for restricting access to it because of an anti-abortion doctor.

:shrug: and if you believe abortion to be murder, how is this evil?

[JoeR]

Emergency contraception is NOT abortion. It prevents fertilization from ever taking place in the first place. It would prevent said "murder" from even taking place.

[Redratio1]

I'm guessing the implied opposite of this thread is that the less educated you are the more conservative you become. ;)

[JoeR]

Why can't we all just get along? :confused:

[spork]

:) bush didn't misspeak; and i think that attacking him for this rather speaks to other things than him.

Well, cpwill, I think the constant knee jerk defense of the guy speaks to even more.

[spork]

I'm guessing the implied opposite of this thread is that the less educated you are the more conservative you become. ;)

Bwaaaahahahahaha! :lol: :lol: :thanks:

[Redratio1]

Emergency contraception is NOT abortion. It prevents fertilization from ever taking place in the first place. It would prevent said "murder" from even taking place.

Seriously, don't confuse people with facts about RU486! :lol:

Even the Pope says condoms are bad! Bad! Bad! Bad!

Oh yeah and they allow the transmission of HIV. :rolleyes:
No need for education, just believe the mullahs...I mean Preachers.

[Blueangel]

Even the Pope says condoms are bad! Bad! Bad! Bad!

Oh yeah and they allow the transmission of HIV. :rolleyes: The Pope's actual view on this, a view that I do agree with and not the BS pushed in the media, is that condoms don't 100% prevent the spread of Aids. You know it's true! ;)

Until condoms can 100% prevent pregnancy, then they are not the ultimate protection from Aids.
Double bag it...triple bag it if you will, but it's not a risk I'd be willing to take.

[Redratio1]

The Pope's actual view on this, a view that I do agree with and not the BS pushed in the media, is that condoms don't 100% prevent the spread of Aids. You know it's true!

No, I believe his view was that the HIV virus is able to move through the condom's membrane. And that condoms in this way, by their wide spread use increases HIV infection rates.

Which you KNOW is wrong on both levels. Wink!

[cpwill]

Well, cpwill, I think the constant knee jerk defense of the guy speaks to even more.

not at all; where i think bush has screwed up (immigration policy; economic policy) i'm fully willing to hit him with it. however i don't pretend to buy into this democratic comfort blanket that he's stupid.

[cpwill]

The Pope's actual view on this, a view that I do agree with and not the BS pushed in the media, is that condoms don't 100% prevent the spread of Aids. You know it's true! ;)

Until condoms can 100% prevent pregnancy, then they are not the ultimate protection from Aids.
Double bag it...triple bag it if you will, but it's not a risk I'd be willing to take.

actually adding multiple condoms increases the chances of a breakage.

[cpwill]

I'm guessing the implied opposite of this thread is that the less educated you are the more conservative you become. ;)

which is odd because the more educated i've become, the more i've been able to think clearly; the more conservative i've become.:D

[Redratio1]

which is odd because the more educated i've become, the more i've been able to think clearly; the more conservative i've become.:D

That IS odd.

[cpwill]

what's more odd is that it's happened to each of my friends, as well.;)

the newer generation coming up is more conservative.

what people pushing this miss is that when they're discussing "lots of education" the people they're looking at are typically proffessors; who never leave the theoretical world of the ivory tower. people with similar (or phd's) levels of education who go into the workforce often end up splitting much more regularly.

think about it; the more education you have, as a general rule, the more money you'll be able to make. now, if you have more money, who are many democrats always claiming you'll vote for, out of greed you rich person you?;) they're self-defeating arguments.

[Redratio1]

what's more odd is that it's happened to each of my friends, as well.;)

the newer generation coming up is more conservative.

Nice try dampening my AWESOME post, but it still kicks butt! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I win!

[Missouri Mule]

I made this argument when I was in college. My liberal professor didn't share this view. But I was right then and I'm right now. As I pointed out in another thread of the 150 members of my high school graduating class of 1961, virtually all of them are conservative Republicans. I guess that is because we all became fabulously wealthy (not.) I would argue that when one starts paying the taxes and living in the real world they begin to learn than money doesn't grow on trees, that government is not the final solution, that people are incredibly short sighted and the political system incapable of producing much except vast quantities of hot air.

[JoeR]

The newer generation coming up is more conservative? Perhaps on econimic issues and such but everyone who is younger seems to be more socially liberal.

In any case, I hate this whole conservative/liberal thing because there are more than 2 ways of though, and really it boils down to Democrat/Republican. The two party system needs to go. This country was never intended to have political parties.

