« The McLaughlin Group | Main | Finding Their Voices »

September 14, 2008

Comments

Account Deleted

Fred,

Even though I am devout Catholic, I agree with you. I regret the evangelicals hijacking the Republican party, for example.

What is taught in schools should not even be a Federal issue. In fact, the Feds should get of the education business altogether and encourage voucher systems at the local level so parents can choose where to send their kids and what they wish their kids to learn.

SteveOk

(Fred)"I'm not sure what constitutes whether the theory of evolution has been "proven" or not. But I do know that it is a scientific theory. Creationism is a religious theory. Hence, it has not place in a public school.

The teaching of creationism is not proscribed in a church. That's where anyone who wants their children indoctrinated can go."
----------------------------------
Fred, it is disgusting that a small group of elitist snobs decides what is "scientific" and can be taught in our schools, while the vast majority of Americans who believe in creationism have no say in what is taught in the public schools. It's the height of hypocrisy to zero in on creationism and purge it from public schools and then turn around and allow the most absurb socialist tripe to be taught in our schools. Our schools have utterly failed in teaching science and math. We are producing a generation of uneducated people who cannot compete in the global economy and elitist snobs are only concerned about purging our schools from any trace of conservativism. The public schools have lost their way and get an "F", yet by-God they don't teach creationism.

Ummahgummah

But she has identified herself to those of us who are watching as another religious freak, like George W. Bush. I don't like it when religious freaks run the country.

Posted by: FredK2929


---


GWB was anything but religious. He used religion to garner support for himself and his crony politics.

if you want religious lunatics try those exotic colorful iranians.. the SOWdis.. Malaysia, Iraq and Afghanistan, yes, they too have sharia law enshrined in their 'constitutions'.

Hey let's just bring more of them to our shores so we can all enjoy the benefits of being exposed to religious fanaticism!

yes, FreaK has no problem whith that! He hates Christianity and yes, Judaism.

Rebellion against all our common values has been enshribed in his battered lefty psyche and he will stand by his "ideals" while the country goes down in flames around him.

The liberal will be like Hitler, stating that the German people didn't deserve him as 14year-olds are handed rifles to shoot at the approaching Russian tanks.

Each time we are attacked the liberal cautions against retaliation in favor of an in-depth discussion of "why they hate us".

The true Conservative will see the attack, react to remove the threat and then perhaps discuss what motivated the attack and how it was carried out in the interest of preventing future attacks.

The liberals will say that Americans refuse to follow them and their one-world ideas and are thus deserving of being attacked by our enemies.

Ummahgummah

The public schools have lost their way and get an "F", yet by-God they don't teach creationism.

Posted by: SteveOk


---


It is totally wacky, Steve. NAMBLA jihadists are running our schools. This nonsense fake "debate" over Creationism is a smoke screen so they can teach things like "Mommy loves Polyamory" and "Daddy loves T-gurls".

Hey, they are working on legaising beastiality in Seattle so when they have that in law who's to keep them from teaching that in school as well?!

I can see it now.

"Mommy married Fido"
subheader: "why no particular life-style is better than any other".

Woof!

SteveOk

TAX POLICY: One are that disturbs me is the trend of Democrats to abandon our progressive income tax structure. Obama has bragged that under his tax policy approximately 1/2 of all Americans would not pay taxes. Historically, almost everyone paid at least some taxes (except those under the poverty level) because everyone shares in the benefits of citizenship. By paying taxes, even if only a small amount, all individuals are required to exercise responsibility as citizens by paying taxes.

Why do the Democrats continue to want more and more Americans to not pay taxes? Part of that answer has to do with their socialist views. They want more and more people dependent on the Federal government for their livelihood. This doesn't work in the long run--ask the old Soviet Union. When people are dependent on the Federal government productivity and innovation goes out the window. It is very bad sign that more and more Americans are not held responsible for citizenship by paying taxes.

Ummahgummah

What is taught in schools should not even be a Federal issue. In fact, the Feds should get of the education business altogether and encourage voucher systems at the local level so parents can choose where to send their kids and what they wish their kids to learn.

