Obama to support ground zero mosque

[HereToStudy]

This thread has gone OT too many times and our discussion here is OT as well.

Best regards!

David,

I agree that we have gone completely off topic. Also we are both (If I do say so myself :28 quite intelligent people that are very strong in our convictions. Thats a formula for a religious debate of no end, and quite frankly, no progress for either side of the argument. So while I will continue to respectfully disagree with your and other(s)'s views on religion, we can let that go.

I'm not sure how one can rationalize their opposition to this Mosque being built, yet in the very same breath support the right of this "reverend" to burn copies of the Qur'an. Apart from the hypocrisy, it pushes the notion that one form of religious expression is superior to the other, and that speaks to the heart of this issue, that organized religion inherently creates walls of division, rather than seeking to find the bigger picture. This is a nuanced issue, and it should be addressed as such.

SouthPaw, the issue of the mosque really is a non-issue. It is bigotry at its finest. It is an "our religion vs. your religion" thing. Overall the whole thing has provided quite the distraction from real issues we are currently facing. Those against it are the same who sing the praises of the consitution, claim to be libertarian and supporters of Ron Paul (who openly called the mosque issue, and I quote, "all about hate and islamophobia"), and are for religious freedom, as long as it is their religion. Terrorists/Extremists do not make up a strong representation of the Islamic faith, no more than the extremist christians that murder doctors of abortion clinics (which I am sure at least one person here will hypocritically justify), are involved in murder/crime/pedophilia are representative of the christian community.

 

[southpaw23]

Similarly in the reverse, I can't understand at all how Hillary Clinton or any of the other democrat talking heads can support the construction of a permanent trophy mosque overlooking ground zero for decades while a symbolic 1 day protest of burning the Quaran is a total nightmare and should be suppressed.

Because neither of those issues are synonymous. One issue is relative to a form of religious expression (Mosque), while the other is clearly an indictment on that form of religious expression, entirely different context and intent behind both examples.

Hillary's job is to travel around the world preaching religious tolerance and inclusion, it's in the best interest of our national security for her to do so.

 

[southpaw23]

David,

I agree that we have gone completely off topic. Also we are both (If I do say so myself :28 quite intelligent people that are very strong in our convictions. Thats a formula for a religious debate of no end, and quite frankly, no progress for either side of the argument. So while I will continue to respectfully disagree with your and other(s)'s views on religion, we can let that go.



SouthPaw, the issue of the mosque really is a non-issue. It is bigotry at its finest. It is an "our religion vs. your religion" thing. Overall the whole thing has provided quite the distraction from real issues we are currently facing. Those against it are the same who sing the praises of the consitution, claim to be libertarian and supporters of Ron Paul (who openly called the mosque issue, and I quote, "all about hate and islamophobia"), and are for religious freedom, as long as it is their religion. Terrorists/Extremists do not make up a strong representation of the Islamic faith, no more than the extremist christians that murder doctors of abortion clinics (which I am sure at least one person here will hypocritically justify), are involved in murder/crime/pedophilia are representative of the christian community.

I couldn't agree more. I know of many Muslim Americans personally, who are adamantly opposed to any form of violence or religious exclusion, and label these acts as both cowardly and shameful.

 

[EasyEJL]

Its not a mosque for goodness sakes, and I will say this on the Qu'ran burning, that has the potential to incite violence, whereas the Muslim "Y" does not

it is a mosque as well as a Y, calling it a Y is just another liberal game to try and remove the fact that people will be worshipping the same god that in numerous subdivisions of the religion calls for death to all infidels and for them to take over the planet within viewing range (probably with a nice private balcony so the high roller sheik contributors cal look out over and laugh) of ground zero. Islam has a long history of building trophy mosques where they had a military victory.

And it will incite violence, it already has. There was a burning down of a mosque under construction in Tennessee, and the only reason there hasn't been any violence at Park 51 is that they haven't started construction yet.

Again, why is there a need to be sensitive to them when they are unwilling to be sensitive to us? Stepping aside from even the radical islamist who were behind the actual 9/11 attacks, a large amount of the muslim world still hates America. See what they think of us building a christian church almost anywhere in the middle east. I know Iranians who were forced to flee their country due to the fact that they were christians.

