Homeland Security Uses Sesame Street

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ScienceDada

DHS is all-hazards, and these children are going to be taught about how to not talk to strangers, to prepare 72-hour provision kits, to plan fire escape plans, tornado/earthquake/hurricane plans, and how to dial "0" or "911".

That is indeed what the program is stated to be about. I thought I had made it clear that my objection was not due to this, but due to the long list of atrocities that have already been reported around the DHS, and the possibility (probability?) that the program would be abused and used for more indoctrination.


Homeland Security being a right-wing conspiracy? I have co-authored graduate level curricula for Homeland Security, and I am sorry to inform all you conspiracy theorists that it is not well enough funded or organized to be a threat (not yet anyway).

According to www.census.gov... , The budget for the Department of Homeland Security in 2007 was $26,878,200,000, almost 27 billion dollars. This was over half of the entire budget for all 32 agencies involved with domestic security. Now if you will read this post, you will see a list of obvious problems that have come out of DHS since its inception. That is only a partial list of things that have grabbed attention in the media; Ramos and Compean, for instance, are only two of dozens of Border Patrol and border area police officers who have been prosecuted and/or claim to have been threatened as a result of nothing more than doing their job.


Most of the people involved with DHS are either ex-military or they push for local control and limiting government

Limiting government? Surely you jest... read the Patriot Act... it has nothing to do with limiting government, and everything to do with expanding the powers of the government, in many cases well beyond the scope granted to it in the US Constitution.


The damage done in the public school systems to our children are orders of magnitude worse than DHS working with Sesame Street. Children are across the board indoctrinated into liberal worldviews and garbage that is much more of a threat to our rights than DHS ever has been. Are you people really zealots to the point that you cannot even open your eyes and think?

This I cannot argue with you about (except DHS being a minor threat to our rights, of course; see above). But the whole pretext of my argument has been that the scope of control is now growing beyond even the classroom and into what was once considered safe educational TV for children. Surely, you are not arguing that we should ignore new attempts at indoctrination because there are other older methods already in place?

Should you try to put out a fire, would you ignore the fact that it is spreading beyond the initial blaze because the initial blaze is still burning?

Edit to add reply to post by jpm1602


There's a good sci-fi novel in there somewhere.


TheRedneck


[edit on 19-9-2008 by TheRedneck]




posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jpm1602
 





Say cookie monster? What's up with radiation poisoning?

I remember my kids watched Mr. Rogers.
Imagine this episode which could have taken place, but fortunately didn't:




"Hi Kids (as he puts on his smelly sweater, which he has worn through 2,000 episodes)
" Today we're going to discuss something new -nuclear war.
Can you say NU-CU-LAR WAR? I THOUGHT YOU COULD."

"Let's look at Mr. Roger's Neighborhood"
As the camera pans to his toy-mock up of houses and streets, an explosion rips the houses apart, and his neighborhood lies in ruins.
"See kids, that's what NU-CU-LAR WAR does to my neighborhood. "
"But it could just as easily be YOUR neighborhood"
Have a nice day, kiddies, and sleep well.
And don't forget to tell your daddy and mommy to build that NU_CU_LAR WAR shelter in your back yard."




posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
To make satire out of this most surreal circumstance is the best I could do. They were the best of times, they were the worst of times.

Nucular...I love it, quit bushsh((((( me! Gotta love that w.

I know Mr Rogers was lauded and loved by many, and had many accolades.
But that sucker creeped me out when I was five and I never watched him. Capt Kangaroo was my digs.

That smelly sweater....rofl..you need to quit.

[edit on 9/19/2008 by jpm1602]

[edit on 9/19/2008 by jpm1602]

[edit on 9/19/2008 by jpm1602]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
You may have co-authored graduate-level courses(Is that supposed to impress us?-big deal, I taught them), but I will tell you, you CANNOT talk to a 3 or 4 year old like you can to a grad student!

I co-authored a Homeland Security curriculum (in a consortium). So yes, that is supposed to be impressive, because I know a lot about Homeland Security. So I am not some hotshot just shooting off his mouth.


Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
So you are saying the DHS is incompetent to handle their tasks? ALL THE MORE REASON not to let them handle this one.