Posted by: Michael Avari

---


That is a very sensible idea. But it is the liberals who oppose this. They send their kids to private schools and can afford to do so without vouchers.

Liberals want to maintain the power base of the very liberal teachers' unions.

Liberals want our children indoctrinated to see things their way. If we are putting our kids in schools outside the liberal influence it reduces their hold on power.

I am encouraging Michal Avari to understand this dynamic very clearly.

School vouchers also reduce the power of the State, which violates liberal dogma.

The lib mantra is:

The state is good.
The individual doesn't know what is good for them.
Power and money must be stripped from the individual and transferred to the State.

Ummahgummah

MA, do you really believe that the "evangelicals" have hijacked the Republican Party?

It seems to me that the neo-cons have hijacked the Party and Sarah Palin is poised to take it back for the People.

AFAIK there is a huge evanglical revolt within the party as well as outside with many plnning to sit out the election.

If BHO should somehow wein the election I predict that we will never ever see a Republican President again.

They will make sure the voter rolls are forever altered once they gain that much power.

GilbertWashington

Michael:

Note your comments and disagree (respectfully) strongly. The issue before us
is wether the general public should tinker with the syllabus of scientific inquiry or should this be left to the disapline itself?

With respect to Einstein and the study of physics: Physics relates to a body of scientific principles. Einstein made fair comment with respect those laws and could have easily said that the dice are truly random.
The comment is biographical and incidental to the understanding of physics; best studied biographically ouside of physics.

I love this quote he said to his students with respect to mathmatics with which I have encountered firsthand:
"I can understand your frustration in grasping the concepts of mathmatics and I can assure you that my frustration is even greater."

FK

Steveok --

Your answer to the deficiencies of the public school system is to teach more religion?

SEND YOUR KIDS TO CHURCH THEN! DON'T IMPOSE YOUR RELIGION ON MY KIDS!

UG --

I don't want any religion to play a large role in my life. You name the religion; I'm not interested in it. You can include Zoroastrianism and Wicca for all I care. Keep them ALL away from me, thank you!

FK

UG --

You are such a moron, it's hilarious.

You assumed I was talking about myself when I was responding to Mjfell?

Actually, I grew up in an intact family. And religion was an important part of our lives, although we were not orthodox.

So much for your theory for why Mjfell is a conservative and I'm a liberal.

FK

If BHO should somehow wein the election I predict that we will never ever see a Republican President again.

They will make sure the voter rolls are forever altered once they gain that much power.

Posted by: Ummah Gummah | September 15, 2008 at 03:12 PM
________________________

You can't really believe that.

If BHO wins (which I doubt will happen), the Republicans in Congress and the rightwing pundits will make his term in office miserable and criticize him incessantly for every miniscule thing he does. Then, if the Republicans put up a strong candidate, you will see another Republican president in 4 years.

I'm wondering if we'll ever see a Democratic president at this rate. If the Democrats can't win after 4, and then another 4 horrible years of GWB, then when can they ever win?

FK

We had 8 years of peace and prosperity under Clinton, and yet the Democrats couldn't follow that up with another win. Clearly it was Clinton who won, not the Democrats. The Democrats don't have another candidate like Bill Clinton to offer, so I can't see when they can win again.

Ummahgummah

I, too doubt that BHO will win. But what I am saying is that IF he does.. there will be so much at stake that the Dhims will rig the process.

And they will try and hand out passports to illegals in a New York hurry so that they can guarantee more liberal votes.

By offering free stuff at the expense of others the libs are working had to get the "immigrant vote".

Ummahgummah

We had 8 years of peace and prosperity under Clinton, and yet the Democrats couldn't follow that up with another win. Clearly it was Clinton who won, not the Democrats. The Democrats don't have another candidate like Bill Clinton to offer, so I can't see when they can win again.

Posted by: FredK2929

---

Excuse me!? WHAT peace..? The attacks on our embassies in Kenya?? The attacks on the USS Cole.. oh yeah I forgot that was *only* military who were attacked.

Doesn't count for you guys.

Let's also remember that under Clinton Kommissar Jamie Gorelcik made it illegal for FBI and CIA to share terrorist information.!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

I guess Fred considers what we did to Serbia "Peace".