[cpwill]

no, socially as well. if nothing else; the numbers of those having premarital sex is down.

[peavine]

the old yellow dog democrats that were around long before the last couple of generations are exempt from my following statement because they came from a time where social issues weren't as big of an issue as they are today. today social issues win elections. my statement is that if we are not there now we will be when republican/democrat will simply be another way to say true christian/not a christian, disagree? look at the issues

[cytwombly]

I made this argument when I was in college. My liberal professor didn't share this view. But I was right then and I'm right now. As I pointed out in another thread of the 150 members of my high school graduating class of 1961, virtually all of them are conservative Republicans. I guess that is because we all became fabulously wealthy (not.) I would argue that when one starts paying the taxes and living in the real world they begin to learn than money doesn't grow on trees, that government is not the final solution, that people are incredibly short sighted and the political system incapable of producing much except vast quantities of hot air.

Democrats pay taxes, how come we're not all Republicans? Who thinks gov't is the final solution?(an odd phrase, as it was used as a euphemism for genocide.)

[cpwill]

the old yellow dog democrats that were around long before the last couple of generations are exempt from my following statement because they came from a time where social issues weren't as big of an issue as they are today. today social issues win elections. my statement is that if we are not there now we will be when republican/democrat will simply be another way to say true christian/not a christian, disagree? look at the issues

i'm not sure social issues win elections; arguably the last elections' biggest issue was iraq; and quite possibly one of kerry's biggest problems was that he wasn't able to convince people that he would adequately pursue the war on terror.

[JD3]

i'm not sure social issues win elections; arguably the last elections' biggest issue was iraq; and quite possibly one of kerry's biggest problems was that he wasn't able to convince people that he would adequately pursue the war on terror.

Too bad. Kerry would have actually done just that.

[JoeR]

no, socially as well. if nothing else; the numbers of those having premarital sex is down.

True, but what of issues such as gay marriage? The younger the voting block the more for equal rights for homosexuals people are.

[spork]

True, but what of issues such as gay marriage? The younger the voting block the more for equal rights for homosexuals people are.

I should think you'd be happy about it - they won't have abortions. :lol:

[cpwill]

Too bad. Kerry would have actually done just that.

yes yes, a warmer fuzzier sensitive war on terror that takes into account the fact that we are the evil empire and they the noble freedom fighters etc. etc.

personally; i'll take a simpleton with a clearer picture of good and evil, right and wrong v. an intellectual giant with unclear moral certainty.

[cpwill]

I should think you'd be happy about it - they won't have abortions. :lol:
it is a step up, i'll agree.

[JD3]

yes yes, a warmer fuzzier sensitive war on terror that takes into account the fact that we are the evil empire and they the noble freedom fighters etc. etc.

personally; i'll take a simpleton with a clearer picture of good and evil, right and wrong v. an intellectual giant with unclear moral certainty.

And that is why we are in the quadmire we are in. :( BTW, Bush's certainity isn't that certain or his morality that moral. Keep paying attention and you'll see it soon enough. ;)

[cytwombly]

yes yes, a warmer fuzzier sensitive war on terror that takes into account the fact that we are the evil empire and they the noble freedom fighters etc. etc.

personally; i'll take a simpleton with a clearer picture of good and evil, right and wrong v. an intellectual giant with unclear moral certainty.

Since Iraq never attacked us--Bush said he knows that--the occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. That would mean going after the man they said they know attacked us: bin Laden.

[serenity]

How a degenerate butcher like Bush can be praised for his "clearer picture of good and evil", is not elaborated upon, I see.

[cytwombly]

How a degenerate butcher like Bush can be praised for his "clearer picture of good and evil", is not elaborated upon, I see.

Every act of genocide is made with equal certainty of moral absoluteness.

[peavine]

Since Iraq never attacked us--Bush said he knows that--the occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. That would mean going after the man they said they know attacked us: bin Laden.
no iraq never attacked but they probably would have by now, its a bad deal over there but we are better off with sadaam out of power, germany never attacked us either but would you say the u.s. was wrong for getting into that? probably not, because of the death camps ect? sadaam had death camps. my saying iraq probably would have attacked us by now is just speculation, but no more speculative than saying kerry would have resolved this, thats not speculative thats just a laugh

[Mr.BlueOil]

I'm only on page two and I've wanted to post a few things already now I'll say, Spork good job with hanging in there with the early child.

The rest of this post is directed to MrAmerica
I actually agree with you to an extent. But how can you teach abstinance side by side with condom use? On one hand you are telling them not to do it, but then you say, but if you must, here is how to do it right. I think that what we should be teaching them is more about the consequences of their actions.