Yes, in a way, I am saying that. But I think that they can handle Sesame Street. It is not rocket science, or even "government work" for that matter




So stupid comments like "turn in your parents if they are Democrats" is so far off-based that they are infantile.

Maybe so however if you had been in Germany during the 1930's, you might not have been so sure of your statement.
Can it happen here? Yes, if we don't guard against it.

Oh, I know it can happen here. And it will happen by the hand of the liberals, just as it did with the Nazis and the Bolsheveks. It wouldn't under a conservative like Ron Paul!


Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Remember, Hitler didn't go full-blown at the start... Guess what, the press in Germany was in love with him, just like the love affair of the MSM today with you-know-who.

Ain't that the truth! In this, you and I are on the same page.


If you had been around, you could have participated in my thread about Homeschooling, and how the CA Supreme Court OUTLAWED it in CA.

I homeschool and have been around for homeschooling threads. I just have limited time to write, so I am selective about the threads I post to.


I certainly don't think it is a "right-wing" conspiracy. What I do think, though, is that together with the Patriot Act, there is too much room for potential abuse... The quicker that ACT is thrown out, the better.

There are several precedents in American history for the PATRIOT Act. It is dangerous if it is not used in good faith. But the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Smith Act, and others had passed too. The media hubub over the PATRIOT Act is somewhat hypocritical, especially when email privacy for a VP candidate seems to be ok.


By the way, if you don't like to discuss conspiracies, then perhaps ATS is not for you:

I like intelligent discussion regarding conspiracies. I don't like arguing with die-hard liberals who might as well be crack babies given their complete lack of ability to reason or form a coherent thought.

I am also convinced that conspiracies can be discussed without paranoia.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Easy on. We are talking about sesame street here. No need for anyone to get their bvd's in bunch.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
According to www.census.gov... , The budget for the Department of Homeland Security in 2007 was $26,878,200,000, almost 27 billion dollars.

A good chunk of this money was already allocated before the department was formed. In fact, that was a large criticism of the Bush administration, that DHS was formed, then almost no money was allocated to make it go. Initially it was only reorganizational.

Another very important factor is that FEMA is under DHS, as is the Coast Guard. The 2007 numbers reflect that these agencies have blank checks for hurricane relief which is still being spent for Katrina. And this year, it will reflect Ike. So, it is not cut-and-dry.


Ramos and Compean, for instance, are only two of dozens of Border Patrol and border area police officers who have been prosecuted and/or claim to have been threatened as a result of nothing more than doing their job.

I am not an expert on that case. My initial response is two-fold: my heart goes out to those guys and they should get a pardon. On the flip-side, nobody is above the law. Isn't that the argument here?



Most of the people involved with DHS are either ex-military or they push for local control and limiting government

Limiting government? Surely you jest... read the Patriot Act... it has nothing to do with limiting government, and everything to do with expanding the powers of the government, in many cases well beyond the scope granted to it in the US Constitution.

My point was that most of the people involved in the Homeland Security departments in this great nation are largely in one of the two camps. But there are enough conservatives, who support local control and love freedom, to be whistle blowers. They do not typically support big government. But this topic is a huge one and outside the scope of the thread.

I do not like the PATRIOT Act, and I think it is a travesty. But Abortion is more of a travesty. The PATRIOT Act has precedent in American history, and worse things have been tolerated, such as the so-called "Civil War" where States' rights were trampled by a bunch of liberals. So, I am cynical about such matters, to say the least.

A lot of the people who do DHS work are ex-military and they LOVE this country. And that is not BS... they really do. A lot of them served in Vietnam, the Gulf War. So DHS is not some huge conspiracy. That was my point.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ScienceDada

A good chunk of this money was already allocated before the department was formed. In fact, that was a large criticism of the Bush administration, that DHS was formed, then almost no money was allocated to make it go. Initially it was only reorganizational.

That may have been initially, but in 2005 DHS received $23,979,900,000, in 2006 it received $54,639,400,000. Regardless of whether or not it was funded when, that is how much they received as an operating budget, again according to www.census.gov...


Another very important factor is that FEMA is under DHS, as is the Coast Guard. The 2007 numbers reflect that these agencies have blank checks for hurricane relief which is still being spent for Katrina. And this year, it will reflect Ike. So, it is not cut-and-dry.

