Fox Attacks LGBT History Bill As "Propaganda" From "Pro-Gay Agenda"
Fox & Friends recently hosted Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson to bash a California bill that would require inclusion of LGBT history in textbooks. Carlson falsely suggested that the bill wouldn't teach "what actually happened" in history, and asserted the bill would not curb bullying of gay students. In fact, research shows that including LGBT issues in curricula reduces bullying.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Fox Attacks CA Bill As "In The Way" of Educating Children, Part Of "Pro-Gay Agenda"
F&F Refers To Bill With Text Reading: "Lessons In Homosexuality?" Teasing an upcoming segment on a California bill proposing to require schools to teach students about the history of the LGBT movement, co-host Gretchen Carlson said: "Coming up next, a new lesson plan being added to our kids' schools: gay rights? But should it be starting in kindergarten?" The text displayed during Carlson's remarks read: "Lessons In Homosexuality?" [Fox News' Fox & Friends 12/17/10]
Tucker Carlson: The Bill Is "Propaganda" And "Blackmail." During the December 17 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy had Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson on to discuss the proposed bill:
STEVE DOOCY: They've tried this out in California before and it has failed. Why now?
TUCKER CARLSON: Look, you don't need to be anti-gay to be against this and you can acknowledge that there is bullying in school including of gay kids. There are two problems with this. One, it's propaganda and two, it's blackmail. The point of history is to teach what happened. Not what you wanted to happen. Not what you hope will happen but what actually happened. In this case, a lawmaker is saying, portray a special -- an interest group in a positive light or kids will be hurt. Hence the blackmail. They are basically saying if you don't do this, kids could die. And that's an outrageous thing to say.
DOOCY: Yeah. The people behind this say that in the history books, there's nothing about the historical significance of gay people. So if somebody was gay, they want that out there.
CARLSON: Right. What I -- what they're saying is the point of history is to raise the self-esteem of students. It's to find yourself in the history book and see the group to which you belong portrayed in a positive light. And again, of course, that's not the point of history. The point of history is to teach you what happened.
DOOCY: Facts.
CARLSON: It's the -- that's exactly right. It's not to make people feel good about themselves. It's not to achieve social aims. It's to tell the truth about what went before. And that's being subverted by a lawmaker and it's dangerous.
DOOCY: Now, I could see, Tucker, if a person's gayness had historical significance.
CARLSON: Oh, sure.
DOOCY: That should be in there.
CARLSON: Well, of course.
DOOCY: But, to do it this way, it seems unusual. And to -- and then to add the whole thing that if we don't start doing this, kids are going to get beat up, down the, you know, eventually. Does that seem like a stretch to you? [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 12/17/10]
Tucker Carlson: "There Isn't Social Science That Demonstrates That Teaching Children About The Glories Of The Gay Rights Movement Will Reduce Bullying." From the December 17 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
CARLSON: Well, I mean, not only is it -- first of all, it's unproven. There isn't social science that demonstrates that teaching children about the glories of the gay rights movement will reduce bullying. That just doesn't -- we don't know that. But more to the point, again, that's not the purpose of school. The purpose of -- it may be the purpose of church, it may something that parents should do, it may be something that civic leaders want to take on, but the purpose of school is to educate children and this not only differs from that aim, it gets in the way of it.
DOOCY: Ultimately it just looks like somebody is trying to put a pro-gay agenda in schools.
CARLSON: Well, it's interest group politics, right. [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 12/17/10]
But Bill Would "Teach What Happened" By Including The "Historical Contributions Of Gay People"
CA Bill To Require Schools To Start "Teaching Students Historical LGBT Figures" and "LGBT Equal Rights Movement." On December 13, California State Senator Mark Leno (D, SF) introduced the Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act, which requires public schools to include historical contributions of the LGBT community by adding "the LGBT community to the existing list of under-represented cultural and ethnic groups already listed in the state's inclusionary education requirements." In the accompanying press release, Leno stated of the bill:
"Most textbooks don't include any historical information about the LGBT movement, which has great significance to both California and U.S. history," said Senator Leno (D-San Francisco). "Our collective silence on this issue perpetuates negative stereotypes of LGBT people and leads to increased bullying of young people. We can't simultaneously tell youth that it's OK to be yourself and live an honest, open life when we aren't even teaching students about historical LGBT figures or the LGBT equal rights movement." [State Senator Leno's press release, 12/13/10]
Sac Bee Blog: Bill "Would Require Public School Materials To Include The Historical Contributions Of Gay People." A December 13 post on The Sacramento Bee blog CapitolAlert stated that the bill "would require public school materials to include the historical contributions of gay people as a way to fight bullying," and later noted that "[t]he bill's aim is to work information about historical figures and events into materials that are up for regular review and revision by state public school authorities." [CapitolAlert, The Sacramento Bee, 12/13/10]
Research Shows Teaching LGBT History Reduces Bullying And Makes All Students Feel Safer
CA Safe Schools Coalition: "Students Feel Safer At School When LGBT Issues Are Included In The Curriculum" And Report "Less LGBT Bullying At School." The California Safe Schools Coalition surveyed California students and school administrators in 2003, 2004 and 2005 to determine whether curriculum that includes attention to LGBT people "promote[s] safer school climates." According to their research, "students who report learning about LGBT issues in school... report fewer mean rumors or lies spread about them, fewer reports of being made fun of because of their looks or the way they talk, and less LGBT bullying at school." The California Safe Schools Coalition also concluded that not only did more LGBT students feel safer at schools with LGBT issues in the curriculum, but "[m]ore straight students report feeling safe if they learned about LGBT issues." The report concluded:
Finding 1: Individual students feel safer at school when LGBT issues are included in the curriculum; this is true for LGBT students and for their straight peers.
[...]
Finding 2: School climates are safer when LGBT issues are part of the curriculum.
[...]
Finding 3: Many California school districts already include LGBT issues in the curriculum and many more are interested in doing so. [California Safe Schools Coalition, Safe Schools "LGBT Issues in the Curriculum Promotes School Safety", 2006]
Tucker Carlson Has History Of Dismissing Gay Rights
Tucker Carlson And His Site Have Repeatedly Mocked And Dismissed Gay Rights Issues. As Media Matters For America has previously documented, Tucker Carlson has a history of dismissing gay rights issues. On the December 8 edition of Fox & Friends, Carlson dismissed assertions that Arabic translators were discharged from the military under Don't Ask, Don't Tell, saying, "spare me," and calling DADT a "stupid issue." Additionally, Carlson's website, The Daily Caller, has a history of posting content with anti-gay language. For example, one of the first posts to the site included writer Matt Labash wishing he could "be the sexiest man alive, like Rachel Maddow," and a post in November referred to Rosie O'Donnell as half a man.
