i agree. it is very sexist to try to judge a person that is running for the vice president of the US on her looks just because she is a woman.
I guess you have a problem with President Washington who while president was also in charge of the nation school Washington said the bible is and always should be important reading in our schools for then the children would be likely to follow the good morals. The problem with liberals today they Hate God and anything to do with Gos. Before the bible was banned from our schools chewing gum was the top problem in our nation schools . So are our school better today with God kicked out only a complete fool would say Yes.
Liberals don't have a problem with God, where do you get that ? But if you want to include God..Who's God do you include ? Yours ? Why yours ? Why not mine ? Which Bible do you want read in school ? The King James Version of the Holy Bible ? The Quaran ? The Tanakh ? Old Testament ? New Testament ? That's the problem. In the 1700's there was a general conscientious. The land wasn't full with Hindu's, Muslims, Budist, Catholics, Atheists, and every other religion known to man. When you are writing the original documents and everyone in the room is protestant, it's easy to say that and put your God in everything, but it is not the 1700's anymore and there are 350 million people and hundreds of religious sects to consider, not just the one that Washington, Adams, Hancock and Franklin believed in at the time. REPS think that religion should be taught in school, and not by parents and churches, but that human reproduction shouldn't be taught in schools, and should be taught by parents. That is completely backwards...the biology of human reproduction and how to catch or not catch STD's is the same across the board for everyone that is a Human being on this planet,..religion is not the same for everyone, and is personal to individual beliefs and privacy. The reason that sex ed comes up so much is that there are so many parents that are just stupid, and kids are getting the wrong information, or no information at all and are getting pregnant because they really thought you couldn't get pregnant on the first time, or that jumping up and down would prevent fertilization....there are still people out there that think that AIDs is only a gay disease and you can look at someone and tell if they have it or not....or that you can't get Herpes from someone who comes from a "good family".....are they really qualified to teach kids ? Too many people confuse the science and education of it with what ever shameful hang ups they have about passion and lust.....trust me, I had sex ed in school and there is nothing sexual about it at all. I live in a land where everyone is free to worship what they want, and how they want, and I don't want my kids learning Catholicism in school like it's the only "right" choice, any more than I want Jehovah's Witnesses putting The Watchtower in with my groceries. That is one of the reasons that the original colonists left England, The Netherlands, France, and Spain in the first place...FREEDOM of religion, not state sponsored religion. So now we are going to go back and just decide that everyones kids have to learn the Holy bible in class ? If that is what you want ,there are plenty of schools that will teach your kids any religion you want, but in public school, you have no right to make that decision for everyone else's kids, and other families. This is America...you have choices. Chose one, don't try and conform the one that is paid for by the Government to fit your personal needs and beliefs, that's is supposed to be for the benefit of all of us, equally.
If evolution was real The Human males would have evolved so that we would not need Viagra If evolution was real Since the desire in The human male for pussy is so great, we human males would have evolved to also have a pussy so we could screw ourselves . Hey! Hmansfield you are a totally uninformed America always had the bible in and taught within public school until the 1960 Dah! Sadly you do not care about facts because they interfear with your emotions . The Supreme Court determined that the United States was a Christian nation in a 1892 case while America allows freedom of religion .The nation of america was founded on the biblical scripture and of the Christian faith. Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen". Sounds Christian to me. Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: "...God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; "The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were ... the general principles of Christianity ... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: "...Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an "indissoluble" bond. The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged. The intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep Government from establishing a 'National Denomination" (like the Church of England). As early as 1799 a court declared: "By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing." Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut (from which we derive the term "separation of Church and State") he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government. Even George Washington who certainly knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since he presided over their formation, said in his "Farewell Address": "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars." Sure doesn't sound like Washington was trying to separate religion and politics. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation. This view, that we were a Christian nation, was hold for almost 150 years until the Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947. Before that momentous ruling, even the Supreme Court knew that we were a Christian nation. In 1892 the Court stated: "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people...This is a Christian nation." There it is again! From the Supreme Court of the United States. This court went on to cite 87 precedents (prior actions, words, and rulings) to conclude that this was a "Christian nation". In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee said: "in this age, there is no substitute for Christianity...That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.' It should be noted here that even as late as 1958 a dissenting judge warned in Baer v. Kolmorgen that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of Church and State", people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution. It has been demonstrated in their own words: Ben Franklin, George Washington and John Adams, to the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court, how our founding fathers felt about the mix of politics and religion. When we read articles such as "What's God got to do with it?" (Primack, 5/4) and "The wall between state and church must not be breached" (Tager, 5/7) it just reaffirms how little, even intelligent people, understand about the founding of our great Republic. To say that this nation was not founded as a Christian nation or that the Constitution was not founded on Christian principles is totally at odds with the facts of history.
