On 5/14/2010 3:54 AM, RogerN wrote:
"Jeff wrote in message
u...

wrote in message
m...

Like Jesus said, let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.

RogerN

"He" said no such thing. (...and BTW, it's "he that is without sin", not
"the one" in the irredeemably misogynist "New Testament.")
It was made up by one of the latter-day authors of the "New Testament"
because it seemed like a ripping good yarn, the telling of which would
suit the authors' ulterior motives.

John 7:53-8:11 was not written by "John" - as indeed most of the library
of fables was not written by their namesakes.
(But you know that, yes?)

But what the hey?
Whatever floats your boat.
Whatever gets you through the day.
Whatever fantasy keeps you happy and docile.

Darth Vader never said "..you don't know the power of the dark side...",
but its still a jolly good story.

Just don't try to attribute "truth" to that which is obviously fiction.
And don't tell my children that your fables and myths are the "truth".
It makes you look very silly and naive.

Don't you think?

No?

--
Jeff R.
(maybe you should)


No, actually the Bible was written in 2022 and was taken back in time and
planted by aliens. If you can make unsubstantiated claims so can I!

RogerN



We already know that. All your religious claims are completely
unsubstantiated. So to be fair you should allow the same from others.

Hawke

On 5/15/2010 12:59 PM, Ignoramus14233 wrote:
On 2010-05-15, wrote:
From what little I looked, Adolph Hitler was married to only one woman and
also came from a Catholic background, did that make him moral? Maybe no
worse than Pelosi but still not moral.

Hitler married to his long term lover Eva Braun only 40 hours before his death.

As for your family story, you only gave us one side of it, and you
have not disproven anything with your example. Newt Gingrich is a
whore because he cheated on his wives, including on one with cancer.
He was not an unlucky, upstanding guy. I could not want him to babysit
my kids or manage my money, or my country.

i


All that is true about Gingrich. But what makes him particularly
despicable is the way he goes around moralizing and passing judgment on
others. For example, he was in the process of cheating on one of his
wives at the same time he was publicly criticizing Bill Clinton for
having an affair with Monica Lewinsky. This is a trait republicans seem
to have in spades. Criticizing others while committing the same crime
themselves. Or of talking about moral behavior when they are acting in
completely immoral ways. Democrats are certainly not perfect but you
don't catch them over and over pretending to be paragons of virtue while
living lives of debauchery. It seems like every week we hear of a
different highly moral, religiously pious republican, cheating on his
wife, using prostitutes, or engaging in homosexuality. After so many of
these things have come to light why does anyone still believe
republicans when they pretend to have morals?

Hawke

On 5/15/2010 10:38 AM, RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
m...

"Jeff wrote in message
...


The facts are plain and simple, when a woman gets a position she desires,
to rule over men, she gets deceived by twisted half truths and makes bad
judgment calls. I wish the Bible was only referring to spiritual maters
or some such, but I can't deny what I see over and over. There are plenty
of things that women are better at then men but when put in a position to
rule, it is like putting the cart before the horse. This is demonstrated
almost daily, for example with Barbara Crabb's judgment and with Obama's
supreme court nominee. Sorry that it happens this way, I know it's not
politically correct, but men aren't mothers and women aren't fit for
rulers, even though her desire to be goes back to the first woman.

RogerN


Here's an example in Judge Barbara Crabb's recent decision that "The
national day of prayer" is unconstitutional.

Case: 3:08-cv-00588-bbc Document #: 132 Filed: 04/15/2010 Page 1 of 66

The role that prayer should play in public life has been a matter of intense
debate in

this country since its founding. When the Continental Congress met for its
inaugural

session in September 1774, delegate Thomas Cushing proposed to open the
session with a

prayer. Delegates John Jay and John Rutledge (two future Chief Justices of
the Supreme

Court) objected to the proposal on the ground that the Congress was “so
divided in religious

Sentiments . . . that We could not join in the same Act of Worship.”
Eventually, Samuel

Adams convinced the other delegates to allow the reading of a psalm the
following day.



