Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What the next 4 years are going to look like

page: 21
51
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
As long as we don't have to hear the right pissing and moaning about how their guy was so much better and magically would have waved a wand and changed everything and we'd all be dancing around the campfire singing Kumbaya and having unicorn stew and skittles for desert....oh wait that's what this thread is all about? You don't say! Well...then I guess that is what the next four years are going to be like.
edit on 21-11-2012 by ldyserenity because: space screw up




posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Anundeniabletruth
 





When did I ever say that it should be up to me or the government to decide how much someone gets to have?


But your entire post was full of comments llike how no one needed millions of dollars to live. And who said that in the first place? But I've heard this argument before from people who are in the "make the rich pay their fair share". That is nothing but the same old Marxist Socialist rhetoric of taking from the rich to give to the poor.

And what business is it of yours how much a wealthy person has? Do you want everyone to be equally miserable? Or just equal regardless of their abilities or work ethic?



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I'm confused here...

1) How are "christian schools" any different? They have their own form of "brainwashing."
But I am in full support of people being able to choose what kind of school to go to as long as they're actually going.

2) You're not saying to do away with education... but you're saying private school.
Poor people can't afford to go to private schools so how exactly would the poor afford to go to school? Especially those with parents who would not want to pay for the kids to go to school in the first place if they wouldn't be sent to jail for the children not going. Tour a trailer park in the south, I dare ya.

What would your ideals of some possible solutions for education for poor kids be?
Please understand that I am not trying to argue because I too am unhappy with the way our current education system is and I would like to hear what others think we could do about it rather than just that none of us like the system the way it currently is.

3) So you're saying that the story of John Brown was made up to mislead the youth?
They didn't even teach us anything about the guy in school... I never once heard that name in a school. Much like everything else that I ever really learned, I read about that in a library book. You see, I read a lot of library books growing up because my family was very poor, I didn't really have very much to do unless I wanted to go out and get into trouble like most of the other kids in my neighborhood.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
As long as we don't have to hear the right pissing and moaning about how their guy was so much better and magically would have waved a wand and changed everything and we'd all be dancing around the campfire singing Kumbaya and having unicorn stew and skittles for desert....oh wait that's what this thread is all about? You don't say! Well...then I guess that is what the next four years are going to be like.
edit on 21-11-2012 by ldyserenity because: space screw up


How's that Kumbaya on the Left these days? Oh wait, the Obama magic is now that the economy is better off than it was and he just needs another 4 years to turn things around, and it will be booming again, just as soon as he raises taxes and makes the rich pay their fair share. And all the green energy is going to take off like a rocket and we won't need that awful dirty coal anymore.
edit on 21-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Anundeniabletruth
 





When did I ever say that it should be up to me or the government to decide how much someone gets to have?


But your entire post was full of comments llike how no one needed millions of dollars to live. And who said that in the first place? But I've heard this argument before from people who are in the "make the rich pay their fair share". That is nothing but the same old Marxist Socialist rhetoric of taking from the rich to give to the poor.

And what business is it of yours how much a wealthy person has? Do you want everyone to be equally miserable? Or just equal regardless of their abilities or work ethic?


How am I socialist when I think socialism is a flawed system?

I swear that is all you people know how to do... When you're confused or frustrated you call others who do not agree with your point of view 100% a socialist. You just tried to show us an explanation of socialism... Which I partially agreed with...

It's none of my business how much a wealthy person has. Never said anything to the contrary. What I said was:
How does it hurt them to put something back into the system if it isn't going to hurt them any?

If you have $50 million and you give $30 million of that away and you're not a total retard... Then you still have $20 million dollars which could EASILY turn into much more money while also providing jobs for others at the same time. Hell, you don't even have to do any work, you can pay people to do it all for you and STILL turn that into a lot more money...

If you're a total retard you wouldn't have $50 million in the first place...

When did I ever say to give it to the poor? Unless you're considering the U.S.A the "poor." In which case, yeah, I think hey should give it to the poor because those poor stop crazy people from burning their house AND business down! And most of all, those "poor" stop crazy people from killing them and taking EVERYTHING.

Personally, I kind of feel like that's worth paying a little bit for if I already have much more than my grandchildren will ever need to be much happier than most of the people who have to work much harder than they ever will...