Since FEMA and the Coast Guard are not listed as separate entities on that report, I would hazard to say you are probably correct. But the budgets are still over half of the total expenditures for the security budgets for all three years. That is not 'underfunded'.


I am not an expert on that case. My initial response is two-fold: my heart goes out to those guys and they should get a pardon. On the flip-side, nobody is above the law. Isn't that the argument here?

According to Johnny Sutton, the Prosecuting Attorney in the case, apparently the drug dealer who was shot is above the law. To wit:

  • The two agents claimed to be shooting at an armed suspect who had turned and was pointing something 'shiny' at them. The encounter started while they were on patrol with several other agents and at least two supervisors. No one in the party indicated any wrong-doing by the two agents involved.

  • The drug smuggler was given freedom from prosecution and paid travel across the border with no restrictions on the number of crossings in return for testimony.

  • The drug smuggler stayed at the guest house of Johnny Sutton before and during the trial of the border agents.

  • Johnny Sutton was allowed to take the bullet supposedly recovered from the drug smuggler home overnight during the trial. This is a heinous breach of court procedures, especially given the fact the drug smuggler was staying in his guest house.

  • The drug smuggler was arrested again for running drugs while the court case was proceeding. That fact was argued by Sutton himself to be withheld from the jury.

  • The chief complaint against Ramos and Compean was that they had supposedly made racial comments earlier that day and they tried to 'cover up the scene' by recovering their brass. No one in their department was able to verify the alleged racist comments, and picking up their brass was listed as the proper procedure when supervisors were present, or when no one had been injured. Both agents testified they did not think they had hit the smuggler, and supervisors were present.

  • A congressional hearing was held after the trial in order to expose any irregularities in the trial (thanks to public outcry). Congressmen were blatantly lied to about the evidence, on multiple occasions, finally admitted to by Johnny Sutton himself.

  • There have been many forensics experts who have stated that there was no possible way the drug smuggler could have been shot in the way he was shot, according to both his testimony and that of the two agents.


Sounds to me like the only one above the law was the drug smuggler from Mexico and Johnny Sutton, representing the DHS.


Most of the people involved with DHS are either ex-military or they push for local control and limiting government

I have no doubt many of them are. But as you can see from the expanded example above, not all of them are concerned with protecting liberty, and it appears those are in the higher ranks.


I do not like the PATRIOT Act, and I think it is a travesty. But Abortion is more of a travesty. The PATRIOT Act has precedent in American history, and worse things have been tolerated, such as the so-called "Civil War" where States' rights were trampled by a bunch of liberals. So, I am cynical about such matters, to say the least.

the Civil War was indeed a very trying time, and IMO produced some of the worst 'war-criminals' (unprosecuted, of course) in the history of mankind. Sherman's little bonfire party in Atlanta comes to mind. But make no mistake the Patriot Act is much more far-reaching and much more intrusive than any policies of that era. It violates freedom of speech (by declaring certain individuals to be 'suspected terrorists' based only on their speech), the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure (by allowing unlimited searches and detention, both of property and of person, without a proper search warrant), freedom of assembly (by the same mechanism; contact with persons of interest make one a 'suspected terrorist'), and the right to be secure in one's own home (again, through the absence of a proper search warrant requirement).

And remember that the majority of what DHS has become is because of the Patriot Act. That one single document gives DHS the authority to arrest and detain anyone they deem to be that 'suspected terrorist' without any regard to Miranda rights, without knowledge of why they are being arrested, without legal counsel, and without even the right to contact someone to inform them of their whereabouts. It effectively dodges the requirement that such a person must be either charged or released after 24 hours. It also gives DHS unlimited ability to gather information on anyone they choose, whether by surveillance, wiretapping, or release of records that otherwise would require one of those nasty search warrants. This even extends to library records of which books a suspect had checked out.

So while I share your disdain of 'liberals' (although I prefer to use different terms like socialists or progressives, as they are more accurate), I also submit to you that such threats can come conveniently dressed in conservative clothing. And that is even more dangerous, because you cannot see your enemy until they have you by your liberties.