Bombing Christians to benefit moslems is "Peace".
Gladd to know that's where YOU stand Fred!

I consider the sort of aerial bombardment we visited upon our ally from WWII an ACT OF WAR, Fred!!!

The people who planned and executed 9/11 were able to access the country under Clinton and benefitted by a general atmoshere of political correctness.

The very morign of 9/11 Mahomet Atta came up as a "red flag" but the security at Boston let hom through without any futher checks. People cann get demoted when someone complains about "profiling" so they rather let dangerous people thru and hope for the best.

Good work, BILL CLINTON!!

Last but not least, OBL was relatively unhindered in his part of the attacks of 9/11.

So much so that Clinton refused to take OBL when he was offered to us on a silver patter.

And when our people had him in their sights to kill they were hampered by lawyers who argued against it because of "collateral damage".

The dead of 9/11 are the COLLATERAL DAMAGE of lax liberal policies toward the ENEMY.

Great work, liberals!

Ummahgummah

D@mn, I get upset when they lie and change the record as easily as they breathe!

Bombing Serbia = Peace.

Not fighting back against islam/terror = Peace.

Not getting involved in Sudan = Peace.

yes, they were ethnically cleansing the Christians in Sudan as far back as the Eighties.

By the time Clinton came in it was a very well-known and documented FACT!

To do something about it swould have proven quite embarrassing to the likes of SharpJackson.. the Civil Rights Industrial Complex who remained completely MUM on the topic.

Ummahgummah

I'm glad I now understand what Liberal mean when they say PEACE.

Ummahgummah

Zank you for ze Re-education, Fred.

Account Deleted

A beautiful article regarding the events on Wall Street from the Mises Institute, the foremost think tank of the Austrian School of economics (Libertarian):

http://mises.org/story/3109

Regards,

Account Deleted

The issue before us is wether the general public should tinker with the syllabus of scientific inquiry or should this be left to the discipline itself?

-- Gilbert

_____________

Gilbert, that is a different issue than I thought we were discussing, whether schools should allow competing theories to evolution including beliefs outside of evolution. When science conflicts with well established religions at least cursory allowance should be made and respect given to those beliefs to avoid cognitive dissonance in children. Perhaps a compromise is to teach evolution as "a" theory, alternatives to which have not yet been advanced in a pure scientific context. Children should realize the theory's shortcomings and be permitted to think clearly about both science and religion without conflict. Isn't that what we expect of future leaders?

To address your issue, which is well stated, one would have to afford the local school districts, hence parents, the option of teaching what they want. An interesting case is that of home schooling: is the state going to govern what is taught there?

Again, I believe vouchers will resolve the problem. School taxes are local. Let parents choose education alternatives with their money. Keep the Feds out of education, except perhaps to set broad performance targets and by applying anti-trust laws to teacher's unions ... gently and selectively.

Cheers,

Account Deleted

UG,

Thank you for your compliment earlier.

On the other matter, perhaps "hijack" is too strong a word, but I do believe they exerted undue influence at one period, including on Bush.

Goldwater is reputed to have said, “I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the rear*.”

* He used the more colorful noun. And I agree.

Now a favor to ask of you --- we have had a nice series of discussions these past days. Suppose we stop abusing Fred as the poster child for Liberalism? It is nice to read his contributions, as it forces all of us to think. What do you think?

mjfell

Mjfell --

Congratulations on growing up in an intact family.

Lots of people don't grow up in intact families, and it's not their fault, and they should not be made to feel like freaks because of it.

The traditional family is not the only way to be raised, and perhaps some of us are sick of those who were raised that way being arrogant about it and looking down on everyone else?

Posted by: FredK2929 | September 15, 2008 at 02:39 PM

Assuming that everyone raised in a traditional, intact family is going to view you as a freak and arrogantly look down on you is a reflection on you, not me.

I stand by my original statement with not one iota of retraction.

mjfell

Mjfell --

Congratulations on growing up in an intact family.

Lots of people don't grow up in intact families, and it's not their fault, and they should not be made to feel like freaks because of it.