 

[EasyEJL]

Because neither of those issues are synonymous. One issue is relative to a form of religious expression (Mosque), while the other is clearly an indictment on that form of religious expression, entirely different context and intent behind both examples.

Hillary's job is to travel around the world preaching religious tolerance and inclusion, it's in the best interest of our national security for her to do so.

They are only different in the fact that the mosque is permanent, while the burining of the quaran is a 1 day event. Freedom of expression is freedom of expression, not limited by intent or context. You can't rationally be for either one of these, without also being for the other.

 

[HereToStudy]

Please let the following picture sink in for a minute:

 

[southpaw23]

They are only different in the fact that the mosque is permanent, while the burining of the quaran is a 1 day event. Freedom of expression is freedom of expression, not limited by intent or context. You can't rationally be for either one of these, without also being for the other.

Not entirely sure how the permanence of one issue, relates to the nature of the other? While both are forms of expression, that's where the similarities end, as contextually the intent behind both examples are conflicting ideologies, I.E religious expression versus religious intolerance.

That "reverend" has every right in the world to express himself, but in doing so, he is selfishly doing it at the peril of others and preaching exclusion. I was under the impression that Christians were taught to humbles themselves under the eyes of their god, no matter the circumstances? This will become a recruitment tape, shown all around the Arab world, even in places where western influence has infiltrated their culture.

 

[EasyEJL]

Not entirely sure how the permanence of one issue, relates to the nature of the other? While both are forms of expression, that's where the similarities end, as contextually the intent behind both examples are conflicting ideologies, I.E religious expression versus religious intolerance.

It entirely does. His affront to them is a 1 day deal, the Islamic affront to the US for building the mosque there will last till its demolished.

And why is buring the Quaran a religious intolerance issue? Its a protest against the specific branch of islamics that takes the Quaran and has warped it into extremety - Wahabism. It should be a wakeup call for moderate Islamics to do something about excluding people who are radicals from being involved, which so far still has not been happening.

 

[southpaw23]

It entirely does. His affront to them is a 1 day deal, the Islamic affront to the US for building the mosque there will last till its demolished.

And why is buring the Quaran a religious intolerance issue? Its a protest against the specific branch of islamics that takes the Quaran and has warped it into extremety - Wahabism. It should be a wakeup call for moderate Islamics to do something about excluding people who are radicals from being involved, which so far still has not been happening.

You list a set of "broad" interpretive examples, then apply them in very "specific" ways, none of which makes any rational sense. And secondly it's referred to as Wahhabism. The other word you listed is the thing that comes with Sushi.

The Bible and the Qur'an are a written set of values, neither of which speak to "specific" segments of any religion. How people interpret those values, are not relevant to the books themselves; interpretation is a personal act. For example if a Christian murders an abortion doctor in the name of Christianity, does the bible now take on a different significance throughout the religious world? Obviously not.

Burning copies of the Qur'an is an overall rejection and indictment on the religion as a whole, it's not going to be interpreted as being geared towards "specific" radical groups within the religion. Again, neither example share similarities beyond just being mere expressions.

 

[AE14]

it is a mosque as well as a Y, calling it a Y is just another liberal game to try and remove the fact that people will be worshipping the same god that in numerous subdivisions of the religion calls for death to all infidels and for them to take over the planet within viewing range (probably with a nice private balcony so the high roller sheik contributors cal look out over and laugh) of ground zero. Islam has a long history of building trophy mosques where they had a military victory.

And it will incite violence, it already has. There was a burning down of a mosque under construction in Tennessee, and the only reason there hasn't been any violence at Park 51 is that they haven't started construction yet.

Again, why is there a need to be sensitive to them when they are unwilling to be sensitive to us? Stepping aside from even the radical islamist who were behind the actual 9/11 attacks, a large amount of the muslim world still hates America. See what they think of us building a christian church almost anywhere in the middle east. I know Iranians who were forced to flee their country due to the fact that they were christians.

wow.....lets let the partisan nonsense go at this point. This is not political, it is just common sense. This is a 13 story structure, where I believe only 2 floors CAN BE used for worship. I guess to you that constitutes a Mosque, however to me (as a native Nyer) it does not.

