For Amicus ...

[Boxlicker101]

Minsue, Shanglan...

Sighs...perhaps look upon public education and the teachers union as sort of a 'church', a 'christian' church within which all accept the existence of god.

Although you did not address this rant to me, I feel I can answer it anyhow. Why do you enclose the word “church” in apostrophes like that? I don’t believe anybody in their right mind thinks of public education or a public school as a church. On the other hand, private schools frequently are attached to churches. I may be mistaken but I believe most private schools are parochial.

Each sect is a little different, each preacher also, but the message is quite the same in Podunk or Bodunk on opposite coasts.

This is so true that it’s hardly worth mentioning. Whether you go to school in Podunk or Bodunk, six times eight will equal forty-eight. Radius squared times pi will equal the area of the circle in question. The sum of the squares of the two sides of a right triangle will equal the square of the hypotenuse. Ottawa will be the capital of Canada. The American Civil War, or War Between the States, will have been fought between 1861 and 1865. George Washington will be regarded as the first president. There are hundreds of thousands of things that will be the same in schools in Bodunk and those in Podunk, and this is something for which we should be grateful.

In my career as a newspaper reporter, I attended countless school board meetings, met many teachers and administrators, thus I do not speak with total ignorance of the situation.

You might attend some, especially those in which they determine which 'texts' to use in the classroom, you might be amazed.

Again I wonder why you have enclosed a word in apostrophes.

On a general level, there is and always has been an intellectual snobbery among the better educated, the artists, musicians and teachers. They do not dirty their hands with the labor of common folk, such as business and the trades, they view themselves 'above' the commonplace and feel an obligation to 'minister' to the great unwashed masses.

I have to agree with you there. Frequently, better educated persons will tend to look down on those who are less educated. High on the list of these educated snobs I would include newspaper reporters, also known as journalists, but I probably would not include teachers because teachers work so closely with large masses of uneducated persons. That is their job, to educate those masses, but they don’t think of it as "ministering" to them. They think of it as teaching them, which, after all, is their jobs. I still don’t know why you are putting apostrophes around words.

They always have and always will, look down their collective noses at all those beneath them who must produce a 'profit' for their labors in order to survive.

Actually, hardly anyone is called upon to produce a profit. Mast persons punch the time clock or sign in or wave hello to the boss or whatever, work, and leave at the end of the day. They are paid a certain amount, either by the hour or some other time period, and receive this payment without regard to profits, although they usually try to help their employers make profits.

Since these intellectual parasites never have to produce, just publish and acquire tenure, they are always a drain on society in general.

I’m not sure what you mean by “intellectual parasites” but surely you don’t mean teachers. Keep in mind, if it weren’t for teachers, you would not have been able to write this rant and I would not be able to read it. Now that you mention it, that might be such a bad thing.

It is again, the old Marxist maxim, people are just not good enough to give up their personal rights and liberties and donate all their efforts to the 'glorious' greater good.... will that old saw never die?

I find it hard to believe that Karl Marx ever said that, unless you are quoting him out of context. Maybe you mean Groucho Marx. Personally, I think Karl Marx was an educated idiot who came up with a ridiculous theory and some people came to believe, against all evidence to the contrary, that it was a good idea.


amicus the unabashed...

George the Boxlicker

 

[rgraham666]

So what's my excuse 'friend'?

I'm a high school dropout and I look down on you. I guess I'm just one of those intellectual parasites.

 

[amicus]

Ah, Boxlicker tosses a hat in the ring, welcome...

First off, I 'use' a certain style to 'emphasize' words or thoughts as I see fit, I could care less if you like it or not, but it certainly worked for you.

Long ago, I sent off a questionaire to several network and local news station anchormen (no women back then). I basically asked them to state their positions on issues of the day, such as abortion, gay rights, nuclear energy, social security, you know, the range of political issues that are usually divided along 'party' lines.

I won't belabor the point as you already know the results, the 'media' in general was about 8 to 1, left wing liberal oriented.

From other surveys the same ratio is found in college professors and high school teachers; the NEA votes about 90 percent Democrat, i.e., left wing.

The public school curricula is decidely left of center, few will debate that. Science and mathematics as you adroitly pointed out is taught the same everywhere as science is only beginning to be corrupted with 'belief' in 'global warming' and 'creationism'. Science is also becoming corrupt in rendering 'amoral' viewpoints on issues such as stem cell research, the process of using live human tissue for experimentation.

With such a one sided content base, I see no difference between 'babtists' and 'liberals' as they spout their agendas.

I have expressed no distaste for 'education' or 'teachers', both the institution and the individuals 'can' offer knowledge to young minds. But when that offering of 'knowledge' becomes the party line, whether in Madros's, churches or public schools, it does not serve well.

You labored mightlly to not understand my point about the pointy headed elite intellectuals that wallow in 'utopian' concepts concerning the 'greater good' of the socialist dream kept going since the time of Plato. Thas all right.


You punch a time clock and go to sleep on the job and see how long you can buck the profit motive. The labor an individual chooses to use to convey effort to recompense so he can buy his twinkie is always based on profit, a return of the invested time and labor; and it is always measured.