First, what a load of crap. It was pretty easy to tell where your words ended and someone else's begins. Your arguments were those of a pussy infatuated 15 year old. Second, when you copy and paste someone's words the moral and Christian thing to do is to cite the person's whose words you copied. If you don't even know who wrote the crap you copied, then perhaps you shouldn't post it? Do you need me to provide the link for you or do you remember where you copied your post from? Don't feel bad, original thought is hard. Much easier to just copy someone's unsourced work and pretend you made a point.
Sex ed is f*cking pointless. They really don't teach you anything of importance, like disease prevention that you included hman. I guess they try to "break the news" to you in case you're either a goddamn moron or are just really shy and raised in some really old fashioned family. I learned nothing other than guys get erections ("wow is that what the bulge in my pants is called?!"), women have vaginas ("oh that's the thing I've been jerking it too?!"), and you should always wear a condom. If you're going to have sex, and you didn't know that, I don't even know what to say.
We actually had sex ed, which was just human reproduction (I think it lasted about a week), but we learned about STD's in "Health" class which was the rest of the semester. This was Jr High, so I was about 12, which is when kids should know this stuff. I already got "the talk" from my parents way before that, but for many kids, it was the first time they had heard most of it, or heard it correctly.
Always find it strange how people place themselves smarter then Albert Einstein !!! Albert Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Well, not really, Dane. That said, Einstein hated what felt was the pomposity of what I call religious atheism - the need to proselytize the view. He did believe that mystery had value (as do I - but to say there's more to discover doesn't equate to an Intelligence necessarily behind the opaque curtain), and was a pretty humble guy. He was an atheist, from everything I've known about the man, and otherwise a helluva guy, in my opinion:
That is utterly not the point. I really don't understand why this is an issue, with those who resonate with Palin's worldview. It's a science class. That means, it isn't a cultural discussion class, or a class on comparative philosophy, or aesthetics. It proceeds by empirical, scientific method. To say that creationism offers a "theory" is no more credible than any other religious explanation for biological phenomena. I've said it before - the western pacific islanders have a theory of life that stems from a whale god; the Japanese, Amaterasu, the Sun Goddess. Are we to include those, too, or just the ones that stem from Judeo-Christian theology? "Intelligent Design" does not proceed from scientific method. It proceeds from a tautology: anything that is both ordered and complex cannot have proceeded by anything other than an Intelligence; therefore, any explanations that do not include an intelligence cannot be true. That isn't science, though creationists have been trying for decades to "brand" the image under another name. I'm sorry - but it doesn't belong. I have no objections to a comparative religions discussion, as part of a course on ontological inquiry, for example. But it is absolutely inappropriate, in my opinion, to cloak creationism by the mantle "Intelligent Design" and attempt to pass it off as science, in any way.
I laugh at atheist they believe that nothing created everything . Wow now that stupid . You cannot reason with stupid because all stupid can comprehend is more stupid . Notorious Atheist Antony Flew now former Atheist now see that all nature had a designer. I think it inappropriate to cloak evolution as science when it's cannot be observed . It all taken on faith that something happen billions of years ago hmmm sound like a religions .
Wow, I just saw that this thread went up 340 days ago... It's amazing that it has almost been a full year since all of that went down.