In response to your last paragraph, I salute, appreciate, and admire anyone who has served this country in the military. But just because they served in the military does not mean they are capable of leading domestically. The two are not mutually inclusive. Hero does not necessarily equal Leader.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
This topic has alarm bells going off in my head on at least a couple of levels. At face value it doesn't seem like a bad thing .. but .. I'm not one to take things at face value.

My aunt Erika was 5 years old when Hitler took power; my father was 11. They have both told me, as best they could through the language barrier (I speak German but not fluently) of their experiences.

For my 5-year-old aunt it all started so innocently, but before very long it came around to the real agenda: if you want to be a hero, if you want to be a good little German patriot, rat out your parents. They would ask the little children to raise their hands if there was a picture of Hitler up in the house, and Gestapo were sent to the houses of the children who didn't raise their hands. To some extent, Hitler controlled Germany by controlling the children. My father ran wild because he blackmailed my grandmother after my grandfather was sent to fight; she would literally have been sent to a concentration camp had this rebellious teenaged boy told his teachers any of the things he threatened to tell if his mother didn't let him do whatever he wanted.
My grandmother spent years of her life in constant fear and my father turned into a monster who, among other things, bullied and beat up his little sister knowing that his mother dared do nothing to interfere. Families were torn apart, children set against their parents and siblings, and I suspect that there are still people alive today who live with the knowledge that they sentenced their parents to death because they did what they were told was the right thing to do.

Another concern to me is that this is the first small tentative foot in the door of the government dictating the content of TV shows. Now it's disaster preparedness on Sesame Street, and less obvious things like the Stargate shows always presenting government secrecy as necessary and proper. How many years will it take, bit by teeny bit, so slowly that we hardly notice it happening, before the Government has direct control over all TV shows and we can see only what they want us to see?

Maybe I'm paranoid; certainly I'm distrustful of the US Govt because I know darned well they are lying to us about some things, but I don't like it. Not one bit.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
Considering Islamic terrorism has killed 3, 000 people on U.S. soil, compared to, say, the 42,116 that were killed in highway crashes alone in that same year or the 20, 000 that annually die from the flu, I think there are potentially more pressing issues they could be educating our children about.
Islamic terrorist's? Are you sure! Look toward your own Government and Israel me thinks.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MarkAkaSilent
 





Islamic terrorist's? Are you sure! Look toward your own Government and Israel me thinks.

The only thing the US government was guilty of, was not paying attention to the information they had. After all, being told about an Arab with a Visa that only wants to "Steer a plan", and wasn't interested in learning how to land it, certainly should have raised a serious flag. This non-sense that our government was behind 9/11 is outrageous.
I am no apologist for Israel, as any supposed "ally" that spies on us, and attacks an American ship, is capable of anything. As Admiral Moorer said:
whatreallyhappened.com...

It was "one of the classic all-American cover-ups," said retired Admiral Thomas Moorer, a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman who spent a year investigating the attack as part of an independent panel he formed with other former military officials. The panel also included a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ScienceDada
 





My point was that most of the people involved in the Homeland Security departments in this great nation are largely in one of the two camps. But there are enough conservatives, who support local control and love freedom, to be whistle blowers.

One of the problems that I see is that the DHS structure is in place. Let us assume that you are correct, and that there are enough conservatives to prevent the abuses so many of us are concerned with. Now let's imagine that Obama becomes President. The first thing a new Administration does is clean house, as you know. So now, all of the conservatives are out, and all of a sudden, the liberals that have been complaining about DHS, see it as a way of advancing their cause, and now you have liberals in DHS doing exactly what many of us are afraid of. Just as in war, a weapon in our hands, becomes a weapon of the enemy, once captured.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ScienceDada
 





Yes, in a way, I am saying that. But I think that they can handle Sesame Street. It is not rocket science, or even "government work" for that matter