The traditional family is not the only way to be raised, and perhaps some of us are sick of those who were raised that way being arrogant about it and looking down on everyone else?

Posted by: FredK2929 | September 15, 2008 at 02:39 PM

Fred-

Assuming that everyone who was raised in an intact, traditional family is automatically going to consider you a freak and arrogantly look down at you is on you.

You're the one making the assumption. Prejudice, I believe it's called.

GilbertWashington

Michael:

If the FDIC raised the fed garanteed limit to say, 10m, that would effectivly give small business reason to breath easier.

gringoman

M/M: that is beautiful. If I were Gringoman I would suggest the following tag line ...

Sarah Palin: American Woman.

Posted by: Michael Avari | September 14, 2008 at 10:00 PM


Michael,

And you would have suggested well---in fact well enough to be awarded a citation of GOM (the Gringomanic Order of Merit.)

ps. Weeks ago, after recovering from the stun of McCain's selection, and doing a marvelously quick study of a completely unknown woman, gringoVision rushed out a mailer entitled:

McCAIN PICKS ANNIE OAKLEY

GilbertWashington

UG spouts:
"PS. Creationism as a theory beats "kill the infidels"."

Posted by: Ummah Gummah | September 15, 2008 at 02:24

Perhaps your kids could be told this by their biology teacher next frog dissection.

mjfell

We had 8 years of peace and prosperity under Clinton, and yet the Democrats couldn't follow that up with another win. Clearly it was Clinton who won, not the Democrats. The Democrats don't have another candidate like Bill Clinton to offer, so I can't see when they can win again.

Posted by: FredK2929 | September 15, 2008 at 03:37 PM

Fred-

Peace and prosperity under Clinton?

Peace?

What about the USS Cole bombing? What about the World Trade Center Bombing in 1993? What about the attacks on our embassy in Kenya?

Prosperity?

The Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 led to a push for a balanced budget as part of the Republican "Contract with America" campaign, led by Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott. the Legislature reduced the deficit. The Legislature did not raise taxes. The Legislature did not initiate new government entitlement programs. The Legislature did not levy additional regulations on the growth of small business. The Legislature passed Welfare Reform.

Account Deleted

Gilbert,

FDIC limit raised to $10M ... not a bad idea. We would have to do a cost-benefit analysis on it and not hurt the taxpayer.

The best way to help small business, though, is with sound tax, fiscal, and monetary policy. And smaller government.

I know, I sound like a broken record.

Cheers,

Ummahgummah

With just over a third of american adults on the far left I am surprised that there isn't a movement afoot to put Trotsky on the dollar bill.

I'm puzzled as to why this isn't even at issue in England. Maybe they actually read The Telegraph before allowing the dog to squat on it.


Posted by: GilbertWashington

---

Non sequitur followed by non sequitur followed by non sequitur.

Ummahgummah

I know, I sound like a broken record.

Cheers,

Posted by: Michael Avari


---

Nothing wrong with a broken record if the music is the right one.

Some people need to be exposed repeatedly to get things.

GilbertWashington

Gringoman seems race obsessed:

McCAIN SURGE IN NEW YORK


http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/news/columnists/ladies_man_mac_is_a_player_in_ny_129211.htm/


New Democratic KIller Slogan:
Prove You're Not a Racist


Gringoman seems to have a major (pun intended) problem over the issue of dealing with racism which seems to have had a ripple effect (pun intended) carried over into his reasoning.
The NY Post article attributes the surge toward McC coming from women voters. Race isn't mentioned in the piece at all.
One wonders if Gringoman thinks by donning a cyber-blackface and singing Mammy that this shows racial tolorence however this type of race baiting suggesting that votes cast for Obama need come out of guilt is shameful.
The "new democratic slogan" isn't accurate or funny. Instead is shows an obsession towards ugly division not welcomed in today's polity.

FK

I'm hearing what I usually hear from Republicans when I talk about Clinton's record. They can't stand to recognize any successes by a Democratic president, so they say that any good things during his time in office were done by the Republican Congress.

But when there are successes during a Republican president's time in office, those successes are always attributed to the Republican president.

