Jesus, Republicans and NRA Banned on School Websites

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
this was a mistake, made by a third party and it's being rectified.

The school has the ability to unblock anything it wants to.
Obviously it doesn't really want to. It's dragging it's feet.

From the opening article -

Andrew gathered his evidence and requested a meeting with the principal. The principal referred him to the superintendent, which he did. The superintendent promised to look into the matter and fix the problem.

“I gave him a week to fix the problem,” Andrew said. “But nothing had been done.”

So last Monday, Andrew took his mountain of evidence to the school board.

“They seemed surprised,” he said. “They told me they were going to look into the problem.”
Since the school board didn’t resolve the problem, I decided to take a crack at it.

The time line looks to be about a month since the student first brought this matter to the attention of the school officials. The problem is still there. All it takes is a simple 'flick of the filter switch'. It hasn't been done. Eventually it probably will be ... but probably only because the student didn't accept the inaction of the school on the matter and he kept moving forward.

a reply to: FlyersFan

The school has the ability to unblock anything it wants to.
Obviously it doesn't really want to. It's dragging it's feet.

They’re stalling until they receive orders from the White House. Obama and team still have their fingers in the air on this one.

I’m not paying much attention to these little distractions.

originally posted by: seabag
a reply to: FlyersFan

The school has the ability to unblock anything it wants to.
Obviously it doesn't really want to. It's dragging it's feet.

They’re stalling until they receive orders from the White House. Obama and team still have their fingers in the air on this one.

I’m not paying much attention to these little distractions.

Probably one of the requirements of 'common core'.

a reply to: neo96


Seems like a vast left wing conspiracy to me.

Just saying

a reply to: FlyersFan

The problem is still there. All it takes is a simple 'flick of the filter switch'. It hasn't been done.

Says you. It's actually a little more involved than "flick of the filter switch" unless you're removing thousands of blocked sites indiscriminately.

“I gave him a week to fix the problem,” Andrew said. “But nothing had been done.”

While this kid was making demands (lol), did he happen to present a list of sites to unblock? These would have to be reviewed and then passed along to whoever is doing their IT. Is it common for high school students in your area to have a meeting with the Superintendent of schools, present him with an arbitrary timeline and then run to Fox News when it's not met?

A lot of school districts don't employ full-time IT staff and rely on contractors. I know the contractor who handles our school district's IT and he also contracts for several local businesses. I know it fits into the persecution narrative to believe that there is a magical "unblock Republicans" button, but no.

a reply to: SM2

Conspiracy ?

Yep this thread deserves a does of Mencken.

Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law. One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence. Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions. At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty. Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes. Whenever his notions show signs of becoming "dangerous," ie, of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative. And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage. Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty. They never really are. Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster. They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them. If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it. The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize. They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it. "Liberty and Democracy" in the Baltimore Evening Sun (13 April 1925), also in A Second Mencken Chrestomathy : New Selections from the Writings of America's Legendary Editor, Critic, and Wit (1994) edited by Terry Teachout, p. 35

en.wikiquote.org...

Somehow, I thought I was putting these quotes in this thread instead of the one about the Canadian judge . . .

48."If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love, they are doomed to disappointment. If we are ever to approach that time, it will be after patient and persistent effort of long duration. The present international situation of mistrust and fear can only be corrected by a formula of equal status, continuously applied, to every phase of international contacts, until the cobwebs of the old order are brushed out of the minds of the people of all lands." Dr. Augustus O. Thomas, president of the World Federation of Education Associations (August 1927), quoted in the book International Understanding: Agencies Educating for a New World (1931)
.

101. "Every child in American who enters school with an allegiance toward our elected officials, toward our founding fathers, toward our institutions, toward the preservation of this form of government... all of this proves the children are sick, because the truly well individual is one who has rejected all of those things and is what I would call the true international child of the future".
Chester M. Pierce, Harvard University psychiatrist, at a 1973 International Education Seminar, as quoted in "Educating For The New World Order" by B.K. Eakman
.

115. "World government is the ultimate aim…. It must be recognized that the law of nations takes precedence over national law…. The process will have to be assisted by the deletion of the nationalistic material employed in the educational textbooks and its replacement by material explaining the benefits of wiser association." 1942 The leftist Institute of Pacific Relations publishes Post War Worlds by P. E. Corbett
.