No one knows what children are going to do, not because they are children but because they all have their own thoughts in mind of what they're going to do. Do you have children?? Last time I checked if you teach children of consequences THEY STILL DO THE WRONG THING.


Kids hormones do run wild, but you have to ask yourself why. Could it have anything to do with the so called "culture" that kids are exposed to every day? I don't know about you, but when it becomes normal for pre-pubescent girls to wear clothing that used to be suitable only for hookers, then I can't help but think that something is wrong. Do we have to allow our kids to wear stuff like that? Will they die if we don't let them go to a Britney Spears concert? I don't think so.

Great another Witch hunter. I thought you people were dead. If you want to leave our society of freedom and choice move your fat*** to one of those groups that don't use electricity and / or machines. Then when you have a heart attack and your life is fading away you can look up and wonder why your such an idiot. Society is not going to change because you will it. Especially when all you have are questions and don't produce any sort of drawn out plan of action concerning how to actually deal with the questions you present. You would have us all listen to your wisdom if you had any.


I agree with you completely about appropriate punishment. There is a line between corporal punishment and abuse, but the politically correct crowd have redrawn it so that there is no room for what should be appropriate.

Quit trying to discover ways of raising other people children, that cause is what has got us to this point. Mind their quality of life, not the manner in which they live it.

[cytwombly]

no iraq never attacked but they probably would have by now, its a bad deal over there but we are better off with sadaam out of power, germany never attacked us either but would you say the u.s. was wrong for getting into that? probably not, because of the death camps ect? sadaam had death camps. my saying iraq probably would have attacked us by now is just speculation, but no more speculative than saying kerry would have resolved this, thats not speculative thats just a laugh

Speculation requires at least a basis: no one thought Iraq was going to attack our country.

Read about the "Progress for a New American Century (PNAC)" Easy to do now with google. These guys were planning to invade Iraq before 911 happened.

[Duo_Maxwell]

which is odd because the more educated i've become, the more i've been able to think clearly; the more conservative i've become.:D

Are you sure you aren't mixing up conservative with republican? The two are very, very different, polar opposites at times, yet many people believe they are one and the same. Heck, alot of people think the republican party is conserative, of course, they'd be wrong about 85% of the time, but the stereotype still stands.

The more educated I've becme the more clearly I've been able to the think clearly, the more I realize that parties and money in politics are bad for America. Everyone should run independent and have a set amount of cash.

[Mr Pariah]

its a bad deal over there but we are better off with sadaam out of power, germany never attacked us either but would you say the u.s. was wrong for getting into that? probably not, because of the death camps ect? sadaam had death camps.

Any realist (right or left) will tell you that ethics are not a major concern when constructing foreign policies.

[cpwill]

Read about the "Progress for a New American Century (PNAC)" Easy to do now with google. These guys were planning to invade Iraq before 911 happened.

:shrug: it's not like they're in hiding:

www.newamericancentury.org

i've been reading their stuff for a while.

[peavine]

Speculation requires at least a basis: no one thought Iraq was going to attack our country.

Read about the "Progress for a New American Century (PNAC)" Easy to do now with google. These guys were planning to invade Iraq before 911 happened.
no, the powers that be voted (even senator kerry along with other influencial dems) that there were wmd's sadaam wouldn't cooperate for 12 years, you know the story, and quite frankly i dont get a chance to visit with them and cannot say for sure but yeah the higher ups who vote on things like going to war probably thought that iraq was building the wmd's to attack and personally like any good repub, i think there were weapons probably up in syria by now . but thats just me.

[Mr.BlueOil]

post 100, that's all :)

[Mr.BlueOil]

crap nvm i missed it by one, i think the donkey is on my trail

[cytwombly]

:shrug: it's not like they're in hiding:

www.newamericancentury.org

i've been reading their stuff for a while.

I never said nor implied "they're in hiding."

So then I didn't need to tell you the Bush administration was going to invade Iraq and it never had a darn thing to do with fighting terrorism.

[cytwombly]

no, the powers that be voted (even senator kerry along with other influencial dems) that there were wmd's sadaam wouldn't cooperate for 12 years, you know the story, and quite frankly i dont get a chance to visit with them and cannot say for sure but yeah the higher ups who vote on things like going to war probably thought that iraq was building the wmd's to attack and personally like any good repub, i think there were weapons probably up in syria by now . but thats just me.

No, Kerry did not vote on whether Iraq had WMD. That was Bush's claim. And the CIA did not claim Iraq had them either.