Nobody is born with those abilities. Most of us ARE born with the ability to learn and develop them but none of us naturally come out knowing how to do anything outside of crying for mommy to keep us alive. That's what education is supposed to and SHOULD be for...

What the hell does work ethic even have to do with it? You ever known someone to bust their @ss at 2 low paying jobs for years? They work hard and still have nothing to show for it...

Not a single damn one of you has yet to explain to anyone how exactly it hurts a rich person to do their "fair share," you b*t*h about how they shouldn't be expected to do so but you NEVER explain how it would hurt them to do so. Circular arguing that never gets anything done. At least those of us who think that rich people should help out explain our reasoning as to why... The only thing I see those who disagree with that doing is screaming that we're socialists...
edit on 21-11-2012 by Anundeniabletruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ldyserenity
As long as we don't have to hear the right pissing and moaning about how their guy was so much better and magically would have waved a wand and changed everything and we'd all be dancing around the campfire singing Kumbaya and having unicorn stew and skittles for desert....oh wait that's what this thread is all about? You don't say! Well...then I guess that is what the next four years are going to be like.
edit on 21-11-2012 by ldyserenity because: space screw up


How's that Kumbaya on the Left these days? Oh wait, the Obama magic is now that the economy is better off than it was and he just needs another 4 years to turn things around, and it will be booming again, just as soon as he raises taxes and makes the rich pay their fair share. And all the green energy is going to take off like a rocket and we won't need that awful dirty coal anymore.
edit on 21-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


See that's the problem! Left and right constantly bickering about the other side. Man if there really is a god he/she/it needs to be smacked for making human beings... Because humans have got to be the biggest mistake ever! All the majority of you want to do is argue, you don't care what about, as long as you can argue with each other. Which of course never leads to anything ever actually getting done. Then when people like me come in and try to ask people to think about the situation rather than fight and argue, one side or the other tries to argue with us and then most of us get frustrated and everybody is arguing.

WHY do you people prefer to fight and argue over working together to get things done?

BOTH systems are very flawed!

BOTH systems are corrupt!

There is no such thing as freedom!



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anundeniabletruth
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I'm confused here...

1) How are "christian schools" any different? They have their own form of "brainwashing."
But I am in full support of people being able to choose what kind of school to go to as long as they're actually going.


my response: My discussion of brainwashing is mainly about Humanist philosophers pushing secularism and values clarification is part of that.
Here is an interesting snapshot of education in America in 1774


Even in Williamsburg, Pennsylvania in 1774, there were still few schools. So, many parents taught their children to read and write at home using a bible and a hornbook. A hornbook was a wooden board with a handle. A lesson sheet of the ABCs in small and capital letters, some series of syllables and often, the Lord's Prayer, was attached to the board and was protected by a thin layer of cow's horn. Some hornbooks of wealthy families were very fancy, decorated with jewels and leather and included ivory pointers. Most of them were plain and had a string around the handle to be worn around the neck.


library.thinkquest.org...

2) You're not saying to do away with education... but you're saying private school.
Poor people can't afford to go to private schools so how exactly would the poor afford to go to school? Especially those with parents who would not want to pay for the kids to go to school in the first place if they wouldn't be sent to jail for the children not going. Tour a trailer park in the south, I dare ya.

my response: I support the idea of vouchers so parents can send their kids to school and not have to pay taxes on public school too. That is fair isn't it? Why the attacks on homeschooling from the NEA and Dept of Education? Answer-because they want to form the thinking of the masses of children into that which supports their Statist ideology. I already posted that.
Why should I tour a trailer park? I already addressed the fact that the system is set up that people cannot afford to send their kids to private schools.
How to make schooling better for poor kids? First get rid of the teachers Unions and make them step up to the demands of better education. Second, throwing more money at education is not going to change anything when the curriculum has been changed from real real reading, writing, and arithmetic to all these social engineering classes, and I hate to bring a hot button issue in here, but the agenda to teach kids about being gay has no place whatever in our schools and it is things like this which have degraded education and why johnny can't read. I was listening to Glenn Beck yesterday and he was talking about these online course materials but the parents are not allowed to see them. I was driving so I couldn't focus entirely on the show, but he did mention something about courses for teaching kids about islam. So, we are now spending taxpayer dollars on teaching kids the culture of Islam but not teaching them how to spell and have good grammar.
If you think I am making this up, I would just like to point out that the Look-See system itself was devised for deaf mutes and then it was decided to use this for everybody, and phonics went out the door.
The Montessori Method uses the phonics method of teaching reading.