I can't decide a single useful thing about you based on your race, age, ethnicity, familial status, sexual orientation or handicap. Those descriptors are meaningless and I wish we would quit defining ourselves and others that way. I could care less if you are black, hispanic, white, gay, old or any other physical characteristic.
I am much more interested to know if you are honest and have integrity in your dealings with your fellow humans.
"I'm not a racist, but..."
I am a race baiter.
<ignore>
<apply>
I don't know who is saying that the factors you list above won't or shouldn't "play a part in the life you live". But the point is that they should not be predeterminers in the way people are treated or evaluated. They should be irrelevant in that context. That is not to say that we all don't see or identify the differences in race, age, ethnicity etc. We are all different. A black person is not a white person, but we are all individuals who should be judged on our character, not our skin color.
And I also don't know of anyone who says there is not racism or sexism in our society. Sadly, it still exists. But we have as a country made tremendous strides from where we were, obviously. And to continue to make progress is to start treating people equally and looking past these differences in order to falsely elevate someone, or falsely put them down. Either case it's unfair.
If you read through this thread you will see where kdork claims that we can choose to believe in a color blind society. This is where my skepticism comes into play. This is coming from a Becker. It is undeniable that Beck (and others on the far right) have come up with an all out blitz to only make it reasonable to call into the consideration the racist intent of minorities. It is unacceptable to consider Rush Limbaugh a racist for his numerous racist and race-baiting comments. But, it is defensible to call the president a racist with a deep seeded hatred for white people. That is a scary change in our political discourse. It is emotion and partisanship over reality and reasonableness.
We have made tremendous strides as a society. But, it was only a couple of generations ago that the South was legally treating black adults as if they were second class citizens. It was only 40 some years ago that they were murdering black Civil Rights leaders in the South. It was only several generations ago that blacks were treated as property and we fought a war over it. Most civilizations did not have to fight a war with their own countrymen in order to get rid of slavery.
These things will not be healed in only a generation or two. It will take time. And, to pretend like we are all now starting on equal footing and that the ramifications of these decisions that we, as a country, made are not still active is to live in denial. In my opinion.
As for equal footing, you certainly will not attain that by favoring one over another, in any capacity.
Then, we fought an entire war over the idea that they were property. We killed a significant portion of our population over it. Then, after the war, we still allowed them to be treated as second class citizens. And, we allowed this until the mid 1960s! And, that was only in legalized form. We cannot pretend that 40 years later this kind of institutionalized racism only exists in history books. We have to be more honest about our own complicity than that.
And you keep giving me a history lesson on past racial atrocities as if you cannot get beyond it and into 2010/2011. If that's all you're going to do, then what is the point?
We cannot pretend that a black man like Gates was treated the same way a white professor would have been in a similar situation because we want it to be true. We know, for a fact, that blacks are treated differently by law enforcement. We cannot pretend as if whites and blacks are thought of on equal footing in the real world. That is my point. Things like affirmative action are not antiquated because we have used them for a generation and now we can move on. The situation we created is much more complex than that. In my opinion.
Agreed, and it's significantly over 200 years.
If it were up to the individuals who face discrimination and its lasting material effects, discrimination and its lasting material effects wouldn't exist. Your position's logical implication is that the fault for continuing effects of racial discrimination rest on the shoulders of the individuals who face racial discrimination, since they alone can choose whether or not to "rise above it".
Not everything is a question of individual choice.
Well now why is it so abominable if it can be defeated by a simple decision by the individuals who face it to "rise above"?
You're going to have to decide at some point whether racism is a real social phenomenon that extends beyond individuals' agency, or it's nothing but isolated individuals' decisions to "rise above" or "carry scars".
As for this whopper "Your position's logical implication is that the fault for continuing effects of racial discrimination rest on the shoulders of the individuals who face racial discrimination, since they alone can choose whether or not to "rise above it". Huh? So you think I am implying that racial discrimination is the fault of those being discriminated against? Again, ridiculous.
Let me make it simple for you. You can either choose to continue to cry that racism is the biggest determiner or the biggest obstacle you face, or you can choose to pursue your dreams and your opportunity in spite of those in society who throw it at you.
Like millions do every day. It's your choice. If you can't grasp this, or think it's some veiled racist implication on my part, tough.
And in either case, you'll still face racism. How exactly does that personal choice affect the social reality of racism? Individual choice isn't the issue here.
Unless you think it's impossible.
Of course, and the range of avenues and choices are not dependent exclusively upon the individual, but were established in large part by social institutions.
I dont like personal anecdotes, but I think this may serve here.,
I have 2 good friends,1 african american and a successful business person. the other originally from Haiti and a lawyer.
both of them drive nice cars and are routinely pulled over 3-6 times per year for "random" checks. this has never happened to me.
my point is that yes Im glad that it is normal and not even to be remarked upon that many Blacks have been given the opportunity to rise or fall as there talents and work ethic dictate.however I dont believe for a second that black americans or hispanics are treated with the fairness that I take for granted every day
You can either let the ugly stain of racism, past and present, define you and your choices. Or you can choose that it not.
Individuals overcome these type of obstacles every day. Because they choose too.
You know, I was talking to someone recently about racism, and that person suggested telling that white person not to cry that racism is the biggest determiner or the biggest obstacle. Instead, that white person should just choose to pursue his or her dreams and your opportunity in spite of those in society who throw it at you. Really effective advice, don't you think?
I prefer it happen to nobody.
Affirmative action programs, if carried out well, don't "discriminate against" anyone. Take, for instance, how the military instituted affirmative action:
In no affirmative action program with which I've had any contact or involvement could it be argued that a white person lost a position to a black person, because at no time was the racist assumption entertained that it was the white person's to lose by default. At no time was someone unqualified awarded a position over someone who was qualified.
There certainly are bad affirmative action programs out there, and I oppose them, but affirmative action is not inherently racist discrimination in any way comparable to, say, redlining.
I agree with you: I prefer discrimination to happen to nobody.
Informal discrimination is already in place. Why is establishing a formal mechanism to counter that a bad idea inherently?
I don't deny that affirmative action programs attend to race. But likening a well designed affirmative action program -- one that responds to measurable social and historical effects of race prejudice -- to outright racial discrimination based on stereotypes and beliefs about racial superiority is simply irrational. Ignoring the significant distinctions between the two doesn't make those distinctions go away.