As an aside, you do realize how m any churches and temples there are in the Middle East, right?

Also, to state that the same god that calls for death to the infidels tells me that you have never read the Qu'ran. In which case this discussion goes no further IMO as it becomes a bunch of monkees flinging poo at each other.

 

[EasyEJL]

wow.....lets let the partisan nonsense go at this point. This is not political, it is just common sense. This is a 13 story structure, where I believe only 2 floors CAN BE used for worship. I guess to you that constitutes a Mosque, however to me (as a native Nyer) it does not.

As an aside, you do realize how m any churches and temples there are in the Middle East, right?

Also, to state that the same god that calls for death to the infidels tells me that you have never read the Qu'ran. In which case this discussion goes no further IMO as it becomes a bunch of monkees flinging poo at each other.

If you had just 2 inches of penis inserted in your butt would it somehow not be rape? 2 floors of worship space makes it worship center, and since its an islamic worship center, its a mosque. Every church has part of its facilities for schools, living quarters, daycare, etc. does that somehow make them not churches? If its not a mosque, it shouldn't be tax exempt either, like the imam's apartment is considered to be (which somehow he shows 500 regular worshippers in a NYC apartment).

I do have an idea of how many there are there, and its far less proportionately than the number of mosques in the US. Also, in the US the number of mosques being built is rising, whereas that is not the case in the middle east.

I'm not stating that the quaran itself in all cases calls for that, but that is how certain sects have interpreted it. Again, I don't understand how anyone with a rational mind can support the Park 51 project as freedom of religious expression, and not also support the freedom of expression of the priest burning the quaran. Personally I basically support both, although Park 51 is a disaster waiting to happen. The imam has terrorist ties (Hamas), and the US government is using taxpayer dollars to fund his fundraising trip, which is ridiculous.

 

[B5150]

But that's just it...after seeing the interview on CNN with this reverand, so many people actually believe that their partiular flavor of "Magic Sorcerer Fantasy" is somehow so obviously true (even though veracity and amount of evidence is the same for all...zero) that they are justified to commit any act/spout any stupidity in the name of this "truth".

In this I agree.

The great commision of Christ is to make disciples and baptize. It is NOT to provoke...regardless.

Many Christians have lost their focus of the Christ in their Christianity. The Spirit is lost on the letter by both the advocates and the nay-sayers.

I'm certainly not in this guys camp, although he has a right to do and say what he wants.

 

[EasyEJL]

You list a set of "broad" interpretive examples, then apply them in very "specific" ways, none of which makes any rational sense. And secondly it's referred to as Wahhabism. The other word you listed is the thing that comes with Sushi.

The Bible and the Qur'an are a written set of values, neither of which speak to "specific" segments of any religion. How people interpret those values, are not relevant to the books themselves; interpretation is a personal act. For example if a Christian murders an abortion doctor in the name of Christianity, does the bible now take on a different significance throughout the religious world? Obviously not.

Burning copies of the Qua'ran is an overall rejection and indictment on the religion as a whole, it's not going to be interpreted as being geared towards "specific" radical groups within the religion. Again, neither example share similarities beyond just being mere expressions.

Your major problem here is you CHOSING to interpret the burning of the Quaran that way. That is a perception issue, not a reality issue. No less so, the families of the people killed in 9/11 have the perception that allowing the mosque to be built there is a total affront to the memories of the loved ones they lost there.

And burning bibles to protest the murder of an abortion doctor is entirely legitimate as well.

 

[EasyEJL]

The U.S. military has confirmed that Bibles of United States soldiers serving in Afghanistan were confiscated and destroyed by order of the U.S. State Department because Muslims were offended that the soldiers were filmed reading the Bibles on Arabic Al Jazeera television. CNN reported that that the Bibles were "burned" in order to satisfy the demands of Muslim authorities who were deeply offended that copies of the official sacred book of Christianity, printed in the local language of the Afghans and read by U.S. soldiers fluent in Pashto, were allowed into the country. The burning of the Bibles in Afghansitan was approved by the U.S. government, lauded by the Afghan Muslims and seemed to satiate the anger of those Muslims deeply offended at Bible reading on Arab network television.