She starts out her reasoning with the delegates objected because they were
divided in religious Sentiments. Notice they did not object based on
establishment or separation of church and state. It is true that there was
a controversy but it had nothing to do with claiming prayer was
inappropriate in government. If you care to read the rest of the judges
decision you can see that she goes from establishment to endorsement to
secular purpose to lemon test to acknowledgement. So it turns out a day of
prayer is declared unconstitutional by a woman judge in 2010 even though it
has never been declared unconstitutional from before the time George
Washington called for a day of prayer in 1795. Simply put, Barbara Crabb is
not capable of making consistently good judgments.



RogerN


But that is according to your opinion. And we all know what would happen
if you had your way. There would be no separation of church and state in
America. You would have the Christian religion established in our
schools, our courts, our businesses. You would have the church being a
part of the government and included in all governmental decisions. In
short, you would have turned us into a theocracy. Even the founding
fathers would have fought against you on that. So every one from the
founding fathers to modern legal experts would oppose your idea of
religion and government. All we can do is thank our lucky stars that
people with antiquated ideas like yours are widely opposed by the
majority of Americans. None of whom would want to see what you want. In
Iran they would think your ideas are very good.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 5/15/2010 10:38 AM, RogerN wrote:

She starts out her reasoning with the delegates objected because they
were
divided in religious Sentiments. Notice they did not object based on
establishment or separation of church and state. It is true that there
was
a controversy but it had nothing to do with claiming prayer was
inappropriate in government. If you care to read the rest of the judges
decision you can see that she goes from establishment to endorsement to
secular purpose to lemon test to acknowledgement. So it turns out a day
of
prayer is declared unconstitutional by a woman judge in 2010 even though
it
has never been declared unconstitutional from before the time George
Washington called for a day of prayer in 1795. Simply put, Barbara Crabb
is
not capable of making consistently good judgments.


RogerN


But that is according to your opinion. And we all know what would happen
if you had your way. There would be no separation of church and state in
America. You would have the Christian religion established in our schools,
our courts, our businesses. You would have the church being a part of the
government and included in all governmental decisions. In short, you would
have turned us into a theocracy. Even the founding fathers would have
fought against you on that. So every one from the founding fathers to
modern legal experts would oppose your idea of religion and government.
All we can do is thank our lucky stars that people with antiquated ideas
like yours are widely opposed by the majority of Americans. None of whom
would want to see what you want. In Iran they would think your ideas are
very good.

Hawke

I don't think we should have a church ran state or a state ran church. What
I disagree with is the changing the constitution to mean what it never meant
in the past. If a day of prayer wasn't unconstitutional from 1775 until
2010 then it isn't unconstitutional in 2010 but a judge needs fired. But
instead religious freedoms are taken away from the majority because someone
claims a nativity scene is offensive to them. I've never heard of the
constitutional right to not be offended but those in charge act like it's
there. The Ten Commandments could be posted and those who are offended by
them don't have to look at them.

I think it would be cool though to have a Christian community where the kids
were allowed to take a Bible in their school. We have Christian schools but
we are forced to pay for antichristian schools with our tax dollars, so most
people can't afford for their kids to go to a private school. Why isn't
there a voucher system so the people have a choice where they send their
kids to school? Because the "Pro-Choice" crowd doesn't want parents to have
a choice to send their kids to a private school.

But then again I don't think anyone should have religion shoved down their
throats, that isn't the way Jesus did it either. In fact the "sinners"
wanted to be with Jesus but the religious folks of the day wanted Jesus
killed.

RogerN

Ignoramus14233 wrote in
:

Newt Gingrich is a
whore because he cheated on his wives, including on one with cancer.