Huh? What does that mean, that if someone is denied a job because they have not been historically or socially discriminated against that is ok?
Race should be irrelevant in hiring, period. If it isn't, then there is no way around discriminating against someone. I don't care how you dress it up or well design it. It is what it is.
Identifying as black or African American statistically correlates to lower life expectancy, less wealth, worse health care and education. That's a real, measurable effect of race prejudice. (Unless you think African Americans individually just perform worse because of inherent qualities, in which case, I don't see any reason to continue this conversation with you.)
If you believe that discrimination is real, that it has happened, that it has informally affected hiring practices, then it makes sense to design a program to formally counter the effects of that discrimination.
Yes, I agree completely. It hasn't been. Formal and informal racial discrimination based on stereotypes and prejudice is a documented historical fact. The playing field was not level to begin with.
Then what's your objection to affirmative action programs that acknowledge the real historical and social effects of informal race discrimination?
You don't correct past wrongs by doing the exact same thing in the opposite direction until it somehow evens out, or something.
Very good. How do you propose to end informal racial discrimination completely without acknowledging race as a social category?
Affirmative action isn't an attempt to "swing the pendulum in the other direction". The pendulum was one of racial supremacy. Affirmative action programs don't presume that race is even a biological category, and they certainly don't presume racial supremacy of any group. This is why the distinction between acknowledging race as a social category and discriminating against a person on the basis of racist stereotypes and supremacist beliefs is so important. (You still don't seem to acknowledge that there's any important difference between the two, which, I suppose explains why you seem so confused on the issue.)
Which explains why you are stuck.
How is that baloney? Because you said so? The only thing an affirmative action program necessarily presumes is that racial discrimination exists in the world.
What an optimistic view.
Race, the specific category of identity that we recognize today, emerged with colonialism. It has a historical specificity. It has not always existed, and I firmly believe it will not always exist. A huge step forward in that process is to acknowledge that race is a social category rather than a biological one, but one with real consequences. That's how you start to get away from it.
I have no issue with seeing and acknowledging the different races and the inherent characteristics of them. However, identifying those differences does not mean that I advocate they be treated differently solely because of their race. On the contrary, a person's race is irrelevant to me. I don't judge them because of it, and I wouldn't hire or not hire anyone because of it.
OK, so you're just ignorant about race. You should read up on race. Race -- the category that you've been talking about -- is not a biological category among humans. You're simply wrong about this. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.
"As a biological term, race denotes genetically divergent human populations that can be marked by common phenotypic traits"
"Irish" was considered a race a hundred years ago. The concept we've been discussing is a folk taxonomy, not a biological category.
I couldn't care less if you consider yourself some elitist expert on race. You don't impress with me at all.
Who is talking about ethnicity? A hundred years ago, people argued that Irish were a distinct biological strain of person.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I consider myself or not. You're simply incorrect on this matter. I've cited sources to support my position. It's not my fault that you refuse to accept scientific findings and instead cling to your own beliefs.
This isn't my opinion: these are the best scientific accounts available in the 21st century. I'm afraid you're the one who has to explain how the things we refer to as races -- categories that each encompasses a huge phenotypic variety and ridiculously larger genetic variation among people that are geographically dispersed -- are strictly biological pure categories rather than socially determined.
Here's what Craig Venter of the National Institute of Health said following the completion of the mapping of the human genome in 2000:
But hey, I'm sure you're much smarter and have access to better data than that elitist chump.
Enjoy your life in the late 19th century. You've got a lot to look forward to.
You want to expand the conversation beyond that for the reasons I have already mentioned.
You may fool the academic liberals in your think tank, but not me. Sorry.
I'm sorry, I'd love to continue this conversation, but I have to go back to my underground fortress where the other academic liberals and I are plotting our re-engineering project for the human species.
Seriously, read a book about the history of race. It won't hurt. You might actually learn something.
Translation; Discrimination.
The best qualified of all candidates were already taken out of the affirmative action process. The quote you extracted referred to candidates in a gray area of "micromillimeter differences" -- which is precisely where informal racial prejudice would most affect promotions and would need to be countered.
You can call this discrimination if you want, but it's significantly unlike discriminating against someone because you believe that "blacks can't swim" as Rush Limbaugh has argued. To claim that there's no difference here is to claim that there's no difference between a wink and a twitch, or between a murderer and an executioner.
I don't give a damn how the government did it or does it or how well designed it is. Read. This. Slowly. > If race is a determining factor at all discrimination is inherent. Dress it with some cute rhetorical gobbledygook but you have yet to show me how that is not true.
Because you can't.
He's a pretty handy example of a prominent figure who makes racist arguments (and claims that he has scientific data to back his arguments) in the 21st century. Racial stereotypes of this sort of far from dead.
I already conceded that you can call this discrimination. It is discrimination of a significantly different kind than the sort based on stereotypes and beliefs of racial superiority. To argue otherwise is to ignore a significant distinction. Dress that up any way you like.
Good. Because it is and on principle I am opposed to discrimination, period, against anyone/everyone. Not just selectively as you apparently are.
The program I cited above doesn't have quotas or timetables.
I don't deny it: the perception is still there among racists. Rational people don't hold that belief. Or shall we cater to the beliefs of racists?
That pretty much sums up your position. Sad.
What are you talking about? Who did I accuse falsely of being racist?
Note that project21reps was referring to a perception regardless of reality. You're the one who is arguing that race, the folk taxonomy, is a biological reality...
So, start dealing with real people and real consequences of your "position" instead of wrapping your argument in the warm confines of some government study or some think tank nonsense.
I am not impressed.
It's really not my problem that logic confuses you and seems unrelated to reality. Thanks for offering your perspective, though.
But thanks for trying. :)
Happy holidays, friend.
Happy Holidays back at ya.....
But that's different than what you said. Even if it holds true in some cases, I took your earlier comment to be about a more generalized perception: that "we got the job, not on merit, but because of the color of our skin."
There are plenty of people who have jobs they don't deserve for reasons other than merit, but you're describing a generalized perception or doubt that haunts all people of color. The affirmative action program I cited above doesn't promote anyone who isn't qualified: everyone who gets the job has the merit for the job.
If someone's first reaction upon seeing an employed black person is to think, "Huh, I wonder whether or not s/he earned the position by merit", then yeah, I'd say that's a racist prejudice. You could just as easily wonder whether or not a white person got the job through "good ol' boy" racial networks -- and that would be a racist assumption as well, wouldn't it?