The obscenity of a 'not for profit' endeavor leaves me without adequate words to describe.

It may have been Groucho Marx, who else is comedic enough to advocate the sacrifice of individual rights for the greater good and leave em laughing in the aisles?

amicus the aborigine

 

[TheEarl]

Long ago, I sent off a questionaire to several network and local news station anchormen (no women back then). I basically asked them to state their positions on issues of the day, such as abortion, gay rights, nuclear energy, social security, you know, the range of political issues that are usually divided along 'party' lines.

I won't belabor the point as you already know the results, the 'media' in general was about 8 to 1, left wing liberal oriented.

From other surveys the same ratio is found in college professors and high school teachers; the NEA votes about 90 percent Democrat, i.e., left wing.

Amicus: How do you define left wing? You're saying the news people are left wing, which I presume means further left than you. However, most of the country are further left than you. It's not saying much.


Can I ask you a question? What is so abhorrent about tolerance? Why is being a liberal (small 'l') such a bad thing? Sticking up for individual's rights, saying that everybody starts off equal? Why is that such an insult?

The Earl

 

[rgraham666]

Because, Earl, our 'friend' is so manifestly superior to we mere mortals he quite understandably resents that we should even pretend to be his match.

No, we should instead kneel in orgasmic adoration before such intellectual and moral perfection and pray that we might someday come close to his wisdom and understanding.

'Scuse me. I have to take a moment to retch.

 

[minsue]

First off, I 'use' a certain style to 'emphasize' words or thoughts as I see fit, I could care less if you like it or not, but it certainly worked for you.

Bullshit. You aren't 'using' apostrophes for 'emphasis', Ami. You're using scare quotes, a sure and sad sign of an unsupported argument. Do you make little quotations in the air with your fingers when speaking, too?

 

[Liar]

'Scuse me. I have to take a moment to retch.

It's easier to snigger.

#L

 

[Liar]

Just adding my from now on mandatory statement that the word "liberal" has been kidnapped.

According to the most relevant Google definintions, a liberal is...

...tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition.

...a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties.

...a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating
markets. (Sounds like amicus. )

#L(iberal)


Ok, carry on.

 

[minsue]

Just adding my from now on mandatory statement that the word "liberal" has been kidnapped.

According to the most relevant Google definintions, a liberal is...

...tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition.

...a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties.

...a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating
markets. (Sounds like amicus. )

#L(iberal)



Ok, carry on.

*Pointing in shock*

BLASPHEMER!!

 

[Liar]

*Pointing in shock*

BLASPHEMER!!

Also, the sissy style rugby sport you call football is not football.


Mom, are we off topic yet?

 

[minsue]

Also, the sissy style rugby sport you call football is not football.


Mom, are we off topic yet?

PMSL!

Gawd, I hope so

 

[amicus]

"...Amicus: How do you define left wing? You're saying the news people are left wing, which I presume means further left than you. However, most of the country are further left than you. It's not saying much.


Can I ask you a question? What is so abhorrent about tolerance? Why is being a liberal (small 'l') such a bad thing? Sticking up for individual's rights, saying that everybody starts off equal? Why is that such an insult?

The Earl


I will try to use as many...ellipses and "scare quotes" as I possibly can just to please Minsue and Boxlicker, who seem to have acquired a "distaste" for my particular style as they both seem incapable of a rational discussion without sprinkling pejoratives.

Anyone who wishes can 'google' a definition of the terms, 'liberal' and 'conservative' and 'left wing' and 'right wing'.




Liar posted: "...Just adding my from now on mandatory statement that the word "liberal" has been kidnapped.

According to the most relevant Google definintions, a liberal is...

...tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition.

...a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties.

...a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating
markets. (Sounds like amicus. )


Now since any respectable Liberal would never like to "sound like Amicus", it would appear that there might be a small misunderstanding as to classical liberalism and modern day Liberals.

In current usage, 'right wing' indicates those who wish minimum government involvement in society. 'Left wing' means just the opposite, singling out those who wish for government to have maximum involvement in society.

These monikers are obviously not cut in stone and do vary from issue to issue.

Liberals believe it is a proper government function to impose mandatory taxation upon all workers to support a 'retirement plan' i.e. Social Security, for those lucky ones who survive past age 65. Never mind that when the plan was instituted under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that the average life span of Americans was about 49 years. Which meant than many Americans were taxed but did not live long enough to enjoy the benefits.

But, Liberals consider Social Security a 'humane' act to provide a living for those older Americans who were not capable of planning for their own retirement. Tax supported retirement plans now exist world wide.

So this is not really just a liberal or conservative issue, as most Americans seem to believe that government 'should' have the power to force people to contribute to a mandatory retirement plan.

The real issue is of course the individual right to 'retain' your earnings and dispose of them in a manner the individual desires.

Although this is just one issue, I think if you examine your position on it, you can determine your political leanings.

Do people own their money, or does government determine how you dispose of it?

Now get off your high horse of social equality and deal with the rights of the individual. At the outset of this nation, our Constitution limited the power of government to tax and regulate. The concept was that 'government' could only do what it was constitutionally permitted.

An ever further indication that the power of government was to be limited, was the ennumeration of 'individual rights' in the Bill of Rights.