Now General David H. Petraeus, U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, has denounced plans by a Florida church to burn copies of the Koran this weekend. The White House has also condemned the Florida church's plan, with press secretary Robert Gibbs reiterating Petraeus's contention that the act would be "offensive" to Muslims. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley called the proposed demonstration "un-American" and said it was "inconsistent with the values of religious tolerance and religious freedom." Muslim, Christian, and other religious leaders are putting pressure on Pastor Terry Jones of Dove World Outreach Center in Gainsville, Florida not to follow through with his declaration that he will burn the Korans this Saturday, September 11.

I happen to agree that the church's plan to burn the Korans is unwise, and it is obvious that there is outrage in the Muslim world and in our government over the pastor's plan, but my question is a simple and sincere one: Why was there not a similar outrage among Muslims, the American military and the American government over the burning of Bibles in Afghanistan?

So again, the double standard applied by our liberal government...

 

[HereToStudy]

Just to set the record correctly, I do not think that the government or anyone else should STOP the burning of the Quran, I just dont think it should happen.

 

[AE14]

If you had just 2 inches of penis inserted in your butt would it somehow not be rape? 2 floors of worship space makes it worship center, and since its an islamic worship center, its a mosque. Every church has part of its facilities for schools, living quarters, daycare, etc. does that somehow make them not churches? If its not a mosque, it shouldn't be tax exempt either, like the imam's apartment is considered to be (which somehow he shows 500 regular worshippers in a NYC apartment).

I do have an idea of how many there are there, and its far less proportionately than the number of mosques in the US. Also, in the US the number of mosques being built is rising, whereas that is not the case in the middle east.

I'm not stating that the quaran itself in all cases calls for that, but that is how certain sects have interpreted it. Again, I don't understand how anyone with a rational mind can support the Park 51 project as freedom of religious expression, and not also support the freedom of expression of the priest burning the quaran. Personally I basically support both, although Park 51 is a disaster waiting to happen. The imam has terrorist ties (Hamas), and the US government is using taxpayer dollars to fund his fundraising trip, which is ridiculous.

that first part had me cracking up...just an aside :bigok:


I am in agreement with you. Based on sheer rights alone, both groups can go forward with their plans. However, I believe that the Qu'ran buring will garner a much harsher response. Personally, I think all sides in these issues are nuts and have lost their way (if they ever had it to begin with)

 

[southpaw23]

If you had just 2 inches of penis inserted in your butt would it somehow not be rape? 2 floors of worship space makes it worship center, and since its an islamic worship center, its a mosque. Every church has part of its facilities for schools, living quarters, daycare, etc. does that somehow make them not churches? If its not a mosque, it shouldn't be tax exempt either, like the imam's apartment is considered to be (which somehow he shows 500 regular worshippers in a NYC apartment).

I do have an idea of how many there are there, and its far less proportionately than the number of mosques in the US. Also, in the US the number of mosques being built is rising, whereas that is not the case in the middle east.

I'm not stating that the quaran itself in all cases calls for that, but that is how certain sects have interpreted it. Again, I don't understand how anyone with a rational mind can support the Park 51 project as freedom of religious expression, and not also support the freedom of expression of the priest burning the quaran. Personally I basically support both, although Park 51 is a disaster waiting to happen. The imam has terrorist ties (Hamas), and the US government is using taxpayer dollars to fund his fundraising trip, which is ridiculous.

There are so many holes here, not sure where to begin. The YMCA and JCC are both tax exempt, neither of which are places of worship, but rather community centers that are built around the idea of faith, understand the distinction?

Other than some obscure "blogs" or conservative sources written by plumbers, what else can you dig up to substantiate the claim that this man has terrorist ties?