Bringing up "blacks" in a conversation, etc, is not racist, nor pointing out short comings in our community racists. Part of the biggest problem we face is by white liberals fighting our battles for us. You usually get it wrong, because, for the most part, it's not racism that is a concern to them, it is attacking the opposition that is important. Thus, we hear spurrious attacks against our supporters, from whites progressives, in order to silence or diminish them in the eyes of the people at large. The merits of the charge be damned. Just make the charge and some will fall for it, and start believing that people like Rush are racists, thus lessening there influence with some. It is a game those on the left play, at our expense, and your side needs to knock it off.
Arguing that there's scientific data to support the claim that "blacks can't swim" isn't merely bringing up "blacks" in conversation. Arguing that "blacks can't swim", and defending that claim as "point out shortcomings in our community" does, in fact, serve racist ends. This is a racial stereotype that's been debunked over and over again along with the notion of race as a biological category among humans.
So tell me about Project21. It sounds really interesting. Exactly how does it help to combat racial identity politics by having a political group that identifies in terms of race?
Re: project 21: Project 21 also has taken a lead role in bringing to public attention the fact that a substantial number of government environmental rules have a disproportionately negative economic impact on minorities. In addition to assisting with the research and publication of over 60 studies, op-eds and press releases on this topic in recent years, in 2002, joining with the John P. McGovern Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs to form a Center for Environmental Justice, Project 21 released a comprehensive econometric analysis of the impact of so-called "smart growth" regulations on minorities. The study, "Smart Growth and Its Effects on Housing Markets: The New Segregation" was published in November, 2002.
Project 21 is also actively involved in educating the public on proposals to empower communities rather than the government. For instance, Project 21 was instrumental in promoting the ideas incorporated in the Community Renewal Act, sponsored by Reps. Jim Talent (R-MO) and J.C. Watts (R-OK) in the 105th Congress. Project 21's Contract with Black America, proposed to the leadership of the Republican Congress in January 1995, started the process that eventually led to the crafting of the Community Renewal Act.
For more information on Project 21, contact staff director David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x106 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21 online at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html.
I provided a link to an eight minute audio clip of Limbaugh's remarks along with a transcript.
Absolutely. If the stereotype to which you're referring holds that poor swimming is causally linked to race, then yes, it's racist no matter who holds the belief.
Thanks for your information about Project 21.
-education system
-legal system
-most aptitude tests
-social hierarchy
-social mobility
It has even been documented that lighter skin in africain-americain society tends to be more " desirable" and increases socila mobility in white society.
White guy that has been discriminated against..LMAO
Now, to your list. I say that the disparity is the legacy of slavery and it's hateful aftermath. And your sides pitiful attempts to make amends have only made things worse, if your list can be trusted.
How odd, then, that simply being identified as black in the United States correlates statistically to decreased wealth, life expectancy, health care and education. Yes, how easy indeed.
You know, for someone who has argued that race isn't a determinant of identity, I'm surprised to see you refer to such a disparate set of people as "my communities". It's almost as if you're acknowledging some kind of social importance and power to racial categories.[/quote]
I would, as you might imagine by now, disagree with your (and Sowell's, I presume) argument that statistical correlations between race, health, wealth and education should be ascribed to "dependence on government assistance." (When it comes to poor schools, drugs and neglect, however, I agree wholeheartedly.) I might suggest that a few hundred years of institutionalized racism, absolute denial of human right, property rights and political rights might have some lasting effects.
But for the sake of argument, let's set aside those disagreements. Let's say that the situation is exactly as you say: blacks in America are disadvantaged, sociologically, because of community dependency and neglect. If that's the case, then individual choice really isn't the issue here: social forces are. No matter how any one isolated individual decides to confront racism, the larger problem must be confronted at the level of institutions and social processes.
As for being interested in the subject, I am, and I will. Thanks for the recommendation. If you're interested in these issues as well, I'd recommend reading Frantz Fanon and WEB Du Bois if you haven't already.
I would like to also point out, that when discussing a subject such as this, many factors have played a part in where the black man in america is today. Government assistance has had a detrimental effect on my community, as well as other things, such as lack of quality education. The unintended consequence's of the government assistant programs have had a negative effect, overall, on my community. Not all of the programs, but enough of them have impacted us negatively. And the fact that those who are bringing these programs to us, mainly white liberals in government, won't recognize that some of these programs hurt, not help us, keeps us in the cycle of dependency.
I really do appreciate that you've clarified your position.
No, actually.
You make this statement:It is undeniable, etc. I say WTF? None of that is true. Nor is what you say of Rush true either. I know for a fact that both work with and support project 21, and have done so for years. For you to spread such despicable lies about people is unconscionable. And yes, just forty years ago, the democrats in the south were beating, maiming, bombing and killing my people. Glad you remember it so vividly, chief. A word to the wise, if you really are interested in healing, than stick to the truth. Stop trying to take all the glory but none of the shame, as it's the party that you support that has most of the shame on its hands. Your right, forty years is not long enough to have healed from the degradation your party inflicted on a segment of citizens of this nation. The legacy lives on. Your attempts at revisionists history are laughable, but also shows that your party has not changed. You can't be trusted.
As to the southern stratergy, again I ask you to support your statement that it was racist, and that it perpetuated racism in the south. On the contrary, racial tensions a lot greater, these days, in the north than in the south, judging by the amount of blacks being killed in the north by whites, the living conditions of urban blacks in the north, and the phenomanun of driving while black which really isn't a problem in the south as it is in the north. Your side keeps bringing up the southern stratergy as one that invited the sheet wearing southerns into the republican fold. On the contrary, it only invited those southerners who would agreee to forgo there racists ways, take off the sheets, and get with the republican program of civil rights for all americans. Unlike the democrats who embraced the sheet wearing A--holes.
Racists will never change. They are alive and well. I bet i could link you to "Stormfront" and you won't say they are racist, if you don't say they are all democrats first.
Because I'm not on Fox News' email list. Apparently you are.
Continue to believe the lies, project21. Your assimilation into the authoritarian Borg is complete.
But more serously, how old are you? I only ask because you seem to have a juvenile grasp of history, politics, logic, and common sense.
How many strawmen will you build today?
A little goose with the gander....
Exactly. I hate how the left always identifies people by categories of identity like race that we've tried to eliminate. Like that horrible leftist Project 21, a political group that identifies itself specifically in terms of race. Disgusting.
Right?...Right?