Only if he charged the women for his services, Iggy. grin

Otherwise he was simply being a "normal" Politician. GRIN

"Ignoramus14233" wrote in message
...
Roger, does having thoughts of carnal nature, make me an immoral
person? What do you think? I sometimes have lots of those.

i

It's just our nature Iggy, we are human and therefore incompatible with God.

For a computer to control a machine tool there is a program that provides
electrical signals, and amplifier to increase the power, and a motor to
convert the electrical energy into mechanical energy. This is a system that
takes electrical signals on one side and converts them to mechanical
movement on the other side, a system that is closed loop converts the
mechanical movement back to electrical signals for the control.

Likewise Jesus was born of a woman and God, he was the God-Man, both a man
and God. He is the "interface" between immoral men and a Holy God.

Why I don't like Nancy Pelosi is her role in government trying to cram
Obamacare down our throats one way after another, simply put, an abuse of
power. It's one thing to have a personal immorality but something different
when you abuse power to make immorality the law of the land. Trying to
force Obamacare through without a vote, etc etc...

RogerN

But that is according to your opinion. And we all know what would happen
if you had your way. There would be no separation of church and state in
America. You would have the Christian religion established in our schools,
our courts, our businesses. You would have the church being a part of the
government and included in all governmental decisions. In short, you would
have turned us into a theocracy. Even the founding fathers would have
fought against you on that. So every one from the founding fathers to
modern legal experts would oppose your idea of religion and government.
All we can do is thank our lucky stars that people with antiquated ideas
like yours are widely opposed by the majority of Americans. None of whom
would want to see what you want. In Iran they would think your ideas are
very good.

Hawke

I don't think we should have a church ran state or a state ran church. What
I disagree with is the changing the constitution to mean what it never meant
in the past. If a day of prayer wasn't unconstitutional from 1775 until
2010 then it isn't unconstitutional in 2010 but a judge needs fired.

Well, what about the Pledge of Allegiance? When it was written it didn't
have the words "under god" in it. Then in the 1950s it was added. By
your logic that was wrong because having "under god" in the Pledge
wasn't the original way. But I bet your happy it's in there now, right?
Also, do you believe that the constitution isn't going to have changes
made to it over time? I mean slavery was specifically mentioned in the
constitution and it was legal and accepted. So shouldn't that be changed
either? The constitution was made so it could be changed. That wasn't a
mistake. The founders knew in time it would need changing.



But
instead religious freedoms are taken away from the majority because someone
claims a nativity scene is offensive to them. I've never heard of the
constitutional right to not be offended but those in charge act like it's
there. The Ten Commandments could be posted and those who are offended by
them don't have to look at them.

How about if we posted the commandments of the Koran or the Holy Books
of India? You just don't get it. You think that YOUR religion should be
treated as if it's OUR religion. You put up your rules and we don't have
to look at them if we don't want to? That's your idea of freedom? How
about we do it my way and put nobody's religious scriptures up in public
and you can do anything you want in private? That's a lot more fair than
your way where we all have to see what your particular faith says.


I think it would be cool though to have a Christian community where the kids
were allowed to take a Bible in their school. We have Christian schools but
we are forced to pay for antichristian schools with our tax dollars, so most
people can't afford for their kids to go to a private school. Why isn't
there a voucher system so the people have a choice where they send their
kids to school?

No vouchers because we believe in small government. We already provide a
good public and non religious education for everybody. If that isn't
good enough for you then buy your kids your own religious education.
Can't afford it? Then be happy we have a free public education system.
You're lucky we still have it at all.



Because the "Pro-Choice" crowd doesn't want parents to have
a choice to send their kids to a private school.

Sure we do. We're just not going to pay for it. People like me with no
kids already pay for yours. I'll be darned if I'm going to pay for your
private religious schools too. You ask for too much from the government.


But then again I don't think anyone should have religion shoved down their
throats, that isn't the way Jesus did it either. In fact the "sinners"
wanted to be with Jesus but the religious folks of the day wanted Jesus
killed.