That, however, is EXACTLY what I fear. You see, as I stated earlier, it takes a great deal of care in dealing with very young children. You can mess up a lesson plan with grad students, and all they will do is complain that they're not getting their money's worth, out of the course. However, teaching young children requires, in most states, special education, psychology courses, and certification. Given what you have said about the incompetence of the well-intentioned ex-military people(whom I admire for their service to this country), I would not allow them to instruct children.
Those in academic education and corporate training (and I was in both) understand that the lowest level courses (often intro courses) require the most skilled instructors, because of the dual issues of setting up a good base level, and the lower level of the audience.
I respectfully disagree with your contention that DHS should be doing this, for those reasons, as well as previous reasons that TheRedneck and I have put forth earlier in this discussion. Again, please remember how a child can misinterpret things that he/she has been "taught" from an authority figure. I believe that that authority figure should be the PARENT. The parent knows their children much better than a stranger, with the same approach to millions of children. One, a "One Size Fits All" cannot tailor that sensitivity to an individual child.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus


My point was that most of the people involved in the Homeland Security departments in this great nation are largely in one of the two camps. But there are enough conservatives, who support local control and love freedom, to be whistle blowers.

One of the problems that I see is that the DHS structure is in place. Let us assume that you are correct, and that there are enough conservatives to prevent the abuses so many of us are concerned with. Now let's imagine that Obama becomes President. The first thing a new Administration does is clean house, as you know. So now, all of the conservatives are out, and all of a sudden, the liberals that have been complaining about DHS, see it as a way of advancing their cause, and now you have liberals in DHS doing exactly what many of us are afraid of. Just as in war, a weapon in our hands, becomes a weapon of the enemy, once captured.


Unfortunately, I do agree with you on this. I saw unfortunately because the circumstances are a travesty. I believe that the Congress and the President passed the law because they had to "do something" in order to assure people that our nation was not folding like a house of cards. So, it was the wrong thing done for the right reasons.

Current debates relating to the use of the military (starting with the Coast Guard), Posse Comitatus, and checks-and-balances are largely being touted by mob rule to increase military presence. I personally would feel comfortable if this were done my the National Guard if it were still in the form of State Militias as they used to be; but now that the NG is effectively a reserve force for the U.S. military, it is dangerous.

I think we are prime for a coup, and "progressives" are indeed the enemy. That is what irritates me so much about many ATS people, is that they talk down to conservatives as if we are war mongers and imperialists -- this is so far from the truth that it is not even funny! It is actually quite the opposite.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneckI knew this was going to come up. Yes, you can turn off the TV, but are you seriously advocating that parents who disagree with this move should sequester themselves from all communication with society?


Huh? Who said anything about being cut off from all communication w/ society? Drama much?? (not trying to be rude, but this is what is frustrating to me... ppl blowing things out of proportion. you have specifically done so with my words)



Sesame Street has traditionally been a staple of children's programming that taught counting, the alphabet, etc. I know parents who used it (besides myself) to help teach their children while entertaining them at the same time and allowing the parents to do chores. Not everyone has a maid to clean and a chef in their home to cook.

Not to mention that a lot of parents are not reading this board. If I had children at the Sesame Street age, I would probably curtail their viewing of the show, unless I was watching as well. But that's because I saw this article. How many parents didn't?


Their family, their business. Just because you don't like, it doesn't give you the right to worry about and impose on how ppl are choosing to raise their kids, regardless of if they have a maid and/or chef (not sure why this would be thrown in other than maybe the bitter bug has bitten you).



So I am implicitly allowing the government to raise my children if I send them to school? Check the law books; that is a legal requirement, not a personal choice (unless you have the time and knowledge to home-school).

I think your arguments in this case are unreasonable, based on the present laws and realistic demands of living in society.


I think my view is very reasonable. You don't think so because it doesn't agree with yours.



[edit on 20-9-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma

Huh? Who said anything about being cut off from all communication w/ society? Drama much?? (not trying to be rude, but this is what is frustrating to me... ppl blowing things out of proportion. you have specifically done so with my words)

Yeah, I may have 'blown up' your words out of the proportion you intended, but I think the point is an apt one. It's very easy to say 'just turn it off if you don't agree', but when the program in question is one which has been a trusted 'secure' medium for so many years, it does tend to translate into turning off everything because you have nothing safe left to turn on in its place.

Your same argument could be applied to Germany just before WWII. Could the people of Germany just turn off the radio stations which they didn't agree with? Sure they could have, but to do so would have meant that they would be effectively sequestering themselves from the Nazi society which had sprung up around them. There was no alternative to the Nazi propaganda available to them.