Before the 16th amendment, I think that is the one, that legalized the income tax, to tax income by capita, was unconstitutional; the legislature to change the constitution took many years and many attempts to pass.

The basic difference between contemporary Liberals and Conservatives, is that Liberals continually act to expand the role of government and Conservatives continually act to limit the power and scope of government.

It is, in my eyes, the classic conflict between good and evil.

That is perhaps why you detect a strong distaste in my posts concerning 'liberals' who are continually attacking individual rights and always legislating to increase the power of government.

I see it as the 'good guys' fighting to maintain individual rights and liberties and the 'bad guys' fighting to destroy the individual and subjugate him to the 'greater good'.

A great deal of confusion arises when 'rights' are confused with 'needs' and desires.

An issue to illustrate this is the abortion issue. The mantra is that 'a woman's reproductive rights over ride the right of the fetus to life...'

Well, there is no such thing as reproductive rights that require the death of another human being for those 'rights' to be realized.

The issue is even more confused when 'Liberals' insist that 'fair wages' is a 'right', to be enforced by government.

Government has the constitutional right to use 'force' to carry out the constitutional obligations of government, i.e. Military, Police and Courts. Those institutions exist to 'protect' the rights and liberties of the people and to adjudicate when the issue is not clear.

Other than that, in the original constitution, government had no authority to go beyond that limitation.

Thus for over two hundred years, there has been an ongoing struggle between those who wish to expand the power of government and those who with to limit it. Right/Left, Liberal/Conservative.

And, yes, I know it is much more complicated than that, but, if you take the moment to clarify the basic difference in your own mind, then you might understand the antagonism between the two sides.

I have attempted to imply that the basic disagreement between left and right, is really a philosophical division, not a political one, but thus far my attempts have not met with much success.

Perhaps another time...


amicus....

 

[minsue]

I will try to use as many...ellipses and "scare quotes" as I possibly can just to please Minsue and Boxlicker, who seem to have acquired a "distaste" for my particular style as they both seem incapable of a rational discussion without sprinkling pejoratives.

I may just have to snip part of that for my ever growing sigline.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Ah, Boxlicker tosses a hat in the ring, welcome...

Sorry to take so long to respond but I do have other things to do.

First off, I 'use' a certain style to 'emphasize' words or thoughts as I see fit, I could care less if you like it or not, but it certainly worked for you.

Okay, I’m glad you clarified that. I thought you were using a form of quotation marks. Many persons use them or underlining or capitalization when they wish some words to stand out. You didn’t answer very many of my other questions, though.

Long ago, I sent off a questionaire to several network and local news station anchormen (no women back then). I basically asked them to state their positions on issues of the day, such as abortion, gay rights, nuclear energy, social security, you know, the range of political issues that are usually divided along 'party' lines.

I won't belabor the point as you already know the results, the 'media' in general was about 8 to 1, left wing liberal oriented.

From other surveys the same ratio is found in college professors and high school teachers; the NEA votes about 90 percent Democrat, i.e., left wing.

First, you must have done that a long time ago because there have been anchorwomen for thirty years or more. Second, news station anchormen basically just read what is put in front of them. If there is a spin to be put on it, the person who writes the news is the one who does it. They tend to be anonymous.

Much the same thing applies to teachers. They teach what is in the textbooks without adding a lot more. That applies to either public schools or private schools except that private schools usually add a lot of religious instruction, which is completely legal because that is their primary purpose.

Earlier, you railed against teachers and public schools and compared the schools to a church. Now you specifically refer to high school teachers and college professors which is not the same. I asked why you referred to schools as Christian churches and you didn’t answer. I thought that was a poor description because public schools usually try as hard as they can to avoid becoming an adjunct of any church and the Christian church, the dominant church in the US, is the one that is avoided the hardest because that is the one that tries the hardest to dictate what is taught.

The public school curricula is decidely left of center, few will debate that. Science and mathematics as you adroitly pointed out is taught the same everywhere as science is only beginning to be corrupted with 'belief' in 'global warming' and 'creationism'. Science is also becoming corrupt in rendering 'amoral' viewpoints on issues such as stem cell research, the process of using live human tissue for experimentation.

Global warming is not a belief; it is an established fact, with average temperatures being higher that they were a century ago. What is unknown is whether or not this is a normal cycle or is caused by burning hydrocarbons. If it is the latter, it could have very serious consequences and we should think about reducing these emissions somehow, such as finding other sources of power. Creationism, I always thought, is the teaching of Genesis as fact and as the origin of the universe and of life. Stem cell research does not use “live human tissue” for research; it uses surplus fertilized ova which have been donated by the persons who produced them. If the ova were not used for research and, hopefully for curing a multitude of injuries and diseases, they would be flushed down the toilet because, although live, they are by no means human beings.

With such a one sided content base, I see no difference between 'babtists' and 'liberals' as they spout their agendas.

I suppose you mean Baptists and liberals which is odd. They don’t have that much in common. Baptists tend to be strongly against activities they consider to be “sins” while liberals tend to think that those “sins”, if nobody else is harmed, are nobody’s business but those who are doing them. Baptists also favor the teaching of Creationism while liberals oppose it.