[cpwill]

no, they did not claim that iraq merely had wmd; they actually claimed that it was a "slam dunk" that iraq had wmd. they managed to convince the political leaders of both sides, remember? if kerry didn't think iraq had wmd; why would he say that they did?

[cpwill]

So then I didn't need to tell you the Bush administration was going to invade Iraq and it never had a darn thing to do with fighting terrorism.

:shrug: it has everything to do with fighting terrorism.

[cytwombly]

no, they did not claim that iraq merely had wmd; they actually claimed that it was a "slam dunk" that iraq had wmd. they managed to convince the political leaders of both sides, remember? if kerry didn't think iraq had wmd; why would he say that they did?

Kerry is not the Commander in Chief, thus not charged with control of the military. There were many stories before the invasion that the CIA was not confirming presence of WMD; it was stated as a possibility.
And frankly I don't care what Kerry said or believed: Senator Levin proposed a bill to attack Iraq only if the Security Council approved--that is a postion I support.

[::Major_Baker::]

:shrug: it has everything to do with fighting terrorism.
It has more to do with 'strategery' in the middle East.

[cytwombly]

[QUOTE=cpwill]:shrug: it has everything to do with fighting terrorism.[/QUOTE


No, PNAC was advocating invading Iraq before 911. Please, if you want to continue, do more than one liners.

[cpwill]

the strategery to defeat terrorism;)

[cpwill]

Kerry is not the Commander in Chief, thus not charged with control of the military. There were many stories before the invasion that the CIA was not confirming presence of WMD; it was stated as a possibility.
And frankly I don't care what Kerry said or believed: Senator Levin proposed a bill to attack Iraq only if the Security Council approved--that is a postion I support.

not only no but hell no. the day someone in charge of my government puts the US in a subservient position to the UN is the day i go radical.

[cytwombly]

not only no but hell no. the day someone in charge of my government puts the US in a subservient position to the UN is the day i go radical.

I see...you are one of those...nevermind.

[cpwill]

one of those evil patriotic types, yeah, you gotta look out for those :devil:

[cytwombly]

one of those evil patriotic types, yeah, you gotta look out for those :devil:

Yes, Jesus loves you more than everyone else....good boy.

[cpwill]

not at all; He loves everyone with a love beyond my imagining:)

[::Major_Baker::]

not at all; He loves everyone with a love beyond my imagining:)
Unless you don't believe in him, then he hates your ***.

[cytwombly]

Unless you don't believe in him, then he hates your ***.

You have to wear the right jewelry-a flag and cross-for God to know who to love and who to smote.

[cpwill]

Unless you don't believe in him, then he hates your ***.


:) not at all; "for He died for us while we were yet sinners."

[::Major_Baker::]

:) not at all; "for He died for us while we were yet sinners."
Remind me why hell is deemed so miserable then?
You know, if I don't believe in JC as my savior, I go to hell.
That is what I was told all my life, thankfully not by anyone of influence to me.

[cpwill]

hell is deemed miserable because it is eternity spent outside of the Godly Presence, but knowing what you missed. the weird thing is that people would choose to go there.

[::Major_Baker::]

hell is deemed miserable because it is eternity spent outside of the Godly Presence, but knowing what you missed. the weird thing is that people would choose to go there.

The weird thing is that people are forced to feel they don't have the choice to not go there. I can tell you this--- I don't believe in the standard Christian God, and I am not going to hell. You beg to differ? prove it. And no scripture because that's just literature.

Just to clarify, where in the hell IS hell? It has to be a physical place right? Is it in the upper mantel? the core? Or is it a spiritual, physical place which only exists to spirits? See these are the things that just make this stuff so unbelieveable.

[cpwill]

:shrug: i suppose that comes down to whether or not you are a calvinist or not; however, as one who believes in free will; i believe that people choose whether or not to accept God's sacrifice for and forgiveness of them.

God being morally perfect; we being not perfect; we are all fallen; and therefore apart from God. the only way for us to be with God is for our sin to be wiped away; our "fallen-ess" to be removed. this action must come from God; as any action of ours would be definitionally imperfect and therefore fall short. Jesus represents the only account of any religion of God deliberately taking that burden on His shoulders.

where is hell? who the hell knows? why the hell should i know?:lol:

[::Major_Baker::]

:shrug: i suppose that comes down to whether or not you are a calvinist or not; however, as one who believes in free will; i believe that people choose whether or not to accept God's sacrifice for and forgiveness of them.