The argument of 'just turn it off' has merit where the station in question is one which has competition. Now exactly how much competition does a show like Sesame Street have (at least, competition which is not already suspect)? We are not talking about Faux News, wherein one may simply change the channel to get to CNN or MSNBC.


Their family, their business. Just because you don't like, it doesn't give you the right to worry about and impose on how ppl are choosing to raise their kids, regardless of if they have a maid and/or chef (not sure why this would be thrown in other than maybe the bitter bug has bitten you).

Different philosophies, obviously. I tend to think that if one is able to become an advocate for their neighbor, one should do so. You do not, apparently. We will have to simply disagree on that point. If my neighbor's house were on fire, I would call for the fire department.

I brought up the maid/chef because it is simply a fact that few people are able to devote the kind of time to their children you seem to think they can. Most families have two wage-earners now just in order to meet the financial obligations. Add to that the more common everyday tasks such as cooking, cleaning, mowing the lawn, making minor repairs, shopping, balancing the checkbook... there is simply not a tremendous amount of time left. I like to believe most parents do manage to spend as much time as humanly possible with their children, but it is simply not possible to play games with your child while you are doing laundry. In those moments, many parents resort to using the TV with shows like Sesame Street to give them time to perform their daily chores. Obviously, if one could afford a maid/chef to handle those chores, this would not be an issue. Otherwise, it is.

As to the 'bitter bug' biting me, not really. I am simply trying to explain reality to you. My apologies if reality seems 'bitter'; I didn't create it, I just have to live in it.


I think my view is very reasonable. You don't think so because it doesn't agree with yours.

Then you are either reading my posts without any comprehension of what I am saying, reading them with some deep-set belief that this is all fantasy, or not reading them at all. Your reply was composed of nothing more than complaints about how I have exposed the fallacies in your argument.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 





Their family, their business. Just because you don't like, it doesn't give you the right to worry about and impose on how ppl are choosing to raise their kids, regardless of if they have a maid and/or chef (not sure why this would be thrown in other than maybe the bitter bug has bitten you).


Woh, wait a minute. I think you are misunderstanding what TheRedneck said. I don't want to speak for him obviously, but I understood his phrase "How many parents didn't?" to mean "How many parents didn't see the article about DHS and Sesame Street, not "how many parents didn't turn it off?".



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 



I took what he said to mean that as well. No worries.
but this article isn't hidden and in fact, this thread is not the only discussion and/or place in which to talk about it, let alone view it.

And to the OP, I do "hear" what you are saying, but ultimately, it is up to us to decide in OUR OWN lives what is and isn't acceptable. Some parents feel this is a very good idea and want their children to learn from puppets about preparing for disasters.

So, ultimately the option is fair. The program caters to those who want the content and the power button caters to those who don't.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ScienceDada
 


I sent you a U2U



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma

but ultimately, it is up to us to decide in OUR OWN lives what is and isn't acceptable.

I don't think I could argue against this if I had to. My concern is more along the lines of unspecified propaganda as opposed to stated intent. If someone wanted their child to know about disaster prep, then of course, there is no problem with it being shown. It could be a good thing.

In fact, if I felt I could trust DHS to only include what they say they will include, I'd probably be all for this... but it is a sad fact I do not trust DHS.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneckThen you are either reading my posts without any comprehension of what I am saying, reading them with some deep-set belief that this is all fantasy, or not reading them at all. Your reply was composed of nothing more than complaints about how I have exposed the fallacies in your argument.


Again, I do comprehend what you are saying, I just don't think it is all that big of a deal.

I do think some on this site are a bit on the paranoid side and it is sad because they are failing to take control of their destiny. You are handing over the control of your life by failing to realize you still have a choice that doesn't have to consist of imposing your beliefs onto others.

Who is the better parent?

a) The parent who approves of this program and watches this with their child and then discusses it with them?

b) The parent who turns off the program and takes their child to the park?

Neither of these parents are bad and they are both recognizing that it is ALWAYS up to them to discuss and be involved w/ their children.


And you have not exposed any fallacies in my arguement since I am not arguing. I have merely offered a simple solution to something that is apparently disturbing to you. Pointing out that my solution isn't good enough isn't exposing a flaw in my thinking so much as it is exposing your your "moral" crusade.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join