I have expressed no distaste for 'education' or 'teachers', both the institution and the individuals 'can' offer knowledge to young minds. But when that offering of 'knowledge' becomes the party line, whether in Madros's, churches or public schools, it does not serve well.

First, I don’t know what “Madros” is or are. Second, this is what you said earlier:

“Not quite sure of the precise point. I am an atheist and would be pleased if all public schools were shut down and the ability to tax removed.”

You also said: “Incidentally, Shanglan, from the article whose link you pasted:

"..."Families organize their lives around the school system," said Andrea Ewert, a counselor at Hutchinson High School. "When school is in session, children don't only have breakfast here but lunch here, and in many elementary schools, there are after-school programs to keep them in a safe environment...."

Public education is the biggest 'business' in most communities and perhaps even nationwide.

Public education has inserted its nasty tendrils in all aspects of social life, from providing nutrition (along government dictated guidelines) which is a huge force in the market for food, beverage, transportation, et cetera...

Public educations through inschool counselling molds the life of students in many areas such as 'sex education' sexual preference, behavior (determined by school psychologists), 'acceptable behavior', dress codes...et cetera...

With the 'after school' activities provided by public education, it also influences family behavior, schedules, transportation, et cetera...

Strangely enough, the actual content of public education has become less factual and more 'social' as activist teachers promote an agenda concerning business, politics, art, science, religion, et cetera...

Even if you blindly follow the 90 percent of unionized teachers, and fully approve of their agenda, it should still give cause for alarm that it is so very one sided.”

This is what you said about teachers, among others:
“On a general level, there is and always has been an intellectual snobbery among the better educated, the artists, musicians and teachers. They do not dirty their hands with the labor of common folk, such as business and the trades, they view themselves 'above' the commonplace and feel an obligation to 'minister' to the great unwashed masses.

They always have and always will, look down their collective noses at all those beneath them who must produce a 'profit' for their labors in order to survive.

Since these intellectual parasites never have to produce, just publish and acquire tenure, they are always a drain on society in general.”

I have tried to avoid quoting you out of context because I consider that to be unfair. I would consider your statements to be expressions of distaste for teachers and education.

You labored mightlly to not understand my point about the pointy headed elite intellectuals that wallow in 'utopian' concepts concerning the 'greater good' of the socialist dream kept going since the time of Plato. Thas all right.

You made no mention of “pointy headed elite intellectuals” although George Wallace said something like that when he was running for the presidency in 1968. I actually share his disdain and, apparently, yours for the ivory-tower types who know little or nothing about real life but try to tell the rest of us how to live it. I do NOT include elementary or high school teachers in that categorization but it is probably an accurate description of some college professors.

You punch a time clock and go to sleep on the job and see how long you can buck the profit motive. The labor an individual chooses to use to convey effort to recompense so he can buy his twinkie is always based on profit, a return of the invested time and labor; and it is always measured.

Except for advising people not to sleep on the job, I’m not sure what you are saying here.

The obscenity of a 'not for profit' endeavor leaves me without adequate words to describe.

I am puzzled about that because you and I and others spend hundreds of hours posting our opinions on this and other threads and make not a penny from it. I and many others spend thousands of hours writing erotic or smutty stories and have nothing to show for it. I do derive considerable enjoyment from it and I suspect that you and others do too but that doesn’t fit my description of “profit”.

It may have been Groucho Marx, who else is comedic enough to advocate the sacrifice of individual rights for the greater good and leave em laughing in the aisles?

You quoted “Marx”. I assumed it would be Karl Marx because that is what is usually meant by “Marx” when expressing opinions relating to Economics. However, the statement was contrary to everything Karl Marx believed, so I thought you might have been quoting him out of context. Groucho Marx was a reasonably intelligent man and would not have believed the rubbish that was said. However, he might have said it in a line in one of his slapstick movies.

amicus the aborigine
__________________

In a subsequent post, you described the difference between a conservative and a liberal as being that a conservative wants no interference in the lives of individuals and a liberal wants a lot of interference. That definition doesn’t make a lot of sense. There are many members of Congress and others who are widely regarded as conservative, and who describe themselves as conservative, but who stand for extensive government interference in peoples’ lives. You, in fact, are one of them in some of these instances, judging from things you have said on other posts. For simplicity, I will call such persons “Cos.

Cos believe that if a girl or woman becomes pregnant, whether from rape, incest or fucking her boyfriend, she cannot exercise control over her own body and end that pregnancy.

Public school students should be advised, maybe even required, to pray in school, including when they make patriotic recitations.

Nobody is allowed to smoke marijuana, even when smoking it helps to alleviate the results of disease or injury.

Nobody is allowed to have sex and get paid for it. If a person has sex with another person and gets paid for it, that is an act of prostitution, and they are criminals.

Nobody can read stuff they want to, or watch movies they want to unless I and other Cos say they can.

Evolution cannot be taught in schools. Creationism must be taught.

Any kind of sex except penile/vaginal intercourse between a husband and wife is illegal. Anybody who does anything else is a criminal.

Marriage is between one man and one woman only.

I could name more but I think you get the idea.