I don't really want to get into this again, especially since after I wrote this comment you explained thoroughly your position -- which I accept and respect. I would simply point out that on the one hand you seem to object to affirmative action, a policy dedicated to correcting the problems created by slavery, jim crowe, etc, because it reifies racial categories, while at the same time you support an organization with the same mission that relies upon the same racial identification.
I think Project 21 is a perfectly fine group with wonderful aims, but you act as if any "liberal" program or group oriented towards racial categories of identification "perpetuates that which we, as a nation, have tried to eliminate from our society."
And yet the Democratic party is the MOST diverse party around. More African American men and women in the House of Representatives, African Americans Senators and the first African American President.
So tell me, HOW did the so called party of Lincoln and Civil Rights, that is soooo non racists, become become 89% White?
Not so much, actually.
Glenn Beck, December 9,2010: "If you are white or you are an American citizen or a white American citizen you are pretty much toast"
John Gibson, May 12, 2006: "Make more babies" because in "[t]wenty-five years ... the majority of the population is Hispanic"
I can provide many more examples if you like...
But they actually are meaningful, and that's the problem. I agree, I don't like those categories either, but they exist. The fact that they're social constructs doesn't make them meaningless; in fact, just the opposite. Law is a social construct, but that doesn't mean it's not real. Race, unfortunately, has real and serious consequences in the world, despite the fact that it is in no way a biological category among humans.
I'm happy that you're more interested in honesty and integrity, but that still leaves the rest of the world that must be convinced of your priorities.
What the-? What does that even mean? Your religion plays no part in the person you are? You are getting more confused by the day around here.
Hmm. I find your thought process fascinating. If your religion does so little for you, why bother?
and in case you missed my point, telling you I am a christian doesn't tell you anything about my character, now does it?
Islam=terrorist
Jews= are imperfect for rejecting Christ
Hindus=Idolaters
Buddhists=miguided
Catholics=papists
In America the righ infers that only one religion is right i.e. Southern Baptists, Evangelicals, US protestantism.
Any christian movement that sees America as the spiritual successor of the House of Isreal, that America is somehow the New Zion, that is the true religion and it does define people in the eyes of the right.
You assert that the 'left' is racist. Do you have any examples of this? It was liberals who boycotted segregated buses and lunch counters. It was liberals who championed, bled for, and finally passed the Civil Rights Act. It was conservatives who fought it every step of the way.
I'm not arguing that internment isn't racist, I'm arguing against the link you proposed between internment and "the left". If you've read Malkin's book then you understand that the right doesn't seem to have a problem arguing in favor of it.
As for interning fellow Americans without the benefit of trial, perhaps you missed it when the Bush administration suspended habeas corpus?
Do you count Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly as conservatives?
So when Rush Limbaugh was arguing with a caller that there was scientific evidence to support his claim that blacks can't swim, how was he not viewing "the world through the prism of color"?
As for O'Reilly:
No prism of color there either, eh?
Are you judging these networks and shows based on the skin color of their guests instead of the content of their character? Weren't you the one who said this?:
You'll have to decide at some point whether it's irrelevant or it isn't.
Please enlighten me. How does arguing that blacks can't swim advance a view of the world not seen through the prism of race?
Japanese-American internment: Created by Roosevelt in a bad policy mix of bad advice and bigoted popular support. This has been roundly condemned since the time it was enacted by liberals and people who are interested in rights for all. The only 'modern' equivalent is the detention center at Gitmo, which was not opened or created by liberals.
Affirmative Action: designed to reduce the impact of race, creed, gender and sexual preference in hiring. In other words, to make the ones doing the hiring act more fairly. Who controls corporations for the most part? Hint: not liberals.
Affirmative action was a response to the atrocities perpetulated by the democrats who had institulized racism. Though well intended, it is still a racist policy.
No, it wasn't.
Exactly who is arguing the counter position to this?
Therefore I'm calling BS. You're not black. You're a pimply white teen in his mother's basement.
Ridiculous.
This would be ample proof of racism.
Not to mention all the minorities that got thrown under the bus by Republicans this last election cycle as they banked on the angry poor white vote.
the scary black criminal.and yes the group that ginned up the ad later admitted that race was a factor in it
Is that the problem? You actually use to know all of these basics, but have just forgotten them? Did you forget who Strom Thurmond was? Once again, you have to be an adolescent. You just cannot be a grown man and be so intent on proving your own ignorance over and over again.
First, "La Raza" in spanish has a different context than in english. It means the race, but its also short for "la raza humana", the human race. Hispanics/latinos are classified as a single separate group instead of mixed race, black or white because of the vast level of racial mizing that is prevalecent in Latin America. A latino can be Black, white, Native or mixed. To say that a latino group is racially exclusive is very ignorant.
Second, Constantly making "1984" references makes you sound like a political hack that can't make an original thought. Although that is not very far fetched when describing you.
And, Farrakhan is in the Democratic party? There is no limit to the pretzel you are willing to twist yourself into in order to justify the belief system that Beck has constructed for you. David Duke is not a Republican, but Louis Farrakhan is a Democrat. I am back to feeling pity for you, kdork.
Yes. That would be nice.
You're talking about the NCLR? I'd love to see the evidence you have that the NCLR "promotes their race as being superior to any other race."
You may have already been told that "raza" doesn't have a one-to-one correspondence with the English word "race", but I doubt you'll accept that. So let's try this another way. What race do you think NCLR believes to be superior to all others? The "race" of people of Chicano and Mexican descent and of the Hispanic world and of mestizos who share Native American or national Hispanic heritage? Exactly how does a group that diverse correspond to the popular American conceptual category of "race"?
If that's the case, then it should be easy, then, for you to produce a shred of evidence.
From Wikipedia's MEChA entry:
MEChA is to NCLR what the Nation of Islam is to the NAACP.
It's strange, actually. Aren't you the person who defended the Republican party by saying, "One name does not a party make", and "what I believe is that he is one man, and that one man does not define the party"? And that's in the case of someone actually affiliated with the party in question.
"And coming from the racists left, is it any wonder why you are skeptical of those who choose to believe in a color blind society." - kdork
First of all, when you suggest that I am racist it is actually you that is race-baiting. But, I don't expect you to understand that - it is far too complex for your mindset. What I find terribly interesting is that you think we can "choose to believe in a color blind society" even if it does not exist. This is how the belief system of a Becker works. Facts and reality play not part. It is all about your emotions and how you feel and what you believe. Even when you know is it not the truth. Feelings over facts. I find it fascinating. Please continue.
And yet it's the way you just identified yourself first and foremost. Some insignificant category, eh?