What would your ideals of some possible solutions for education for poor kids be?
Please understand that I am not trying to argue because I too am unhappy with the way our current education system is and I would like to hear what others think we could do about it rather than just that none of us like the system the way it currently is.

See my response above

3 ) So you're saying that the story of John Brown was made up to mislead the youth?
They didn't even teach us anything about the guy in school... I never once heard that name in a school. Much like everything else that I ever really learned, I read about that in a library book. You see, I read a lot of library books growing up because my family was very poor, I didn't really have very much to do unless I wanted to go out and get into trouble like most of the other kids in my neighborhood.


I never said that about John Brown or the story of it. I wanted to know what your point was about it. Perhaps the elimination of him from history books will tell us something about revisionist historians. Incidentally, Antony Sutton discusses that in his books, and he points to the American Historical Society as being a creation of Skull and Bones and TPTB for the purpose of writing history to create an image of society however they wanted.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Anundeniabletruth
 


If you think those with 50 million are "cheap as hell", you should check out the billionares and trillionares(yes they exist). They offshore and launder the money to avoid taxation and to earn interest at the same time. Many nations actually encourage annonymous banking as "a come on". they compete with each other in terms of interest rate and who is more secret.

Then take into account trust funds, mutual funds, hedge funds, shell companies(such as those listed on the pink sheets of nasdaq). The best way to launder money is shell companies as fictitious corporate transactions, one business partner to another. You can make safe weapons and drug transactions that way without ANYONE knowing. Right to privacy!

The government knows who gets away with paying virtually nothing, but these same folks are also on various panels, committes...part of the "in crowd" and thus untouchable. You don't go after your bilderberger buddies whom you play golf with in tahitti.

All this raising the tax rates on the rich is pure, unadultared BS of the highest order to give the appearance that liberals and progressives care to go after the tax cheats. The millionares do pay lots of taxes by the way, because they are not in "the in crowd". Any very successful small or medium business owner can become a millionare with hard work and a little luck. Then the government comes in and takes 40% of it just because it wants to keep up the pretense of progressive taxation.

IT IS ALL BULL# as the government is in bed with big business, owes trillions of dollars it can NEVER pay back, fiscal cliff baloney is exactly baloney. Read the protocols of the learned elders of zion. They got the citizens by the balls!



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Anundeniabletruth
 


Well look, I've never once heard a Republican say that Romney was magically going to make all problems go away. There was quite enough of that nonsense when BO was elected. It seems the Left was doing all the Kumbaya stuff. I just found the comment that Republicans were going to sing Kumbaya ridiculous.
Oh by the way Kumbaya is too religious for the seculars.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Thanks for pointing out your view on the education thing, I agree with much of what you seem to think about that actually. I also agree with your opinion about sexuality being taught in school. While I do think that there should indeed be free programs out there for kids going through puberty to get help, because lets face it most parents don't talk to their kids about that kind of thing no matter what we would like to believe, that probably shouldn't be in "school" as much as it should be some kind of after school program that kids are encouraged to go to.

I never went to a school that taught anything about "gayness." But A LOT of right leaning people seem to think there's an abundance of schools that do teach it so...

I am also strongly against parents not being able to home school their children if they so wish but I do believe that somebody has to make sure that those children are being taught important stuff and not just religious indoctrination ( not that there's anything wrong with people having a religion of their choice but society certainly ain't gonna get very far and there wont be any of those ultra rich businessmen if the only thing everyone knows is about the religion of their parents' choosing ).

I also do not think that religion should be taught in schools. That's what we have churches for and if someone wants to go to one they're usually more than welcome to.

Schools should be teaching people how to learn and not how to become a sex therapist or a preacher, if you want to become either of those two things then there are specialized schools for that after you complete "normal" school. Plus we have the internet, a place where someone can find all kinds of valuable information on anything they happen to be interested in...

They really do need to change our education system because it is crap right now. Hate to disappoint Texas but they also need to start teaching people how to critically think in schools. No idea why someone from that place wanted to ban it when they don't even practice it anywhere in America right now...