George the Boxlicker

 

[minsue]

Box, I think I love you.

 

[Liar]

Ami, dude. Thanks for the lession. Albeit heavily tinted through your biased glasses, your mapping of left wing versus right wing is pretty correct.

But all that is stuff I already know. I do know the difference between the those ideologies. That's not what I was adressing. I just said that the guys you over there call liberals (capital L or not) are in fact not liberals in the true sense of the word. I'm just saying that definition wise, you all got the wrong shoe on the wrong foot over there.

The main core of a liberal ideology is the mininization of government control and the maximisation of individual freedom and integrity. Private enterprises rather than public enterprses, doing away with laws that limits individuals' rights, an as free and unregulated market as possible, and most of all, promoting radical change in that direction...those are liberal ideas. The real dichotomies are liberals versus socialists and conservatives versus radicals.

#L

 

[amicus]

Okay, Boxlicker, lets not be gentle then...

"...First, you must have done that a long time ago because there have been anchorwomen for thirty years or more. Second, news station anchormen basically just read what is put in front of them. If there is a spin to be put on it, the person who writes the news is the one who does it. They tend to be anonymous. .."

Dan Rather blows that big time and you know it.


"...Much the same thing applies to teachers. They teach what is in the textbooks without adding a lot more. That applies to either public schools or private schools except that private schools usually add a lot of religious instruction, which is completely legal because that is their primary purpose. .."

That Left wing asshole from the University of Colorado blows your theory all to hell, along with a hundred other examples of left wing activist professors and clergy, roman catholic clergy in socialist garb. Also the Muslim Radical from a Florida University, or are you not cogent on contemporary events?


"...Global warming is not a belief; it is an established fact, with average temperatures being higher that they were a century ago. What is unknown is whether or not this is a normal cycle or is caused by burning hydrocarbons. If it is the latter, it could have very serious consequences and we should think about reducing these emissions somehow, such as finding other sources of power..."

Global warming is not a 'fact' as you say. Only in the last half century have we begun to keep track of such things. You fucking liberals are trying to use a natural cyclic event to further your goals of limiting and restricting the expansion and growth of human endeavors in all field and you have the audacity to object when we point it out? Well pardon my free ass!


"...Creationism, I always thought, is the teaching of Genesis as fact and as the origin of the universe and of life. Stem cell research does not use “live human tissue” for research; it uses surplus fertilized ova which have been donated by the persons who produced them. If the ova were not used for research and, hopefully for curing a multitude of injuries and diseases, they would be flushed down the toilet because, although live, they are by no means human beings..."

"Fertilized ova" is human life, define it any other way and then justify your definition. If 'life' is to have any value, in a rationa; sense, then 'all' life has value and if you denigrate life, where then do your values lie?



"...Cos believe that if a girl or woman becomes pregnant, whether from rape, incest or fucking her boyfriend, she cannot exercise control over her own body and end that pregnancy.

Public school students should be advised, maybe even required, to pray in school, including when they make patriotic recitations.

Nobody is allowed to smoke marijuana, even when smoking it helps to alleviate the results of disease or injury.

Nobody is allowed to have sex and get paid for it. If a person has sex with another person and gets paid for it, that is an act of prostitution, and they are criminals.

Nobody can read stuff they want to, or watch movies they want to unless I and other Cos say they can.

Evolution cannot be taught in schools. Creationism must be taught.

Any kind of sex except penile/vaginal intercourse between a husband and wife is illegal. Anybody who does anything else is a criminal.

Marriage is between one man and one woman only...."



!. What ever the cause of pregnancy, a human life is created, if it has value, it must be protected.

2. Public schools first of all should not exist, secondly, if they do, they should not promote religion nor a political agenda, but offer only an 'objective' learning agenda.

3. The goverment should have no authority to regulate or restrict the individual use of any substance. That is a 'free' society.

4. The selling or bartering of sexual favors is no concern of government, consenting adults are free to choose.

5. The entertainment you choose, should be just that, what you choose, from what is offered, without government control, restriction, regulation,monitoring or controlling, also called, freedom...which I fully advocate....

6. Evolution versus Creationsism, fact versus faith, only in a politically controlled learning environment would that even be a question.

7. Sexual practices...What goes on behind closed doors, excepting children, abuse and the use of force to violate anothers rights, is no concern of government.

8. Same sex marriage...oxymoron, marriage is defined, everywhere and throughout time, as a legal relationship between a man and a woman to codify legal inheritance and familial association between offspring and blood relation. Same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms....does not compute.


Well, I will not further decimate your lackluster attempts to destroy the concepts of individual liberty in favor of a group grope.

Minsue was ill advised to adore you as you have completely failed to even slightly attack an advocacy of individual liberty and have made no attempt whatever to defend your stance of social domination by the use of force.

Better luck next time...


amicus....

 

[amicus]

Sighs, Liar...if I could figure out what you were really saying, I would think we are on the same side; advocating human freedom.

What seems to be the rub, is that I do not accept the tenet that using force to control an individual, even though it may benefit the majority, is a moral act.

And using the power of government, the barrel of a gun, to take my money, by taxation, to fulfill your ambitions, does not sit well with me.


amicus...