126. The CFR, dedicated to one world government, financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education, and mass communication-media should be familiar to every American..."
.

As far as Rhodes was concerned, his plan would be carried out via Rhodes Scholars and Round Table Groups, which grew out of his secret "Society of the Elect." Rhodes' secret society lasted almost six decades, by which time enough of his people had penetrated the areas of politics, economics, journalism, and education so that his "conspiracy" was replaced by a network of the power elite. [13] We know that the conspiracy lasted well into the 20th century, because in 1931 one of its key operatives, historian Arnold Toynbee, wrote:
"We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands."[14]
.

While the Fabians were using education to move the public toward socialism, Rhodes Scholars were obtaining important posts in universities, and Carl Haessler (RS) was helping to establish Socialist Sunday Schools for younger people. [16] About the same time, socialist John Dewey, who had been mentored by G. Stanley Hall, who was brought to Johns Hopkins University by its president, Daniel Coit Gilman (S&B), was instituting "progressive education" in classrooms across our nation. [17] And like the RS influence in journalism, economics, and politics, Skull and Bones members also became involved in these areas. In journalism, Richard Ely Danielson would become the publisher of Atlantic Monthly, Russell Wheeler Davenport would become the editor of Fortune magazine, and Henry Luce would become the founder of Time. [18] Henry Luce's biographer, Robert Herzstein, wrote:
.
"Early on, young Harry (Henry Luce) learned that a powerful circle of contacts and friends could move the world."[19]
.

1928: John Dewey wrote an article for the December 5 issue of The New Republic magazine in which he noted that the Bolsheviks were engaged in:
"'...a most interesting sociological experiment,' ... and using progressive educational ideas and practices to '...counteract and transform... the influence of home and Church.'"[31]
The following year, in his book, Individualism, Old and New, Dewey predicted: "We are in for some kind of socialism, call it by whatever name we please."[32]
Dewey would later become president of The League For Industrial Democracy (LID), formerly the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, and the American counterpart of the British Fabian Society. The Thirtieth Anniversary Report of the LID stated: "The Student LID ... feels particularly proud that the last batch of Rhodes Scholars contained six members of the LID."[33] John Dewey and the FS wanted social or group control.
.

Four years later, the foundation gave a grant to Princeton University to study the influence of radio on different groups, and Rockefeller's General Education Board funded a study of CBS's 1938 broadcast of War of the Worlds, which was written up later as a 'study in the psychology of panic.'"[36]
.

Most of 1st quotes from 1st link.

twoday.net...

www.crossroad.to...

www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com...


twga...

originally posted by: FlyersFan
The school has the ability to unblock anything it wants to.

The SCHOOL can not. The DISTRICT can.

Eventually it probably will be ... but probably only because the student didn't accept the inaction of the school on the matter and he kept moving forward.

Probably this, probably that... I'll wait to see what ACTUALLY happens instead of getting my panties all in a knot about what probably will or won't happen and the probable reasons it probably will or won't happen.

a reply to: g146541

I don't think it is so easy to just say "the parents need to pull their children out and home school them." In today's economy, both parents are usually FORCED to work full time; maybe even two jobs just to make ends meet. Home schooling your child would mean time away from work, which means less money for bills and other things at the end of the week.

originally posted by: Chiftel

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Chiftel
Excellent. Kids don't go to school to get dumbed down by the right wing on the public dime.

So you aren't ok with kids going to school and getting dumbed down by the right wing on the public dime, but you are perfectly ok with them going to school and getting dumbed down by the left wing on the public dime?

If you believe instilling a predilection and preference for living in this reality rather than the alternate one right wingers prefer to live in is 'dumbding down by the left', yeah.

Sure.

No I believe that the BS is just as deep and stinks just as bad on the left as it does on the right. If you don't see that my friend, then you are blind to the American political machine.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The link to the globalist quotes--you can check them for 'in context'--includes plenty of quotes about the globalists using both sides of the political spectrum toward their ends--for many decades, by DESIGN.

It's one of their versions of the good-cop/bad-cop strategy. And it's worked very well for them for many decades.

It'd be on FOX if it were only one school like that. There are many with bias, software to blame or not, and there is a bias there...otherwise I'd just have read and not commented.