That is what you say but then you also want me to have to be exposed to
your religious ideas. In fact you want the government to put your
religion's scriptures up in schools filled with people who don't believe
in your religion. People like you have been doing this for years. You
say all you want is religious freedom but the minute you get power the
next thing you know everybody has to abide by your religion. Be happy
being free to practice your religion all you want but don't ask the
government to treat your religion like it's the only one. Many of us
look at your beliefs just like we do at primitive people who believe in
magic or witchcraft. We think it's unfounded superstition. So why should
our government be connected in any way to those kinds of things?

Hawke

On May 16, 12:22*am, Hawke wrote:
*Why isn't
there a voucher system so the people have a choice where they send their
kids to school?

No vouchers because we believe in small government. We already provide a
good public and non religious education for everybody. If that isn't
good enough for you then buy your kids your own religious education.
Can't afford it? Then be happy we have a free public education system.
You're lucky we still have it at all.


Sure we do. We're just not going to pay for it. People like me with no
kids already pay for yours. I'll be darned if I'm going to pay for your
private religious schools too. You ask for too much from the government.


Hawke

I pretty much agree with you on separating church and state. I
certainly do not want the government paying for anything religious.
But have a different slant on vouchers for schools. My thoughts are
that the government ought to encourage anything that creates a
educated citizen and also try to get the most education for the money
spent.

So if vouchers encourage people to take their children out of public
schools and thereby reduce the amount that the government has to spend
to educate children, then they are a good thing. So a voucher of say
1/3 to 2/3rds of the cost of public school would be a good thing. It
would reduce the cost of public education and presumably do as well or
better in educating the kids.

So that would agree with your small government ideas and would provide
some competition to the public school. Without competition the
public school will not try to be efficient.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On May 16, 12:22 am, Hawke wrote:
Why isn't
there a voucher system so the people have a choice where they send their
kids to school?

No vouchers because we believe in small government. We already provide a
good public and non religious education for everybody. If that isn't
good enough for you then buy your kids your own religious education.
Can't afford it? Then be happy we have a free public education system.
You're lucky we still have it at all.


Sure we do. We're just not going to pay for it. People like me with no
kids already pay for yours. I'll be darned if I'm going to pay for your
private religious schools too. You ask for too much from the government.


Hawke

I pretty much agree with you on separating church and state. I
certainly do not want the government paying for anything religious.
But have a different slant on vouchers for schools. My thoughts are
that the government ought to encourage anything that creates a
educated citizen and also try to get the most education for the money
spent.

So if vouchers encourage people to take their children out of public
schools and thereby reduce the amount that the government has to spend
to educate children, then they are a good thing. So a voucher of say
1/3 to 2/3rds of the cost of public school would be a good thing. It
would reduce the cost of public education and presumably do as well or
better in educating the kids.

So that would agree with your small government ideas and would provide
some competition to the public school. Without competition the
public school will not try to be efficient.

Dan

*************

That's what I like the vouchers idea, it takes away the monopoly we now
have, public schools would have to be competitive. Competition makes things
better and benefits the consumer. I don't think Intel would make such great
processors if it wasn't trying to keep ahead of AMD, and likewise AMD is
trying to keep up with Intel and offering their processors at a competitive
price per performance. If it wasn't for competition we might be hoping to
upgrade to a newly released 386SX with 2 meg of ram and a 120meg hard drive
for $2000. My kid goes to school and comes home with 3 or 4 hours worth of
homework, I feel like we are home schooling him but send him to public
school to baby-sit during the day and send the materials home for us to
educate him.

I also agree that the government shouldn't pay for anything religious unless
it does some other good for the society and that's supposed to be the idea
behind the tax exempt status. I guess there is no way of knowing if it's
true but I have heard a preacher claim if we would have sent a few
missionaries to other countries we wouldn't have had to send so many
soldiers. That's why Thomas Jefferson gave government money to
missionaries, because they were doing a good work with the Indians.