 

[Liar]

What seems to be the rub, is that I do not accept the tenet that using force to control an individual, even though it may benefit the majority, is a moral act.

Me niether. But what you can't seem to acknowledge is that to ensure quality of life and progress, a little of it might be nessecary.

For insance, I think violence is immoral. But sometimes the best option still is to kick someone in the nuts.

#L

 

[BlackShanglan]

The main core of a liberal ideology is the mininization of government control and the maximisation of individual freedom and integrity. Private enterprises rather than public enterprses, doing away with laws that limits individuals' rights, an as free and unregulated market as possible, and most of all, promoting radical change in that direction...those are liberal ideas. The real dichotomies are liberals versus socialists and conservatives versus radicals.

#L

This may be a difference in the States. Traditionally, our liberals have been in favor of decreasing the government role in the "social" side of life - individual behavior. However, they have also generally been in favor of increasing government involvement in the economic side of life, favoring regulation of industry and government participation in education, health, and welfare programs. Liberals in the States also have a fairly strong tradition of favoring a stronger role for the federal government. Conservatives, on the other hand, have historically favored less federal government, more power to individual states, less government role in economic life and more government regulation of specific social issues.

Shanglan

 

[Boxlicker101]

Okay, Boxlicker, lets not be gentle then...

"...First, you must have done that a long time ago because there have been anchorwomen for thirty years or more. Second, news station anchormen basically just read what is put in front of them. If there is a spin to be put on it, the person who writes the news is the one who does it. They tend to be anonymous. .."

Dan Rather blows that big time and you know it.

Just what did you do? If you sent your questionnaire only to network anchors who were known to have a liberal bias, your sample is invalid.

"...Much the same thing applies to teachers. They teach what is in the textbooks without adding a lot more. That applies to either public schools or private schools except that private schools usually add a lot of religious instruction, which is completely legal because that is their primary purpose. .."

That Left wing asshole from the University of Colorado blows your theory all to hell, along with a hundred other examples of left wing activist professors and clergy, roman catholic clergy in socialist garb. Also the Muslim Radical from a Florida University, or are you not cogent on contemporary events?

I think we have a failure of communication here. To me, a “teacher” is a teacher in an elementary or high school and professors are what you find in colleges. I made it clear in my posts that I was referring to what I call teachers. I’m not going to argue about the leftward tendencies of professors because I am inclined to agree with you although this varies tremendously from college to college and among individuals. I am probably most familiar with the U. of Cal., which is quite far left.

"...Global warming is not a belief; it is an established fact, with average temperatures being higher that they were a century ago. What is unknown is whether or not this is a normal cycle or is caused by burning hydrocarbons. If it is the latter, it could have very serious consequences and we should think about reducing these emissions somehow, such as finding other sources of power..."

Global warming is not a 'fact' as you say. Only in the last half century have we begun to keep track of such things. You fucking liberals are trying to use a natural cyclic event to further your goals of limiting and restricting the expansion and growth of human endeavors in all field and you have the audacity to object when we point it out? Well pardon my free ass!

“But is it a natural, cyclic event? I don’t know, and neither do you. It is known, though, that it is warmer now than it used to be, and it is known that there are more hydrocarbons in the air than there used to be. Is it cause and effect or is it a coincidence? Do you want to take a chance that it is a coincidence? I do not think of myself as a liberal, by the way, but I do hold a lot of liberal views. So do you, I might add.

"...Creationism, I always thought, is the teaching of Genesis as fact and as the origin of the universe and of life. Stem cell research does not use “live human tissue” for research; it uses surplus fertilized ova which have been donated by the persons who produced them. If the ova were not used for research and, hopefully for curing a multitude of injuries and diseases, they would be flushed down the toilet because, although live, they are by no means human beings..."

"Fertilized ova" is human life, define it any other way and then justify your definition. If 'life' is to have any value, in a rationa; sense, then 'all' life has value and if you denigrate life, where then do your values lie?

I can see right now that we are never going to agree on this one. I consider these fertilized ova to be not human beings. I also consider the placental blood that has soaked into a Kotex not to be live human tissue although it was live at one time. I do not consider my fingernail clippings to be live human tissue, nor the whiskers that I shave off my face, nor the snot that I sneeze out of my nose. These are all human tissue and all were once alive, but no longer are.

"...Cos believe that if a girl or woman becomes pregnant, whether from rape, incest or fucking her boyfriend, she cannot exercise control over her own body and end that pregnancy.

Public school students should be advised, maybe even required, to pray in school, including when they make patriotic recitations.

Nobody is allowed to smoke marijuana, even when smoking it helps to alleviate the results of disease or injury.

Nobody is allowed to have sex and get paid for it. If a person has sex with another person and gets paid for it, that is an act of prostitution, and they are criminals.

Nobody can read stuff they want to, or watch movies they want to unless I and other Cos say they can.

Evolution cannot be taught in schools. Creationism must be taught.

Any kind of sex except penile/vaginal intercourse between a husband and wife is illegal. Anybody who does anything else is a criminal.

Marriage is between one man and one woman only...."



!. What ever the cause of pregnancy, a human life is created, if it has value, it must be protected.