Yes, this could have been our Commander and Chief. Although I would have loved Paul, I'll take four years of destruction to prevent annihilation.
LOL - where the hell'd you get that? God, you libertarians do nag at certain elements of my being - the inner flame that loathes statism and the myth-making that goes along with it. My issue with a market anarchy perspective, I think, really comes down to a nagging theoretical doubt in the perfectability of the invisible hand (were it ever realized), in the sense that it, too, like even the best hopes and theories of socialism, is a flawed process, ultimately. The jury is still out on that, for me. The other issue is one of living in a world where lag would be the accepted cost of a truly free system of market "corrections." I'm just not willing to accept the cost. When "lag" includes spoliation on a global scale, or institutionalized barriers to entry (and I'm not talking about corporations, or anything else "not allowed" in a truly laissez-faire system) that mean generations of individuals suffer a deplorable condition until the "correction" is realized, I just can't accept the cost. I loathe the State; I loathe its absence more.
Switching would not be an outright change, but it would necessitate some drastic measures. Some thing would be cut pretty fast, others would be phased out over time. The real way to manage a free economy is to not manage it, but rather its players. Always prosecute illegal activities to the maximum. Illegal business practices are the rot that would eat the core of the system - and would cause much of the lag. However if you have a few dedicated rugged individuals who do the dirty work of finding the major players of cartel style economics, or any other kind of dark deeds, and then prosecuting them and cutting them off completely as should be done (they're fucking with people's lives, and the well being of the market - death might be a good message) you will find that these issues will not be as pronounced. Greed is good. Greed aided by the "the other hand" as I call it, is not good. Its a crappy theory of mine that with the hand of the free market, there exists an equally powerful hand that will destroy the first one - being overwhelming greed which causes companies to do illegal schemes, illegal price fixing, and that sort of thing to just increase profit at the cost of the individual. Of course, I could be completely wrong, but I have known many business owners who practice things that are... less than honorable. I think, in addition to a true free market there needs to also be a sense of honor - as doing good honest business-work is something that should be applauded and admired, not put off as being less than efficient in terms of monetary gain.
It's very interesting, Jackuul, truly. I think detecting your "other hand" before it can do the damage I'm calling a problematic "cost of lag," is where I have the issue. I can't think of anything off the top - forgive me, crappy back and I'm midway in a Norco-induced haze (Nate, if you're reading this, still trying other stuff but damn me if it still feels like as knife on fire, through my spine and legs) - but something on the order of a mining issue in the Northern U.S. A company, long known for basically shitting in its mining areas then leaving, has recently gotten the green light to go ahead in something called the Yellow Dog Plains. Sulfide mining, in a massive water-basin area for the entire region. Just today, read that they have found high levels of selenium in a nearby operation, from the same company. There are kids that depend on that water, to live and grow. I'm rambling - sorry, and will have to close, as I'm truly messed up on the meds, now, and I'm sure I'm making little sense - but how to deal with stuff like this? I realize that "the law" is, at best, retroactive - it punishes wrongdoers, it doesn't typically act pre-emptively. Heavy capitalization industries - entirely unrealistic, to envision as a kind of Jeffersonian, mom and pa merchant structure - how to deal with the precise thing you mention, the kind of cloaked drive to greed at all costs, with zero sense of long-term consequences? I can only think of the only model I know - and it's a lousy model, because it's nothing approaching laissez-faire - but it is in early industrialization, when capital-intensive industries and concerns have a relatively freer hand, from a political-economic, developmental perspective, that the crap really flies. (I think of the Baltic states, shortly after the collapse of the USSR, for example). I imagine a world that did not undergo the push to regulation, as a result of the environmental awareness campaigns of the '60's; and I cringe. If we have it bad now, I can only imagine an apocalyptic world, were commerce unregulated. Ugh - I truly am sorry - turgid writing and thoughts. My mind is clouded from the damn meds I have to take, the weird sleep patterns from pain and the crap I ingest to deal with it, and so forth...closing, just wanted to say I appreciated your posts and thoughts on the subject, and you've piqued me, like your libertarian confreres on this site.