As for the teachers... There are a lot of craptastic ones out there, I've had some. We need to get rid of the crappy teachers and start paying the good ones well for the job that they're doing, union or no union. Not many teachers are paid very well at all, great or terrible.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Ah, but these folks could make a lot of problems go away, and magically too...




Hence the media blackout. Just how pathetic is it to have a russian state owned media organisation covering something private american media will not?


Yeah lets talk about obama and romney though.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Anundeniabletruth
 





WHY do you people prefer to fight and argue over working together to get things done?


Agreed there are problems with both parties. However, I have to state very emphatically, that the Democrat Party has been embracing socialism much faster and those in the Republican Party who embrace it and liberal social agendas are called RINOs.
My argument is for more liberty and less Statism. sure, there are statists on both sides. THere are people who ar sporting for Big Govt on both sides. One of the mistakes that people are making is calling the Tea Party extremists. Wht is extreme about wanting more liberty and less taxes? The whole extremist argument is made up by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and a bunch of socialist Big Govt Nanny Staters, and also people who are pro Abortion. Yes I said pro Abortion because it's NOT a choice for the UNBORN. If that is considered an extreme position then so be it. The same people who say conservatives are extreme because they support life in the womb seem to think it is think that it's not extreme to punish people by stealing money from their paychecks to pay for their ungodly programs which are far more nefarious for their enslavement of more people than they help.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Ahhh so the agenda is out. What the hell should abortion have to do with government at all? I see both the tea party and the socialists as "extremists." They're both crazy if you ask me. One supports the government having the power to tell people what to do in their own bedroom and the other would prefer none of us having the right to "own" anything for ourselves. That's how I see it.

Personally, I do not agree with abortion. I don't see it as "ending" a life because there is no scientific evidence to support that an embryo is aware of its own existence. But I do see it as preventing the potentiality of life. I still don't see how it fits into politics... well how it should fit into politics that is. Same with gay marriage, I'm not gay, but I fail to see how the hell it effects me at all if two gay people are allowed to get married. Especially considering that if they are not married then they can't even be with their lover during something like an emergency at the hospital. That's just too archaic for my tastes. Those two things should not be an issue in politics at all and are a very good example of government having too much power, I would agree with you 100% on that.

Let me tell you a quick story that you'll think negatively of me for:

I grew up poor. I made lots of mistakes as a teenager. I knocked this girl I was in love with up when we were 17.
Yep, I got a girl pregnant when I was 17, well almost 17... We were in high school at the time, well she was, that's where we met, i had already dropped out. That's right I dropped out of high school and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I wasn't learning anything so what was the point of going? I figured just getting the damn GED would get me out sooner and end with a lot less fighting with bigots who kept insulting poor people, and gay people, just about the only people who would not insult me for being me.

Anyway when the girl I was engaged to at the time, currently have been married to for goin on 8 years now, came to me and said she was pregnant, you know what I did? I grew the f**k up! I didn't do like 90% of teenage boys would and say sumthin like "sux for you, cya" or "why don't you just get an abortion?" Nope...

I did what I like to think of as the responsible thing and comforted her. I told her that it was going to suck but it would be okay and we would get through it together. And we did. I made clear to her that we were not even going to consider adoption or abortion and that if she didn't want to be a mother that I would raise the child as a single father.

So here I was... A 17 year old high school dropout who made "the highest score I've ever seen" on his GED exam according to the retired chief of police who taught at that adult education center. I was SURE that instructor would hate me because he used to be a cop and I was a high school dropout who dressed in all black and listened to metal and rap in east TN. And he did seem to have a negative opinion on me at first. But I have to admit, after I was there for a week, his opinion of me seemed to take a u turn. I believe that was because what that man said to me was very true

"son, I've seen a lot of people come and go and I'll tell you one thing, you are about the hardest working, most responsible, dead-beat looking kid I think I've ever seen come through these doors. If anyone in this building has a chance at makin it in this world it's you, but you have got to work on your appearance cause people in this world will judge you based on it. Now go make sumthin of yourself kid."

I know it sounds like I'm blowing my own horn but that's what the man said and it meant a lot to me coming from a conservative Christian ex cop. Of course I didn't listen to the guy and rather than trying to make something of myself I just tried to find a job to do what I figured was the right thing and provide for my family. For 5 years that never got me anywhere because there are no damn jobs if you don't go to college, and I couldn't really look for one outside of the city because I wasn't making enough to afford a vehicle and I damn sure didn't have anyone to help me out with that. I should have went straight to college when I got the GED because even though it was a GED, my score still qualified me for a state scholarship that I apparently waited too long for and no longer could get when I finally accepted that I would have to just suck it up and deal with debt slavery and go to college.