2. Public schools first of all should not exist, secondly, if they do, they should not promote religion nor a political agenda, but offer only an 'objective' learning agenda.

3. The goverment should have no authority to regulate or restrict the individual use of any substance. That is a 'free' society.

4. The selling or bartering of sexual favors is no concern of government, consenting adults are free to choose.

5. The entertainment you choose, should be just that, what you choose, from what is offered, without government control, restriction, regulation,monitoring or controlling, also called, freedom...which I fully advocate....

6. Evolution versus Creationsism, fact versus faith, only in a politically controlled learning environment would that even be a question.

7. Sexual practices...What goes on behind closed doors, excepting children, abuse and the use of force to violate anothers rights, is no concern of government.

8. Same sex marriage...oxymoron, marriage is defined, everywhere and throughout time, as a legal relationship between a man and a woman to codify legal inheritance and familial association between offspring and blood relation. Same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms....does not compute.

We really aren’t that far apart. We agree on numbers 3,4,5,6 and 7. In all of those, we both hold what is generally considered the liberal stance. On Number 2, we agree that public schools should be neutral on matters of religion and politics but I can’t understand your abhorrence of public schools. That is, schools that are owned by government entities where all of a certain age attend at no cost to them or their families.

Earlier, you said:[/i]On a general level, there is and always has been an intellectual snobbery among the better educated, the artists, musicians and teachers. They do not dirty their hands with the labor of common folk, such as business and the trades, they view themselves 'above' the commonplace and feel an obligation to 'minister' to the great unwashed masses.[/i]

I was largely in agreement with you there, except for teachers, meaning elementary or high school teachers. Don’t you realize that, without public schools, this division would be more pronounced? Don’t you realize that so many persons would never be able to afford the private schools you apparently favor and would remain essentially illiterate? Just think what a terrible waste of brainpower that would be. The rich would still be educated and that would make them even more snobbish than their wealth already makes them. Business and the trades, which you profess to admire so much (so do I, usually, by the way), would virtually cease to exist. Hardly anybody would be able to read operational manuals which would be okay because nobody would be able to write them anyhow. There would be a few professionals, drawn from the ranks of the educated rich, but not nearly enough to go around. If you wonder what else life would be like, look backward to the days before Horace Mann, commonly considered to be the father of public schooling in the US.

Anyhow, we are never going to agree on Items 1 or 8 so I won’t bother to say any more about them, escept to say that 60 or so years ago, interracial marriage would have been considered by many to be the same kind of oxymoron as same sex marriages.

Well, I will not further decimate your lackluster attempts to destroy the concepts of individual liberty in favor of a group grope.

Minsue was ill advised to adore you as you have completely failed to even slightly attack an advocacy of individual liberty and have made no attempt whatever to defend your stance of social domination by the use of force.

I’m puzzled as to what you mean by that. I am strongly in favor of individual liberties, probably even more than you are. Unlike you, I would not deny a woman the right to abort an unwanted fetus and I would not deny persons of the same gender to right to enter into a marriage contract. I also believe that a well-educated citizenry is a bulwark against attacks on individual liberty.

I believe the US Constitution to be one of the greatest documents in the history of mankind, especially the Bill of Rights. I especially respect, virtually revere, the first and second amendments. I don’t think anything has been said about “social domination by the use of force”. I haven’t mentioned it and, if I had, I would have been opposed to it.

Better luck next time...

Thanks. Better luck to you too.

 

[amicus]

Again, thank you for the time to prepare your thoughts and responses. I think you pretty well wrapped up things.

About the whole abortion issue...as an aside, I think sexual relationships have become devalued in the modern world. While sex for pleasure only is not a bad thing, I suggest that it cheapens the act when promiscuity seems to be the password.

There is a vast, accumulated social baggage about viginity and fidelity that seems to have been largely discarded; I am not so sure that is a good thing. While society has never really reflected total monoganous relationships, one man, one woman for a lifetime relationship has always been the ideal. It seems not to be that way anymore. Practicality suggests to young people that the marriage they enter into will not last. It was not so in the 50's; we all expected, perhaps wrongly, that marriage was for life.

On the public school issue. I repeat my assertion that education is of great importance for all. We have a disagreement about how it should be made accessible.

I maintain that nothing in our original constitution allowed for taxation to support public schools.I find it obscene that government can tax the property of childless people to fund the education for others. 'Taxation without representation is Tyrrany...so the saying goes.

"To promote the general welfare..." clause in the constitution has been used to fund just about everything. That is a loophole I would close.

But the basic fundamental assumption I have, that you either disregard or disagree with is that I am certain the private market would supply more and better education to the entire populations than 'mandatory tax supported' education has and does.

As a sidenote, I cannot understand how those who claim to support the concept of individual liberty can accept the concept of forcing young people into schooling, the content of which is determined basically by government. And of course, to be redundant to make a point, that 'you' would force 'me' to pay to educate your children.

I see a bit of a contradiction there, no matter how important you think education is to the general population.

Again, thank you. I appreciate the thought and effort you put into your posts.

regards...amicus...

 

[rgraham666]

Give it up Box.

You're arguing about wisdom and goodness.

And our 'friend' is presenting THE TRUTH! Absolute, divine and perfect.