I agree with you copletely that we need to annihilate race as a cateory of distinction, but it is now a social reality and to pretend it isn't has pernicious consequences.
Perhaps you could explain what you take to be "BS" in what I wrote? I don't think anyone should be seen as a race either. Where exactly do we differ?
Yes, it is, and for the last few hundred years, race has been a key determinant of social, political and economic status globally. Colonialism and slavery weren't bad dreams, they were hstorical realities with material effects that contiue. That years now begin with "20" doesn't eliminate the effects of institutionalized racial discrimination.
FOXPAC IS RIGHT! The homosexuals are going to take over! We've got to hide ourselves! Guys, grab some Lycra pants and learn to use the term "fabulous" Gals, shave your heads and learn to love denim vests and sleeveless t-shirts!
(I'm sorry if I'm being too stereotypical in my sarcasm?)
B- it's relevant because when a certain group of people is being told by family, politicians, clergy, the media, people like you, etc. that who they are naturally attracted to makes them disgusting and subhuman and they should just go kill themselves, maybe, just MAYBE, it empowers them a little to know what people like them have accomplished.
Excellent. So, during a time of turbulence, when there was very strong anti-homosexual currents in our society, Harvey Milk's sexual orientation would, in fact, be necessary to note.
By the way, most history is sanitized. An example? The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were both drafted on hempen paper. The Smithsonian no longer identifies hemp and its economic and military importance to the colonies because of idiotic and draconian Republican drug policy. The War of 1812 was about hemp, but this, too, has been scrubbed from history. Realize that it is the Faux Cons who are most at fault this way.
Now wait just a minute. If the inventor of a gadget significant to human history were a Martian, yeah, I'd say that's a pretty important detail and I would want children to learn about that in school rather than go on in life with the incorrect belief that everything they use is the product of Earthlings' work. You see, that the inventor identifies personally as a Martian isn't really important; what's historically significant are the social entailments. (Is this what you're calling 'context'?)
Social categories do, in fact, have historical significance, and if you're going to claim that an individual is of historic importance, one had better pay attention to the historically specific social categories associated with any individual.
Take Christopher Columbus, for instance. If you reject identity categories like sex, gender, sexuality and race, can I safely guess that you deem nationality equally arbitrary and irrelevant? If you do, you'd miss out on the entire historical significance of Columbus's voyage. It does matter that a guy from Genoa ended up sailing for the Indies with the support of Queen Isabella. This has monumental geopolitical effects.
And because of the particular way European colonialism unfolded, particular racial categories emerged which ended up being historically significant. And under the rubric of civil rights, movements emerged seeking political and social equality for people regardless of racial identity. And with that precedent, Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man elected to public office in California, pushed for legislation that protected the civil rights of all people regardless of sexual identity and orientation.
Regardless of how you or I feel about identity politics or the politics of sexuality or race, we cannot pretend that they weren't historically significant. They belong in history books if we're going to teach meaningful history honestly and critically.
Do you disagree?
I do concede your point about the martian.
It is the same way many different types of people relate to one another...the whole, "look, we're different...but not that much" conversation.
Fox News personalities give enough to let people know that gays are bad. My experience has been, by relating to them, you can find a lot more common ground and much more acceptance.
My wife certainly takes it into consideration when taking into account what kind of a husband she wants. It is part of who I am. Someday when you meet a nice girl, you'll start to understand that your sexuality is actually a significant part of who you are.
Pick your issue...they are all going to "offend" someone. However, some of us choose not to have our head in the sand and acknowledge that the history of the US is a result of people from all creeds, races, genders, sexual preferences, etc.
What about gay parents with children enrolled in public schools? If civil rights figures like Harvey Milk are dismissed from education or the history of the AIDS crises are left out of high school curriculum because of the potential to "offend," can gay parents be exempt from paying taxes?
They don't exist. Any other concerns?
My statement was aimed more at the "Intelligent Design" movement which is founded entirely in religious myth and holds absolutely no scientific merit. That's the issue that really infuriates me. It shows that the people who are pushing ID have such an ignorance of science that they don't even know why evolutionary theory is proven or that ID has no more scientific validity than astrology or phrenology.
Seeing how you weren't present at the beginning of the universe, anyone's guess as good as any.
The perfect example of someone who know so little about science, he doesn't even realize how ignorant he is. But, I'm more than willing to try to help him out.
In science, a theory is an idea that has withstood testing and research and has been proven. Otherwise, it would be called a hypothesis. The only way to be more certain than a theory is to be proven through mathematics.
Darwin was not as certain about his theory because he did not have the benefit of DNA (particularly mitochondrial DNA), not did he have as complete a fossil record as we have today. Since Darwin's time, many of his assertions have held up; some have been modified and some have been discarded altogether.
If you're actually interested, watch this.
That's my answer to that.
Your parents have every right to be upset, especially when by not intervening the employees of and volunteers for a public school tacitly endorse such despicable behavior.
This brings to mind the two kinds of encouraging bullying that I see - at least out here in the spectacularly intolerant part of the country where I am stuck until my middle daughter graduates (on I-44 just over the MO state line, western side). Here I have heard of examples of bullying by students that is (mis) handled in a couple of ways. One, teachers see it, and do nothing - that falls under the "teacher condone" category, in my opinion. Two, administrators DO it, while making excuses for their actions, in the presence of other teachers, or parents ("You shouldn't let your kids play with her because she had head-lice"). Three, administrators (middle-school VP) punishes child who was bullied, for being bullied. These kinds of behavior make me very angry, two of them happened to my daughter (youngest), the other to a neighbor girl (middle school one). And there is nothing I can do about it, except leave this misbegotten cesspool I fell into back in 2003 as soon as I am financially able to.
Ah, leftist tolerance at its finest.
Also seriously what's with your mysoginy? Are you bitter? Of the rare chauvinist gays that hate women? Do you hate your mom? You can always go to a shrink and talk about it. [S]He won't judge you.
That's just sad. Isn't there some kind of charity for people like this?
There's another poster, poole1dan I think, who's been whoring his blog here, too. It's as goofy as AbNob's. I think a collaboration would be awesome.
People can make all sorts of demands. How is your demand validated?
If your point was that that nebulous population designated as proptected minorities get to act like spoiled children. I doubt if you have much but further rightwing mythology to support it.
Being offended by something because it targets YOU (aka, harmful comments directed toward a particular race, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc.) is one thing.
Being offended by something that has no effect on you (the idea that a group of people you disapprove of have the right not to be treated like second class citizens) is using your belief system as an excuse to do just that.