Reagan gets full credit for his economy (except for the Wall Street crash, which wasn't his fault).

Clinton gets no credit for his economy.

It's exhausting to deal with Republicans.

And now everyone thinks I didn't come from an intact family because of my earlier post. Wrong. I did. I was making a point, not saying that I came from a broken home.

FK

Michael --

BTW -- Thanks for your comment before. I still think the best thing would be for you to expand your American Civility blog, but keep people like Ummah and Gringo off it.

FK

Of course in 8 years of his presidency there were incidents you can point to. But overall, we enjoyed peace and prosperity in this country. We were not at war, and our president was respected abroad. Clinton could engage foreign leaders. Bush tries to give them back rubs and finds goodness (or some other garbage) in their eyes, even if they were formerly in the KGB.

GilbertWashington

UG muses:
"Nothing wrong with a broken record if the music is the right one.

Some people need to be exposed repeatedly to get things"

UG waxed expositorily that "UncleAlbert/AdmarilHalsey conatained 7 seperate pieces of music (almost like catfood) thereby raising the its pop author to the status of an Icon. It was used to juxtapose the (pejorative) Ono infuence on Lennon who reportedly ran in an anti-war rut.
The lyrics of the McC(artney) song in question seem to suggest a more satirical, if subdued, edge than the more strident Lennon lyrics; but a blow to empire nontheless. Listen a few more times UG, you'll get it, I'm sure.

Ummahgummah

Suppose we stop abusing Fred as the poster child for Liberalism? It is nice to read his contributions, as it forces all of us to think. What do you think?

Posted by: Michael Avari


---


Sorry, but he's caused too much bad blood already. I really don't see why his contributions cause anyone to think when he dispenses such obvious non-truisms like "Under Clinton we had eight years of peace".

All that causes me to think is that liberalism is indeed a Mental Disorder!

FK

I'm not so interested in the Beatles' individual post-Beatles careers.

Personally, I prefer the Kinks.

Account Deleted

MJ,

Here are the figures for real non-defense, non homeland security outlays by President:

Johnson 4.1%
Nixon 5.0%
Carter 1.6%
Reagan -1.4% (yes … negative!)
Bush 3.8%
Clinton 2.1%
Bush 4.8%

Bush had a Republican Congress for six years. What is his excuse?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf

regards,

Ummahgummah

The lyrics of the McC(artney) song in question seem to suggest a more satirical, if subdued, edge than the more strident Lennon lyrics; but a blow to empire nontheless. Listen a few more times UG, you'll get it, I'm sure.

Posted by: GilbertWashington

--

I really don't need your condescending "advice", Khalil Gilbert.

But thanks anyway for your middle-of-the-road vaguely semiotic-sounding semi-hip interperetation of the song.

Without you, I'd have never guessed!

Ummahgummah

PS. There's a difference between typos (of which I make a few myself) and frequently misspelt words.

Try to figure out that difference and then get back to me.

And please learn the distinction between plural and the possessive before you try to come off as more intelligent than anyone else - IF ya don't mind.

That was probably the best horoscope anyone ever wrote for the angry black "republican".

GilbertWashington

UG:

Without You was originally written by the Beatle created band, Badfinger, and then covered by Harry Nilsson. Harry hung in LA during Lennon's lost weekend.

The lyrics too suggest, a a blow to empire; a symbiosis between love and hate, the hater and the hated, and are satirical of neo-conservatives (thank religon you are not among them). although only a single melody based on a bagatelle by Eric Satie.

BTW Nilsson was a banker turned songsmith and got out of banking well ahead of a nick-of-time.

GilbertWashington

Prescriptive grammerians drive me nuts!

Hows my IQ doin', UG?

Ummahgummah

Of course in 8 years of his presidency there were incidents you can point to. But overall, we enjoyed peace and prosperity in this country. We were not at war, and our president was respected abroad

--


sorry, MA, but as long as Freak writes so many deranged things as the above it is nary impossible to respect him at all.

INCIDENTS!!

He calls the illegal bombing of our Christian ally Serbia on behalf of the jihadists an INCIDENT!!