 

[southpaw23]

Your major problem here is you CHOSING to interpret the burning of the Quaran that way. That is a perception issue, not a reality issue. No less so, the families of the people killed in 9/11 have the perception that allowing the mosque to be built there is a total affront to the memories of the loved ones they lost there.

And burning bibles to protest the murder of an abortion doctor is entirely legitimate as well.

I think the real issue here is a lack of proper context, let's just agree to disagree.

 

[EasyEJL]

There are so many holes here, not sure where to begin. The YMCA and JCC are both tax exempt, neither of which are places of worship, but rather community centers that are built around the ideas of faith, understand the distinction?

Other than "blogs" or conservative sources written by plumbers, what else can you dig up to substantiate the claim that this man has terrorist ties?

If the YMCA and JCC have a church or synagogue inside them, then they are also places of worship. You are (like most elitist liberal snobs) trying to split hairs on semantics, and avoid the reality of the situation.

And its easy to dismiss conservative sources as the liberal sources are all in the same pockets of the democrats, so they lie their own direction.

Here how does the new york post stating that he was one of the largest fundraisers of the boats to break the israeli blockade (which is entirely legal by all standards) and get materials to hamas, as well as purposefully set up for a fight/confrontation when the israelis tried to stop them?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/imam_unmosqued_0XbZMwCvHAVdRZEKgx29AK

 

[EasyEJL]

I think the real issue here is a lack of proper context, let's just agree to disagree.

Thats just another bs line used by liberal elitists to say "I'm right and you are wrong". There is no "proper" context to you, unless its the context that supports what you are saying.

 

[southpaw23]

Oh right because Rupert Murdoch doesn't have an agenda. Let me explain it to you this way...you could probably write for the post.

 

[southpaw23]

Like much of your argument? You paint an entire religion with a broad brush, without a hint of factual information, historical or otherwise, in order to substantiate anything you've said.

 

[EasyEJL]

Oh right because Rupert Murdoch doesn't have an agenda. Let me explain it to you this way...you could probably write for the post.

Like any source of journalism doesn't have an agenda?

 

[EasyEJL]

Like much of your argument? You paint an entire religion with a broad brush, without a hint of factual information, historical or otherwise, in order to substantiate anything you've said.

As with most of you arguments and most liberals as well, you paint anyone who doesn't kowtow to your superiority with a broad brush. I don't see anywhere that I stated anything about the Muslim faith being one that incites violence, just certain sects. Hams is officially listed as a terrorist group, yet Raouf supports them.

 

[southpaw23]

Like any source of journalism doesn't have an agenda?

The difference is that at publications like the Post, their stories are poorly vetted, if vetted at all. They offer hearsay as fact, and portray loose affiliations, as having solid relationships.

Yasir Arafat labeled as a terrorist under the Bush administration, was also a prior recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, so again all left to interpretation, or agendas.

 

[Harry Manback]

The bible burning in afghanistan is something else. I didn't even know about that.

 

[southpaw23]

As with most of you arguments and most liberals as well, you paint anyone who doesn't kowtow to your superiority with a broad brush<---YOU MEAN LIKE YOU JUST DID WITH THIS STATEMENT? I don't see anywhere that I stated anything about the Muslim faith being one that incites violence, just certain sects. Hams is officially listed as a terrorist group, yet Raouf supports them.

Right and just out of curiosity which "sects" are you referring to specifically? Sunni or Shī‘ah? And what are their differences both culturally and politically? Enlighten us all....

Bottom line is people prefer to emote over issues which they don't fully understand.

 

[EasyEJL]

The difference is that at publications like the Post, their stories are poorly vetted, if vetted at all. They offer hearsay as fact, and portray loose affiliations, as having solid relationships.

Yasir Arafat labeled as a terrorist under the Bush administration, was also a prior recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, so again all left to interpretation, or agendas.

Right, like the Nobel peace prize committe doesn't have its own set of agendas as well. Acts of terror are pretty well defined, and Arafat qualifies as a terrorist under them.

 

[southpaw23]

Oh okay so what was his(Arafat) qualification under the Reagan administration?