I did this as an agnostic person who supports someones right to choose if they want to have an abortion. I don't disagree with it for religious reasons, I disagree with it for moral reasons but realize that not everybody does and that I have no right to force my belief system on another person. Why should the government have any say about something like that?



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Anundeniabletruth
 





Ahhh so the agenda is out. What the hell should abortion have to do with government at all?


The agenda is out? Who's agenda? This must be the first time you've encountered me on this site


The agendas were pretty obvious in the last election, I thought. The Democrats dragged out all the left wing abortion people and Sandra Fluke who advocates for free contraceptives. Yah, what's that to do with govt. Obama and the Democrats made it a centerpiece for garnering women's votes. Unfortunately, besides the obvious vote pandering, they didn't tell the truth about the real agenda which is depopulation.

Anyway, somewhere in our earlier history individual states enacted laws on various issues including marriage and abortion. These laws were made in a time when more traditional Christian conservative values were more widespread. Roe v Wade made a federal mandate that abortion would be legal in all the states. This was pushed through by Progressives.
Laws are made by people and they reflect the values of the people.

The more the values are degraded through the push of secular humanists, the more people will seek out this type of solution.
The Progressives know this, and this is why they have sought to have more and more control over the social engineering in schools and to wrest control away from the parents.
edit on 22-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Devil's advocate here:

Free contraceptives vs poor people having children that they can't afford to provide for and thus require government assistance. Which is cheaper? Which requires less government spending?

You do realize that most children who grow up in poverty repeat their parents mistakes, correct? Most people who grew up in poverty never get anything better than a minimum wage job and would not be capable of putting food in their kids mouths, were it not for SNAP benefits. However, if those people never had children in the first place than there wouldn't be so many more people having more kids in 16 years, needing even more government spending on welfare for the poor. Reducing spending is a fiscally conservative political point of view is it not?

Please don't come to me with that whole " well people should know better than to be having sex in the first place" nonsense that so many love to bring to the table because anyone who believes that you're going to convince people to STOP having sex, especially poor people who don't have much to do already, has got to be totally insane and the opinion of such a person is not one that I will ever consider valid because it doesn't matter what God a person chooses to pray to or not pray to or what scientific opinion they hold dear to their hearts, human beings are NOT going to stop having sex because someone tells them to... It just ain't gonna happen. ( Not saying that you would or would not argue that point but I know that A LOT of self proclaimed "conservatives" do so )

The argument on contraceptives is a funny one that shows just how screwed up our species really is... Don't people consider condoms to be "contraceptives?" Those are nothing like abortion. Condoms don't "kill" anything... unless you choke to death on one...... They are supposed to prevent people who do not want, or cannot financially afford to raise a child from having one.

As someone who thinks that the governments wastes too much money already, I believe it would be better to just give people "free" birth control than to give them money 18 years to take care of the kids they couldn't afford to have in the first place.

That being said, I don't care either way about the contraceptive "issue." The money being spent on birth control is nowhere near the money being spent on bailing out businesses ( which in a way kind of seems "socialist" to me ) or raising children for people who can't find a job that will pay them enough to able to do so without the need for government assistance.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Anundeniabletruth
 


Homeschooling has nothing to do with being taught religion. Real homeschooling usess genuine materials and the parents are responsible to make sure the child is studying the curriculum.
For instance the Alpha Omega Christian homeschooling program gives you software programs with school curriculum.
Here is a link to that program www.aophomeschooling.com...

A good homeschool program will be accredited.
The problem with homeschooling is someone has to be home to administer and make sure the child is doing his lessons and homework, and most people work so that can be a hangup. If you have a household where someone makes enough the other parent can stay home that is a good setup.
Another thing which has been promoted in schools is the whole "sustainabliity" thing, and using Al Gore's movie on Global Warming. And how about those children singing about how Barack is changing the world. And then there's that enviro film "The Story of Stuff"

So throwing more money at education isn't going to make things better.

I'm sure we will see 4 more years of progressive education.