RogerN

Sure we do. We're just not going to pay for it. People like me with no
kids already pay for yours. I'll be darned if I'm going to pay for your
private religious schools too. You ask for too much from the government.


Hawke

I pretty much agree with you on separating church and state. I
certainly do not want the government paying for anything religious.
But have a different slant on vouchers for schools. My thoughts are
that the government ought to encourage anything that creates a
educated citizen and also try to get the most education for the money
spent.

So if vouchers encourage people to take their children out of public
schools and thereby reduce the amount that the government has to spend
to educate children, then they are a good thing. So a voucher of say
1/3 to 2/3rds of the cost of public school would be a good thing. It
would reduce the cost of public education and presumably do as well or
better in educating the kids.

So that would agree with your small government ideas and would provide
some competition to the public school. Without competition the
public school will not try to be efficient.

Dan

Vouchers sound good until you look into them carefully and find the
faults with them. First off, it weakens public school for everyone else.
If people could leave and find better educations somewhere else who
would stay in public schools? Only those who couldn't get out.
Second, the amount of money you would get in a voucher would never be
enough to pay for a good private school. You would have to supplement it
to get into a private school, which eliminates poor people. Then the
private schools, which are for profit businesses, would raise prices to
make maximum profit and they would not allow anyone in that might be a
disciplinary problem. Then there are the special needs kids. No private
school would want them unless you paid a ton of money to them. All of
these things leave the public schools with less money and with the worst
students. Last, what teacher would want to stay in a public system? All
the good ones would go to the private schools that would pay better. One
last thing is there will never be enough private schools available. So
when you really examine the idea you find that the idea of vouchers
stinks actually.

Hawke

On 5/16/2010 7:57 AM, RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
On May 16, 12:22 am, wrote:
Why isn't
there a voucher system so the people have a choice where they send their
kids to school?

No vouchers because we believe in small government. We already provide a
good public and non religious education for everybody. If that isn't
good enough for you then buy your kids your own religious education.
Can't afford it? Then be happy we have a free public education system.
You're lucky we still have it at all.


Sure we do. We're just not going to pay for it. People like me with no
kids already pay for yours. I'll be darned if I'm going to pay for your
private religious schools too. You ask for too much from the government.


Hawke

I pretty much agree with you on separating church and state. I
certainly do not want the government paying for anything religious.
But have a different slant on vouchers for schools. My thoughts are
that the government ought to encourage anything that creates a
educated citizen and also try to get the most education for the money
spent.

So if vouchers encourage people to take their children out of public
schools and thereby reduce the amount that the government has to spend
to educate children, then they are a good thing. So a voucher of say
1/3 to 2/3rds of the cost of public school would be a good thing. It
would reduce the cost of public education and presumably do as well or
better in educating the kids.

So that would agree with your small government ideas and would provide
some competition to the public school. Without competition the
public school will not try to be efficient.

Dan

*************

That's what I like the vouchers idea, it takes away the monopoly we now
have, public schools would have to be competitive. Competition makes things
better and benefits the consumer. I don't think Intel would make such great
processors if it wasn't trying to keep ahead of AMD, and likewise AMD is
trying to keep up with Intel and offering their processors at a competitive
price per performance. If it wasn't for competition we might be hoping to
upgrade to a newly released 386SX with 2 meg of ram and a 120meg hard drive
for $2000. My kid goes to school and comes home with 3 or 4 hours worth of
homework, I feel like we are home schooling him but send him to public
school to baby-sit during the day and send the materials home for us to
educate him.

I also agree that the government shouldn't pay for anything religious unless
it does some other good for the society and that's supposed to be the idea
behind the tax exempt status. I guess there is no way of knowing if it's
true but I have heard a preacher claim if we would have sent a few
missionaries to other countries we wouldn't have had to send so many
soldiers. That's why Thomas Jefferson gave government money to
missionaries, because they were doing a good work with the Indians.