God being morally perfect; we being not perfect; we are all fallen; and therefore apart from God. the only way for us to be with God is for our sin to be wiped away; our "fallen-ess" to be removed. this action must come from God; as any action of ours would be definitionally imperfect and therefore fall short. Jesus represents the only account of any religion of God deliberately taking that burden on His shoulders.

where is hell? who the hell knows? why the hell should i know?:lol:

Free will? How does a person choose when this is all they have been taught since birth, who could run the risk of their family disowning them if they challenge that thought. It''s mot like that in all cases obviously, but in many. Sort of like learning how to communicate, they have Sunday school for infants. This scares me.

If I have my way I will let my kids ACTUALLY choose, and not just feign it.

What do you think you do when you get to "be with God" just sit there and smile? play darts?

Will, when were you fisrt taught about God?
You should know where hell is--you are a great reference for biblical info, that is why I always engage you witht these types of conversations!:)
Wasn't it traditonally "underground"?

[peavine]

Kerry is not the Commander in Chief, thus not charged with control of the military. There were many stories before the invasion that the CIA was not confirming presence of WMD; it was stated as a possibility.
And frankly I don't care what Kerry said or believed: Senator Levin proposed a bill to attack Iraq only if the Security Council approved--that is a postion I support.
they did approve! guess who was on the council and probably didn't show up like he didn't show up for numerous council meetings. kerry

[cytwombly]

they did approve! guess who was on the council and probably didn't show up like he didn't show up for numerous council meetings. kerry

Hey Bro, not sure what you are talking about. John Kerry is not a voting member of the UN Security Council.

[cpwill]

Free will? How does a person choose when this is all they have been taught since birth, who could run the risk of their family disowning them if they challenge that thought. It''s mot like that in all cases obviously, but in many. Sort of like learning how to communicate, they have Sunday school for infants. This scares me.

:lol: please, as if what we are taught has the power to force us into a relationship with God. were you raised in a spiritual household? furthermore, what you are (mistakenly) identifying is not God cutting into free will; but rather humans cutting into free will.

If I have my way I will let my kids ACTUALLY choose, and not just feign it.

:shrug: i don't know of any parents who do otherwise.

What do you think you do when you get to "be with God" just sit there and smile? play darts?

:shrugs: depends.

Will, when were you fisrt taught about God?

my father is a minister; i've been taught about God since i was old enough to listen; i did'nt become a christian until about 3.5 years ago; and i didn't really believe in God until a year before that.

You should know where hell is--you are a great reference for biblical info, that is why I always engage you witht these types of conversations!:)
Wasn't it traditonally "underground"?

:shrug: i'm not up on my history of hell-but i wouldn't be suprised at all to find that a Dante-like picture dominated from the middle ages.

[peavine]

Hey Bro, not sure what you are talking about. John Kerry is not a voting member of the UN Security Council.
oh, i thought you were talking about the american security council, well if thats where you put your faith, the un's voting strategy,then we differ far more than i thought. the un proved itself by letting sadaam do as he pleased for 12 plus years, i applaud george bush for taking a stand. no im not in the military, have total respect for them, if i had chosen that profession i would expect everyone to respect my duties. if there is ever a draft ill go no question, but please dont place the blame on bush because if the un would have acted as they should have this thing would have been taken care of long ago. so no i dont keep up with the un's voting record so sorry.

[cytwombly]

oh, i thought you were talking about the american security council, well if thats where you put your faith, the un's voting strategy,then we differ far more than i thought. the un proved itself by letting sadaam do as he pleased for 12 plus years, i applaud george bush for taking a stand. no im not in the military, have total respect for them, if i had chosen that profession i would expect everyone to respect my duties. if there is ever a draft ill go no question, but please dont place the blame on bush because if the un would have acted as they should have this thing would have been taken care of long ago. so no i dont keep up with the un's voting record so sorry.

You don't keep up with the UN so your opinion is thus explained. You don't know. Not worth persuing then, because you would not know the first war was supported by the UN.

[peavine]

You don't keep up with the UN so your opinion is thus explained. You don't know. Not worth persuing then, because you would not know the first war was supported by the UN.
agreed. you have your interest i have mine im not going to convince you we dont need un permission, your not going to convince me otherwise so nice talking to you

[cytwombly]

agreed. you have your interest i have mine im not going to convince you we dont need un permission, your not going to convince me otherwise so nice talking to you

I never said we need UN permission: I simple was explaining to you what John Kerry's postion was. And the first Bush sought and got the UN's "permission"--historical facts that seem too boring for you to consider.

[peavine]

I never said we need UN permission: I simple was explaining to you what John Kerry's postion was. And the first Bush sought