The Khobar Tower and the Embassy bombings in Kenya plus the USS Cole attack are mere INCIDENTS!!

Hear hear!!!

The fact that 9/11 was preepared under the Clinton/Jamie Gorelick watch is what - another INCIDENT?!

Ummahgummah

Prescriptive grammerians drive me nuts!

Hows my IQ doin', UG?

Posted by: GilbertWashington

--

NUTS!

PS. the word you seem to be looking for is grammarian.

http://www.grammarian.com/

Ummahgummah

MJFELL, don't forget the illegal bombing runs on our old WWII ally serbia to make benefit for glorious Ummah of islam.

Ummahgummah

Michael --

BTW -- Thanks for your comment before. I still think the best thing would be for you to expand your American Civility blog, but keep people like Ummah and Gringo off it.

Posted by: FredK2929


--


Is he allowed to have Monica Crowley on his blog?

mjfell

MJ,

Here are the figures for real non-defense, non homeland security outlays by President:

Johnson 4.1%
Nixon 5.0%
Carter 1.6%
Reagan -1.4% (yes … negative!)
Bush 3.8%
Clinton 2.1%
Bush 4.8%

Bush had a Republican Congress for six years. What is his excuse?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf

regards,

Posted by: Michael Avari | September 15, 2008 at 06:48 PM

Michael-

If you check my posts you'll see that I've always implicated both George W. Bush and the 2000 Republican Congress for their spending.

I believe I described them as spending money faster than Amelda Marcos at a shoe sale.

One main reason I support McCain over Obama is because there's likely going to be a decidedly left leaning Democratic Congress after the November 2008 elections.

Does anyone really think that a President Obama will veto the spending bills passed by Reid, Pelosi & Kennedy?

Only a Republican President McCain will veto the pork and earmarks (massive spending) destined to come from such a Congress.

Account Deleted

MJ,

Apologies. I didn't realize that was your position. I agree with you about McCain and the veto.

Here is another chart of interest regarding vetos:

"Among Recent Administrations, President Reagan Stands Out as Most Willing to Use Veto" (Heritage Foundation)

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-C4-Among-Recent-Administrations-.html

Ummahgummah

I've also talked about THE VETO on this blog.

We are seeing the fleecing of America at the hands of the bankers right now.

What we don't need is that to be followed by the plundering of America by the World social activist industrial complex.

This whole bank thing is eerily redminiscent of the savings and Loans scandal during Bush I.

I do have to say it's a little suspicious that these "collapses" are happening at the end of Bush II.

Under Clinton we had the internet bubble burst.

It's almost as every time a different clique-claque comes into power to vampirize a particular industry, letting the taxpayer handle the cost.

I'm no fan of the Welfare Industrial Complex nor of wasting our money on wild foreign junkets but I certainly do not approve of these pirates living high off the hog schemning how to take dwon huge banking corporations as they jump from the crumbling heap, safely gliding off into the sunset on their golden parachutes.

In Germany they call these industrioal robber barons "locusts".

Seems a rather apt term to me.

Now it remains to be figured out what we can do to defend our taxpaying selves from this sort of thing.

Voting for "change" as proposed by the saul Alinski Dhimmicrats is unfortunately the exact opposite of a solution.

Ummahgummah

Just an afterthought.. the Chairman of the House ways and Means committe who has enormnous influence over the taxes we pay, Charles Rangel, dhimmicrat, has failed to pay taxes for his luxury villa in the Dominican Republic.

Just to put this pretty picture painted by the media of the "idealistic dhimmicrats" working tirelessly on behalf of 'the people' in proper perspective.

Account Deleted

Bloomberg on the effect of the events on Wall Street on the NYC economy ...

Of note:

"In the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the privatization of profits and socialization of losses that started with President Johnson is as good an example of government policy ignoring the basic laws of economics as you’ll find. Last week, the federal government had no choice but to step in to protect people’s homes, but it should never have been in that position in the first place. "

Right on Your Honor!

http://www.mikebloomberg.com/en/issues/mayor_bloomberg_briefs_city_on_impacts_of_wall_street_conditions.htm?CFID=2119604&CFTOKEN=72378504

The comments to this entry are closed.