Please don't come to me with that whole " well people should know better than to be having sex in the first place" nonsense


I understand your point. 20 years of sex ed has not stemmed the tide of unwanted pregnancies. The issue is complex, and again, there is no Statist solution which will fix it all because the State takes away parental authority and also responsibility.
The reason I posted that bit about education in the 1700's is that parents did have authority AND responsibility. Now everyone just says oh let the school take care of it.



edit on 22-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Anundeniabletruth
 


The contraceptive controversy now is about female contracepetives...ie The Pill. And the problem with the Catholic Church is that The Pill iis actually an abortifacient, that is it can actually cause a fertilized egg not to implant. The Catholic Church considers this as wrong so it does not support their institutions offering coverage for it. Then the Obama admin comes in with the Obamacare legislation to force Catholic Institutions to provide it. That is where centralized govt bureacracy is being manifested in this admin.
Now, in China they have the One Child policy, wherein the govt can dictate to parents how many children they can have, and even the UN gives money and resources to families who limit their family size. This is bureaucratic meddling in private affairs to the nth degree and it's amazing how many people think this is a good thing. China literally forces women to abort their girl babies because they can only have one child and boy babies are preferable. Don't you think that is diabolical?
So now comes Obama admin telling Catholics what they can and cannot do.
Obama who goes to a Christian University and makes them cover up the religious statues. It's just too disgusting.


China's one child policy was established by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in 1979 to limit communist China's population growth. Although designated a "temporary measure," it continues a quarter-century after its establishment. The policy limits couples to one child. Fines, pressures to abort a pregnancy, and even forced sterilization accompanied second or subsequent pregnancies.

geography.about.com...
Planned Parenthood gives out contraceptives. Sandra Fluk was complaining that the insurance plan of Georgetown University did not offer coverage for contraceptives. It's not about poor people who have no access. It is a matter of forcing insurance companies to do something the Progressives want. And forcing religious institutions to comply.

You may think that "free contraceptives" is a great thing in helping to stop unwanted pregnancies, but nothing is ever really free. Someone pays.

Margaret Sanger also thought that poor women should not be having babies. That is why she started the American Birth Control League, the predecessor to Planned Parenthood. She was in favor of sterilization, but she did also advocate abortions.

Here is an article Sanger wrote, entitled , "The Paradise of Communism," 27 Jan 1951.
Just the article title should be a "red flag" pun intended

Sooo, the founder of Planned Parenthood wrote articles about Communism and for communism.
edit on 22-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I was not aware that "everyone" says to "let the schools take care of it" when it comes to parenting. I'm a parent and my wife and I don't say that. It's funny too because I see myself as an independent and she's pretty liberal ( though I was successful in convincing her to vote for a third party candidate this year because, like many liberals, she wasn't too happy with the guy she voted for last time ) and neither of us would desire the schools to be parenting our children.

Yes, I do disagree with A LOT of things about China. Why do you think I keep telling you that I'm NOT a communist?
edit on 22-11-2012 by Anundeniabletruth because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-11-2012 by Anundeniabletruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Anundeniabletruth
 


So you have taken on the job yourself of educating your kids, that's great. So do you think that people just forget to teach their kids or do you think they believe the school will take care of it? It likely is one or the other. If you are going to tell me that parents aren't teaching their kids, are you suggesting to me that they are too uneducated to do it at all and therefore the schools must take up the job?
Of course there are parents who take great pride in involving themselves in their kids education. But then the State wants to wrest control away from those very people.
In Victorian times women were chaperoned. There is a price tag for increased freedom.

Society is now teaching people that babies are a throw a way item.

I appreciate your telling me you are not a communist


These things are complex. Thanks for a reasonable and civil discourse.
edit on 22-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Anundeniabletruth
 





How does it hurt them to put something back into the system if it isn't going to hurt them any?


You know this whole point of rich people paying their fair share was why I responded to you tonight. I know it sounds nice and all, but there is the catch, when intelligent and generous people such as yourself wonder why the wealthy don't give more. But to have the govt just arbitrarily take more from wealthy is of itself a socialist action of redistribution of income. It really matters not what the relative level is, the action is the same and the govt has no business confiscating our paychecks for their arbitrary reasons. That is why the Revolutionary was fought and our Founding Father set up the Constitution, but the socialists have found a way to get through the fortress.






top topics



 
51
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join