 

[EasyEJL]

Oh okay so what was his(Arafat) qualification under the Reagan administration?

He was chairman of the PLO, purposefully inciting violence and hatred against Israelis.

 

[southpaw23]

He was chairman of the PLO, purposefully inciting violence and hatred against Israelis.

I asked you about his designation as a terrorist, specifically under the Regan admin, and instead you offer me a canned response. Let's chalk it up to you not knowing the history of his political involvement in the middle east, be it the Lebanese war or otherwise, and how that played into how our government came to view him through different administrations. I don't mean for this to come off as disrespectful, but I think you're emoting over issues of which you don't have a clear understanding.

 

[EasyEJL]

I asked you about his designation as a terrorist, specifically under the Regan admin, and instead you offer me a canned response. Let's chalk it up to you not knowing the history of his political involvement in the middle east, be it the Lebanese war, or otherwise and how that played into how our government came to view him through different administrations.

Again, more liberal elitist bull****. He was president of an organization whose stated goal was and still is the destruction of "The Zionist Entity," which is still in the stated charter of the organization as it is displayed at the UN. You may need more than that to designate a group or a person running the group as a terrorist, rational people don't.

And as always with liberal elitist snobs, you try and play an educational slight of hand, ignoring the fact that Araft has nothing to do with the issue of the mosque, or the issue of burning of Quarans. So when you can't win with logic or common sense, redirect to something else. Pretty standard Obama tactic, along with your attempting to treat anyone who doesn't support your ideas as if their ideas deserve no merit.

 

[southpaw23]

Again, more liberal elitist bull****. He was president of an organization whose stated goal was and still is the destruction of "The Zionist Entity," which is still in the stated charter of the organization as it is displayed at the UN. You may need more than that to designate a group or a person running the group as a terrorist, rational people don't.

And as always with liberal elitist snobs, you try and play an educational slight of hand, ignoring the fact that Araft has nothing to do with the issue of the mosque, or the issue of burning of Quarans. So when you can't win with logic or common sense, redirect to something else. Pretty standard Obama tactic, along with your attempting to treat anyone who doesn't support your ideas as if their ideas deserve no merit.

Or conversely a lack of education with the accompanying "insecurity" factor, that causes one to lash out against those who choose to get themselves informed.

 

[EasyEJL]

Or conversely a lack of education with the accompanying "insecurity" factor, that causes one to lash out against those who choose to get themselves informed.

Informed or indoctrinated? From the way you respond to everything, its apparent that you have bought the liberal agenda hook line and sinker, so i'd consider you indoctrinated more than educated.

It doesn't take a ton of information to see that Raouf has spent money out of his pocket to fund terrorist related activities like the boat attempting to provoke violence at the israeli blockade, nor does it take a ton of information to see that our state department (in what seems like a total 180 degree twist on their usual stance of "separation of church and state") is paying for him as a religious person to go raise funds for his mosque. I guess that leaves him more money to send to Hamas and they like that?

 

[dsade]

I like Bacon with my Ad Hominem Grits.

 

[southpaw23]

Informed or indoctrinated? From the way you respond to everything, its apparent that you have bought the liberal agenda hook line and sinker, so i'd consider you indoctrinated more than educated.

It doesn't take a ton of information to see that Raouf has spent money out of his pocket to fund terrorist related activities like the boat attempting to provoke violence at the israeli blockade, nor does it take a ton of information to see that our state department (in what seems like a total 180 degree twist on their usual stance of "separation of church and state") is paying for him as a religious person to go raise funds for his mosque. I guess that leaves him more money to send to Hamas and they like that?

Again...again..and for good measure another again...what are your sources, and Sean Hannity's Twitter account doesn't count.

I'm just going to let you win and FYI it's spelled Qur'an. =)

 

[southpaw23]

Again...again..and for good measure another again...what are your sources, and Sean Hannity's Twitter account doesn't count.

I'm just going to let you win and FYI it's spelled Qur'an. =)

Ad Hominem....those damn "elitist" words.

 

[EasyEJL]

Again...again..and for good measure another again...what are your sources, and Sean Hannity's Twitter account doesn't count.