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."-- Leviticus 18:22
•1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Do you eat shrimp? Do you make your wife go outside when she's menstruating? Do you eat pork? If you don't follow these rules you are not living by the word of god.
Personally I randomly picked another random book of historical fiction to live by. I live my life by "Johnny Tremain"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"anyone's guess as good as any" - Noba
Classic Becker.
The only people Jesus condemned were the money changers in the temple, project21reps.
Yet so many men of God and so-called god-fearing men hate gay people.
Why is that?
This is just sad.
Idiot.
So bigotry against people of faith is ok, right ?
You got poor grades in school, didn't you?
Yeah, Fox keeps them off the streets by keeping them busy with their own shows. It's positively heroic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JegKCAO6N7I
Surely it's none of that, it's those damn LGBT people wanting to be in history books and stuff.
If only Milton Friedman could see that!!!
Enter: the wedge issue. LGBT issues have become the go-to wedge issue of the day. Ever since our political discourse has been purged of direct and overt racism, and because of the continual integration of people from various racial and ethnic groups in location and through popular culture, the billionaire thieves club has had to resort to finding other targets to keep the outrage of their willfully ignorant thralls focused on. They will still use covert racism and make insinuations about "immigrants" and "minorities" but they can always get the masses riled up about "the gay" and away from their own failures.
Most nefarious and despicable of all, is blaming "the gays" for natural disasters and their own incompetence and greed. God must hate them since their is a few nebulous passages in the old testament that were many times translated and re-written by hand over several millennium, and then cherry picked and promoted to make their point. There are far more, and more clearly stated passages about the sin of eating shellfish and cloven hoofed animals then even the most stretched and implied passage about homosexuality being a sin.
They'll be picking our pockets clean while you yell at the same-sex couple down the street that only want to live their lives without being harassed. So remove thy clam chowder from thy bowl and stop casting stones at your neighbors lest ye be a total hypocrite.
...oh wait.
Well, at least you got out okay.
That describes half of the states in the country--many of them have been under Republican control for years.
Do you people actually read what you post ?
Well, for your sake I hope you read this next thing I post.
LETTING SOMEONE KEEP MONEY THEY EARNED IS NOT GIVING IT TO THEM. WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOU LIBS TO UNDERSTAND THAT ?
This from the guy who still thinks "commie" is a withering insult.
But you don't arouse AbNob NEARLY as much.
Grow up.
For five years I was a stay at home, full time parent. I put in 80-120 hours a week, and we got by on my spouse's income. I was able to raise my children until they were old enough to go to school. During those five years, I paid no taxes because I had no income. So, here's my question:
Was I contributing to society?
Um...If they have no taxable income, how would they pay taxes? I believe what you were trying to say was a comment on the welfare system. I once was an addict. I was arrested, I went to rehab and while in rehab I became pregnant. I went on general assistance and recieved a whole $380 month. As soon as my husband and I were financially stable enough to get off of GA we did, it took until my son was about a year old and then another year to get off of Medi-Cal. That is how it works. Luckily we've never had to go back.
Oh wait, you can't because I never said it.
So, which are you?
I wonder if it was the aptitude test that did him in.
All those years we were told asbestos is safe? Well alot of those companies disappeared and we ahve to pay to fix the issue.
Just wait until all our soldiers have issues from depleated uranium in tank armour and munition. Or exposure to jet fuel. Or maybe the anti-nerve agent they use. We will have to pay for it.
Again living in a society cost money, if you are unhappy live somwhere else. I think you will find it was not so bad here.
That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. That's like saying, "A lawmaker is saying teach people how to get out of their house during a fire or more people will die in a fire. Hence the blackmail."
Hey, Tucker. It's only blackmail if someone is actually directly threatening harm if you don't take action. No, what they're doing is attempting to reduce violence through education.
Once again, Tucker Carlson proves that he is a mental fly-weight.
"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." --Barack Hussein Obama
Not exactly a page out of the Barry Goldwater playbook is it ?
It does support the right wingers anti-commie stance, as they seem to insist on bad economies, but doesn't really do much for your attempt at a point otherwise.
It's not a zero sum game. Poor people doing better doesn't mean your rich idols are going to suffer. In fact, the opposite is probably true.
Sometimes they find out the hard way how tricky those generalizations and made-up definitions are.
Oh, yeah... End of story!
Translation: Bush is way too unpopular for me to acknowledge that, like all other right-wingers, I supported him on pretty much everything, so I'll pretend he was somehow a liberal.
And again, I'll say I've never met a Libertarian who was obsessed with buttsex and used scriptural quotations to justify that obsession. Ooh, you opposed four things in eight years. You go, Free Thinker.
Secondly, Muslims don't routinely "kill of the gay people." It certainly happens in extremist regimes, but the practice is not widespread and not condoned by the vast majority of Muslims.
Seems so stupid to keep bashing gays. Makes no more sense that picking on bald people or short people or smart people etc etc.
Leave them alone and treat them like everyone else.
DINKS, Dual income, no kids are my best tenants.
Then argues against doing that. I have no doubt that several notable historical people, regarded as manly men and looked up to as heroes, were in fact gay or bisexual. Their orientation takes away nothing from their accomplishments, but it may help someone struggling with their own feelings about themselves to know this.
We should be striving for a meritogracy.
We must overcome our own ignorance and not allow it to spread. Tucker Carlson is a prime example of person who is a propagandist. The idea is to misinform, incite and agitate. He is a typical " agent provacateur". Speak in half-untruths, repeat them, find others that will repeat them and eventually it becomes" an accepted truth".
O'Riley does his propaganda with anger. He is always shouting and claiming " I'm Right...I know it and you know it" again he is a propagandist. People think he is a common guy. The reality is he is a millionaire who grew-up in a fairly upper middle class area.
Rush always prefices he comments" I am not saying he's gay, BUT man that guy is flamin" It is a denial that is used to protect the speaker amd let's teh speaker say ANYTHING. It is a form of verbal absolution.
It doesn't help when some religions foster anti-homosexual memes. Funny in hebrew there many names for G_D, half of which are feminine. Yet, all the names of G_d in christianity and islam are male???
I guess it comees down to people wanting to control other people. Be it their behaviours, how they see the world or what they believe.
Meritocracy...is the only way.
Rant....over
Actually Tucker, it's been shown time and time again that the more you get to know about an "other" group of people the more likely you are to accept them for who they are. Which would mean less bullying and ridicule.