Schools in the U.S., from elementary school through college, are centers of liberal indoctrination. These students are growing up and getting out in real life, and society is getting more and more liberal, as planned. I heard about someone taking a college class on Shakespeare, but it was an "eco-feminist perspective" on Shakespeare. He didn't learn much about Shakespeare, but he sure learned about the eco-feminist perspective. So they can't even teach what should be a relatively straightforward subject matter without substituting it in large part with blatant liberal indoctrination.

There is a major quality crisis in education today, and the cost of higher education continues to skyrocket in a vicious circle because politicians seem to think the way to solve it is to put even more "easy" student loan money on the table in order to make college more "affordable," but this simply leads colleges to raise their tuition even more because there is more money on the table to pay for it.

What bothers me the most about all of this, is the way that folks will ignore/downplay/defend this stuff essentially because they agree with the side not blocked, whereas they are willing to accept tyranny just to shut up the other side.

It's extremely disturbing.

Just another reason why I am correct in NEVER allowing my kids into one of these institutions. I'd honestly rather my kids learn about life from Youtube in comparison... sad I know.

I would have just considered this "blown outta proportion" until I read a comment in this thread that was 100% ok with this purely because it was their side that won and their opponents that got blocked. That comment helped me realize just how insanely far this has come. Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot whomever you are.

a reply to: muzzleflash

What bothers me the most about all of this, is the way that folks will ignore/downplay/defend this stuff essentially because they agree with the side not blocked, whereas they are willing to accept tyranny just to shut up the other side.

What's more disturbing is that people are commenting about this who have no idea what they're talking about. I'm an IT professional and watching people mindlessly eating up this garbage and offering passionate, uninformed opinions is similar in nature to how you might feel when you see people blabbering about how "assault weapons" should be banned because they don't understand the subject matter and fail to realize that they're referring to cosmetic differences.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Metallicus
This is more evidence of a disgusting liberal bias in our schools.

Or in the software they're using. Did you read the entire article? The school isn't going in and blocking individual websites. They bought software that does it for them and it's being investigated. Leave it to FOX to make a story out of nothing.

No. That's what the school board and superintendent are CLAIMING. The maker of the software was not available for comment one way or the other. Funny this happens in Connecticut...

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The link to the globalist quotes--you can check them for 'in context'--includes plenty of quotes about the globalists using both sides of the political spectrum toward their ends--for many decades, by DESIGN.

It's one of their versions of the good-cop/bad-cop strategy. And it's worked very well for them for many decades.

Like I said, I never denied that bad people exist. That is a given. I just said that the premise that they are working together to bring about the end of the world is silly, especially knowing that humans tend to be packrats and have a hard time willingly relinquishing the gains they've acquired over a period of time. I fail to see these people willingly destroying the world thereby bringing themselves back down to the same level as everyone else. I see them continuing to play both sides of the political spectrum for their personal gain. THAT. IS. IT. The personal gain may coincide with another rich person's personal gain or even many other rich people's personal gains and they may work together on something. But know this, given the opportunity, any one of those rich people would stab each other in the back to gain a bit more power or wealth.

School Vouchers, puts the money in the parents hands and the choice
as to where their kids are taught. Everything changes at that point,
schools competing for students, imagine that.

a reply to: theantediluvian

It doesn't matter how "expert" you claim to be actually.

Because someone believed it was the way it was presented, and agreed with the procedure of blocking their opponents. That's all that mattered to me, that people think that way. People actually think like that in today's world over politics?

So it's true that people are willing to accept censorship of opposition to "win" the debate. I could care less who blocked who for what reason, I did care that someone exists that supports such things blindly outta spite. That alone is very disconcerting.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: theantediluvian

It doesn't matter how "expert" you claim to be actually.

Because someone believed it was the way it was presented, and agreed with the procedure of blocking their opponents. That's all that mattered to me, that people think that way. People actually think like that in today's world over politics?

So it's true that people are willing to accept censorship of opposition to "win" the debate. I could care less who blocked who for what reason, I did care that someone exists that supports such things blindly outta spite. That alone is very disconcerting.

So one person's forum post is enough to make you believe that children should be educated by youtube? Not much left to be discussed. Have a nice day.