I'm just going to let you win and FYI it's spelled Qur'an. =)

Again, its pointless to give you any sources, as you'll just claim they are driven by a conservate agenda regardless of who they are. Your willingness to only accept liberal news sources as being real news is no better. Again, a standard obamaphile response, claim any source that doesn't agree with you of being unworthy as a source. The Nazis did it in Gernmany too, and its been used quite successfully in numerous Communist regimes as well.

 

[HereToStudy]

Again, more liberal elitist bull****.

And as always with liberal elitist snobs, you try and play an educational slight of hand

I love when conservatives use ther terms liberal elite and argue against the use of education.


BTW, since we are talking about what should and shouldn't happen based on the stereotypes of a particular religion, let me quote my man Jon Stewart:

"You can build a Catholic church next to a playground, but should you?"

 

[southpaw23]

Again, its pointless to give you any sources, as you'll just claim they are driven by a conservate agenda regardless of who they are. Your willingness to only accept liberal news sources as being real news is no better. Again, a standard obamaphile response, claim any source that doesn't agree with you of being unworthy as a source. The Nazis did it in Gernmany too, and its been used quite successfully in numerous Communist regimes as well.

You mean my unwillingness to accept a "blog" entry as written by your plumber, then yes I'm unwilling. From reading the majority of your posts, it's clear you have a limited understanding of your own position, much less anyone else's, which is why you attack those of us who sought to educate ourselves. I'd take it one step further if I could and state those without an education, shouldn't be allowed near a voting booth or given a pair scissors.

 

[EasyEJL]

You mean my unwillingness to accept a "blog" entry as written by your plumber, then yes I'm unwilling.

And I wonder who dsade was accusing of ad hominem attacks....

 

[EasyEJL]

I love when conservatives use ther terms liberal elite and argue against the use of education.

Does it have anything to do with my educational level? Because nobody knows what mine is. But that doesn't mean I have to buy into the ridiculous liberal progressive agenda as is forced down peoples throats at colleges as the liberal progressives have a lock on educational unions. Its just another form of brainwashing as far as i'm concerned.


At this point, a student can't question stimulus spending or socialized healthcare in the open at most colleges without risking their graduation.

 

[southpaw23]

Does it have anything to do with my educational level? Because nobody knows what mine is. But that doesn't mean I have to buy into the ridiculous liberal progressive agenda as is forced down peoples throats at colleges as the liberal progressives have a lock on educational unions. Its just another form of brainwashing as far as i'm concerned.


At this point, a student can't question stimulus spending or socialized healthcare in the open at most colleges without risking their graduation.

I think it has everything to do with one's educational level...EVERYTHING.

 

[HereToStudy]

Does it have anything to do with my educational level? Because nobody knows what mine is. But that doesn't mean I have to buy into the ridiculous liberal progressive agenda as is forced down peoples throats at colleges as the liberal progressives have a lock on educational unions. Its just another form of brainwashing as far as i'm concerned.


At this point, a student can't question stimulus spending or socialized healthcare in the open at most colleges without risking their graduation.

Very untrue.

First I was not questioning your education, you can have 5 PHDs for all I know, I never made any assumptions toward your education level.

"liberal progressive agenda" - Add this one to the list of buzz words/phrases I love to hear.

The lock on education units is not enforced. A college will not choose to only accept liberals, it just so happens that many who attend college are/become liberals. Take that for what you will, but I attach no assumptions to it.

Please do not make the comment that a student questioning liberal politics fears losing their graduation. I come from an extremely liberal campus. Loyola University, although a Jesuit private college, has an extremely liberal population, which could be the results of many factors, including being an urban campus, but the why really doesnt matter.

The fact of the matter is, our college has a college republicans club, has had numerous republican political figures give presentations, hell, we even had ann coulter do a discussion on our campus. If we allowed that sandpaper-vag on our campus, why then would we, "the liberal progressive elitist snobs" disallow republicans to graduate?

 

[Harry Manback]

Two things I've learned from this thread:


1) This country is having more and more problems.

2) This country is becoming more and more liberal.