Kids are already being beaten up and committing suicide because of bullying. Gay kids really need role models, not just one here and one there, and all kids need role models that just happen to be gay. Gay people have existed since the beginning of time, we just didn't always call them that. And during that time, at least in the North, most gays just "passed" for straight, as a lot of them still do today. And by the way, Tucker, teaching kids about gay rights WOULD be educating children!!!
The kind of hard hitting question Fox is famous for. Something that sounds like it was just made up or a fake question just to let the person rant. I never heard any of any "gay curriculum" being tried out in California and failing.
And also Tucker didn't answer the question anyway, which was Why now?
By the way Tucker, me thinks, doth protest too much. I always thought there was a little gay in him.
That's wingnut thinking in a nutshell. If at first you don't succeed, give up.
Except for tax cuts for the rich, keep trying that no matter how many times it fails.
Oh wait....That's the last thing the libs want.
Ps: And writing in your little blog where nobody will find you? Wow, how brave of you.
He's selectively posting his exchanges from this site, which should give him enough cherry-picking editorial control that he could make himself look good.
But he's actually getting his a$$ handed to him on his own blog, voluntarily.
Here's a classic " Nazis were Libs" failure. .
Sure, there's years of archives at this site, but Dear Leader Soros is going to disappear AbNob's devastating arguments out of fear.
My favorite is his make-believe volunteer work as Editor-in-Chief at the NY Times. In his fantasy, he's demanding re-writes from Maureen Dowd on anything he doesn't understand... that is, any sentence written at above a third grade reading comprehension level.
Sometimes I link to Youtube videos of hillbillies doing drunken roof repairs and people walking into open manholes. Americans need to be aware of the stoopid in our midst.
If you have a few free minutes, check out his NY Times pretend-editor bit. I almost pizzed meself laughing.
Absolutely Nobama-- The happening place for libertarian politics!
Like citing the Bible in policy arguments?
Again, thank you! Keep up the good work getting me some more readers.
Also, isn't it part of your narrative that nobody reads MMfA? How does that translate to "getting me some more readers"?
Truth need be told: MMFA is actually one of my favorite websites, and contrary to popular belief, I actually enjoy our little hissing and scratching fights. To be honest, many Conservative sites are dull.
It's not working. The Republican and Democrat parties don't have America's best interests in mind, they are only interested in being reelected time after time.
No one here here can say either party functions anymore.
Not to sound like a No Labels doofus, but the American Eagle can't fly without a left and Right Wing.
That's what happens when party values are put before the good of the country. When we can't even get a bill passed to help 9-11 first responders because of partisan trickery, it has gone on long enough. I find it funny that you would say this considering the post after post of far right garbage that you put up before it. As long as people like you continue to echo the misinformation and hate that spews from the far right, the discourse will be lost in all the rhetoric.
I'll admit there are idiots on the Right (Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, Tom Tancredo)just like I'm sure you could name some idiots on the left.
Because when your only legislative strategy is "block everything", things get backed up.
DADT repeal is favored by around 70% of the country.
Repealing DADT that he talked about during the campaign that got him elected or the idea that repealing it would result in undermining the morale of the troops, even though there's no evidence of this and almost all of the military leaders support repealing it (thank you Republican party!)?
Extending tax cuts for those making less than 250k a year (favored by the majority of Americans in most polls) since that's the most fiscally responsible thing to do and what he talked about during the campaign that got him elected or extending it for everyone based on the myth that the top 2% will create all these jobs that they didn't create over the six years that Republicans controlled the entire government--particularly when that affects the deficits that Republicans have been screaming about that suddenly became important when they lost control of government but never said a word about when they were cutting taxes, starting wars and handing money to the drug companies (thanks again, Republican party!)?
I'm just trying to figure out which item that he specifically mentioned during his campaign that voters favored and the Republicans lied about in order to try to change public opinion is so unpopular.
BTW, my 800 + followers on Twitter enjoy it. Even the libs, so there.
That is what they wrote. That is what they meant. Unalienable does not mean "Unalienable until we decided that it is." ANY violation of this principal is by definition against what our founding fathers wanted. And thus, the fake impossible version of history you present cant be taught: Its not real.
You are intentionally ignoring the facts right infront of you: A supermajority voted for repeal of DADT, including republicans. All of them have been lawfully elected. A supermajority means 60+ votes. As in, the only thing harder to do is amend the constitution. We had MORE than 60 votes for repeal, despite not having 60 democrats in the senate!
Every year, your fringe gets smaller and small and smaller, every time youd rather let a racial supremacist than a gay person when we are desperate for soldiers gets people a little more disgusted with you, and makes your cheerings for american dominance hollow.
You are a great example of allowing one's mouth to outrun one's brain when you stereotype others. You probably know very little about what is being taught in public schools today even if you have kids in school.
Public education is more data driven today which means that research studies are reviewed and evaluated for best practices. CA wouldn't be considering adding LBGT History to its curriculum unless the state BOE had reviewed the research studies on the topic.
Circular logic fails to convence some of us. Pray continue.
Its the same as their anti-hate crime rhetoric: to them it should be "Harvey Milk shot in office." and have that much weight. "First gay mayor in california shot in office." they dont like this at all, because it mentions anything about homosexuality. Which they dont want being discussed as a real facet of life.
Pretty standard propagandizing really. Its not very sophistic ted though so it only works to glue a small vocal segment together. But thats what happens when you support anti-intellectualism: Even the simplest propaganda is taken in readily by the bigots, so long as the right source aims it at them.
Kettle, pot.
Golepost shift, on two, Hut!
It comes down to states, and they do what they want with the school money. TX here has wasted nearly 1.4 Billion on switching text books to conform to a more" White..Christian...Conservative" curriculum". The school in my neighbourhood had 34 national merit scholars this past year. Maybe we need to look at what they are doing.
One of the truties in TX wanted to take out Ghandhi because she didn't know who he was. Others wanted to take out Thomas Jefferson. The only reason they could possibly want him out is rewrote the Bible with miracles in it. We can only teach evolution about animals, not humans...LMAO...sigh
I am glad Galileo and Copernicus already spoke their peace...
Focus and participate in education:
-33% of US kids do not finish high school in 4 years
-50% of Africain-americain males do not finish high school
-70% of graduates are not properly prepared for university.
-the level of functional illiteracy is and has been steadily climbing.
-math, science, engineering are the subjects we are falling behind in.
We can not affrod to fall further behind.
Having a no-brain nepotism 'pundit' installed speaks volumes for itself.
One can only hope that by having organizations like Fix stack their employees with obviously incompetent people they will eventually do themselves in, unless (of course) they can steal enough $$$ where they just don't care.