You can't win against that.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Again, thank you for the time to prepare your thoughts and responses. I think you pretty well wrapped up things.

About the whole abortion issue...as an aside, I think sexual relationships have become devalued in the modern world. While sex for pleasure only is not a bad thing, I suggest that it cheapens the act when promiscuity seems to be the password.

Personally, I am all for promiscuity. I wasn’t promiscuous when I was younger because I couldn’t find girls or women to be promiscuous with. To properly be promiscuous, one must have willing partners.

There is a vast, accumulated social baggage about viginity and fidelity that seems to have been largely discarded; I am not so sure that is a good thing. While society has never really reflected total monoganous relationships, one man, one woman for a lifetime relationship has always been the ideal. It seems not to be that way anymore. Practicality suggests to young people that the marriage they enter into will not last. It was not so in the 50's; we all expected, perhaps wrongly, that marriage was for life.

Fidelity is fine but I think virginity is overrated. Women and girls remain virgins because of their lack of desire for sex. Personally, I wouldn’t want a wife who was disinterested in sex. There is more to marriage than that but it is an important part.
Even in the fifties, divorce was not uncommon, but it was less common than it is now. My older brother recently celebrated his 47th anniversary and myh parents were married for 64 years until Dad died. This was not all that unusual, either. The parents of most of my buddies when I was a kid in the fifties had never been married to anybody else.


On the public school issue. I repeat my assertion that education is of great importance for all. We have a disagreement about how it should be made accessible.

I maintain that nothing in our original constitution allowed for taxation to support public schools.I find it obscene that government can tax the property of childless people to fund the education for others. 'Taxation without representation is Tyrrany...so the saying goes.

There probably is nothing in the US Constitution but individual states are mainly responsible for schools and they probably all have it in their constitutions. This would be covered by the tenth amendment. Big Brother sometimes looks over their shoulders but that is just a problem that has to be coped with. I also have no children but I pay for schools that I never use and public transportation that I never use. I believe all people benefit, at least indirectly, from having a reasonably educated populace, for many reasons.

"To promote the general welfare..." clause in the constitution has been used to fund just about everything. That is a loophole I would close.

But the basic fundamental assumption I have, that you either disregard or disagree with is that I am certain the private market would supply more and better education to the entire populations than 'mandatory tax supported' education has and does.

Actually, on the whole, private schools do turn out better educated students but they have many advantages in that regard. For one thing, parents who pay to send their kids to private schools also take an interest in their education. It’s pretty much common knowledge that the best students do better when they have parents who take an active interest in their education. Besides that, private schools flunk students sometimes. Public schools too often hand out “social promotions” which do nobody any favors. If students are unable to grasp the lessons in one grade, they will have nothing to build on in the following grade. I went to a public school that was willing to sometimes flunk people and the students who were flunked once usually benefited from it, in the long run.

There are other advantages to private schools too. Students usually need to have a certain aptitude to even get into them. Public schools have to accept everybody, even those who are mentally retarded. Private schools expel those who are too rowdy and disruptive, but it is much harder for public schools to do this. If public schools had the advantages that private schools have they would probably turn out students just as well educated.

As a sidenote, I cannot understand how those who claim to support the concept of individual liberty can accept the concept of forcing young people into schooling, the content of which is determined basically by government. And of course, to be redundant to make a point, that 'you' would force 'me' to pay to educate your children.

I see a bit of a contradiction there, no matter how important you think education is to the general population.

Oh, c’mon, you can’t mean that. Kids have to be taught certain things. Most children, from what I hear, don’t like being potty trained but it is necessary to their future. Given the chance, they would eat nothing but candy and soda pop and never brush their teeth. I really hated school when I was a kid and looked forward to the day when I would be 16 and could quit, which was the minimum at that time and place. Fortunately, when I was 16 I had enough sense to see it through for a while longer, even I hated high school even more than elementary school. Older relatives used to tell me I would look back on school days as being the happiest days of my life. They were lying.

Again, thank you. I appreciate the thought and effort you put into your posts.

regards...amicus...

Thanks, and same to you.

 

[amicus]

Well, sighs...children are neither the property of the state or federal government.

And do you really not see how you have basically made my argument? By forcing public schools to accept those who are basically uneducable, by passing them along from grade to grade without achievements, what then is the reall purpose of mandatory education? Certainly not to educate.

You abolish the legal right of government to mandate public education, abolish the property tax that supports the schools and I guarantee you that the private sector will jump in and provide the public at large with an immeasurably better system of education that all can afford.

Schools as frequent as fast food joints that pop up as if by magic where needed.

Oh, and speaking of Mcdonalds, a 50 year old woman came on the news tonight who ate only at McDonalds for 90 days and lost something like 25 pounds during that period of time. Which, by way of example, I mean to say that varying degrees of education would be available according to the choice and taste of the parents.

After all, children are the responsibility of parents, are they not? Or did they become wards of government when I wasn't looking.

And I think I did not properly make the point on casual sex. i.e. promiscuity. which I maintain tends to lessen the value of the experience the more partners one has.

But of course if you view it as eating an ice cream cone without the aids and other STD's, then I guess it is okay...

amicus...