 

[AE14]

Does it have anything to do with my educational level? Because nobody knows what mine is. But that doesn't mean I have to buy into the ridiculous liberal progressive agenda as is forced down peoples throats at colleges as the liberal progressives have a lock on educational unions. Its just another form of brainwashing as far as i'm concerned.


At this point, a student can't question stimulus spending or socialized healthcare in the open at most colleges without risking their graduation.

Having worked in education for about a decade, this is over the top. Just from experience, and I work in on of the worst states at the moment: NJ

 

[EasyEJL]

Having worked in education for about a decade, this is over the top. Just from experience, and I work in on of the worst states at the moment: NJ

A state where $24,000 a year is spent per student in Newark yet they can't even manage to get below a 50% dropout rate because of incompetent teachers with tenure and not being able to get rid of them due to the union isn't exactly an example of what education should be. Just sayin

 

[AE14]

A state where $24,000 a year is spent per student in Newark yet they can't even manage to get below a 50% dropout rate because of incompetent teachers with tenure and not being able to get rid of them due to the union isn't exactly an example of what education should be. Just sayin

Oh...so that is whats going on in Newark? Thanks for clarifying. I bet it has nothing to do with the high crime rates, the high stuent classification rates for Sp.Ed or the lack of parental involvement in their childrens education. Gotcha

BTW, I have quite a few colleagues that I know well in Newark (education is a small world). They are hardly bad teachers. However, since you generalized and certainly never have a neocon bias, I am in the wrong.

Havent you learned yet Easy? Being so far one side politically (which ever side it is) is typically wrong.

 

[southpaw23]

A state where $24,000 a year is spent per student in Newark yet they can't even manage to get below a 50% dropout rate because of incompetent teachers with tenure and not being able to get rid of them due to the union isn't exactly an example of what education should be. Just sayin

You speak in such broad terms, reminds me very much of Bush Jr, in other words a very limited understanding of nuanced issues, attributes of an ineffective leader.

There isn't a hint of nuance or context within any of your arguments. Yes it costs between 22-24k per student in Newark, and yes graduation rates are low, because much of the priority is focused on crime reduction, one of the major factors as to why the best teachers have opted to go elsewhere. It's much easier to allocate funds in a suburb, than it is in an urban area, where you have a much broader range of issues to deal with, such as what AE14 alluded to in prior post.

You make these sweeping observations (none of them spelled or articulated correctly but that's another subject altogether), without a shred of context behind them. I understand the conservative approach is to oversimplify life, it's much easier to comprehend simple than it is to observe the facts.

 

[EasyEJL]

Oh...so that is whats going on in Newark? Thanks for clarifying. I bet it has nothing to do with the high crime rates, the high stuent classification rates for Sp.Ed or the lack of parental involvement in their childrens education. Gotcha

BTW, I have quite a few colleagues that I know well in Newark (education is a small world). They are hardly bad teachers. However, since you generalized and certainly never have a neocon bias, I am in the wrong.

Havent you leanred yet Easy? Being so far one side politically (which ever side it is) is typically wrong.

No, those things are also factors, however having one of the worst rates of graduation in the country coupled with one of the highest costs of public education in the country is pretty ridiculous. Its obvious that what the teacher are doing (whether it be the grade school teachers earlier on, or the high school teachers themselves) isn't working. In the private sector, when an employee isn't performing according to expectations do they keep their job? No, but as a teacher you do. One of Charlie Christ's last actions as governor was to veto a bill passed by the state of florida congress setting strict guidelines for teacher performance, and any teacher who falls below those guidelines for 4 years out of 5 loses their job.

Not all teachers are bad, I've known many good ones, as well as many horrible ones. How many bad teachers (or principals, or guidance counselors, etc) does it take to wreck education? Why should parents have to tolerate incompetence in teachers just because they've been there a while?

And i'm not a neocon Just very financially conservative, and a firm believer in minimalistic federal government, with individual state governments having more control. Local issues, local solutions. I'd be a constitutionalist except they are psychos religiously, and libertarians just don't quite cut it either.

Half the time in threads like this I just play devils advocate