RogerN




One thing I'll agree with is that sending missionaries to other
countries, or a non religious version of them, would do our country a
lot more good than sending our army. We have sent our army all over the
world and most people can't wait to see us go. Too bad our military has
such undue influence on the government. Without that we'd probably have
had a lot fewer wars than we've had in the last 50 years.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Sure we do. We're just not going to pay for it. People like me with no
kids already pay for yours. I'll be darned if I'm going to pay for your
private religious schools too. You ask for too much from the government.


Hawke

I pretty much agree with you on separating church and state. I
certainly do not want the government paying for anything religious.
But have a different slant on vouchers for schools. My thoughts are
that the government ought to encourage anything that creates a
educated citizen and also try to get the most education for the money
spent.

So if vouchers encourage people to take their children out of public
schools and thereby reduce the amount that the government has to spend
to educate children, then they are a good thing. So a voucher of say
1/3 to 2/3rds of the cost of public school would be a good thing. It
would reduce the cost of public education and presumably do as well or
better in educating the kids.

So that would agree with your small government ideas and would provide
some competition to the public school. Without competition the
public school will not try to be efficient.

Dan

Vouchers sound good until you look into them carefully and find the faults
with them. First off, it weakens public school for everyone else. If
people could leave and find better educations somewhere else who would
stay in public schools? Only those who couldn't get out.
Second, the amount of money you would get in a voucher would never be
enough to pay for a good private school. You would have to supplement it
to get into a private school, which eliminates poor people. Then the
private schools, which are for profit businesses, would raise prices to
make maximum profit and they would not allow anyone in that might be a
disciplinary problem. Then there are the special needs kids. No private
school would want them unless you paid a ton of money to them. All of
these things leave the public schools with less money and with the worst
students. Last, what teacher would want to stay in a public system? All
the good ones would go to the private schools that would pay better. One
last thing is there will never be enough private schools available. So
when you really examine the idea you find that the idea of vouchers stinks
actually.

Hawke

There's other possibilities that you may not have considered. There are
some fixed expenses involved, if a teacher has 5 students they might work a
little cheaper than they would with 25 students but the cost per child would
be lower, I don't see why a public school can run cheaper than a private
school. It seems like the picket signs I've seen saying union labor is
cheaper but if that's true then why are they picketing a jobsite where
non-union labor won the bid? Also, if pushed I wouldn't be surprised if
public schools would be more competitive, they would either be competitive
or shut down. Kind of like as ethanol plants were coming, the price of gas
suddenly dropped. Why would a parent choose to send their kids to a private
school if they can go to another school for less money?

RogerN

On May 16, 6:26*pm, Hawke wrote:


Vouchers sound good until you look into them carefully and find the
faults with them. First off, it weakens public school for everyone else.
If people could leave and find better educations somewhere else who
would stay in public schools? Only those who couldn't get out.
Second, the amount of money you would get in a voucher would never be
enough to pay for a good private school. You would have to supplement it
to get into a private school, which eliminates poor people. Then the
private schools, which are for profit businesses, would raise prices to
make maximum profit and they would not allow anyone in that might be a
disciplinary problem. Then there are the special needs kids. No private
school would want them unless you paid a ton of money to them. All of
these things leave the public schools with less money and with the worst
students. Last, what teacher would want to stay in a public system? All
the good ones would go to the private schools that would pay better. One
last thing is there will never be enough private schools available. So
when you really examine the idea you find that the idea of vouchers
stinks actually.

Hawke

I have looked at them carefully.

First it does not weaken public schools. And if it allows people to
leave public schools and get a better education, well how can that be
a bad thing. Are you saying you do not want a system where people can
get a better education?

And the amount of money may not be as much as public schools cost, and
it may not pay for a good private school, but it might pay for a
school that is better than the public school. If it would not pay for
a better school, then people do not have to accept the vouchers.

All private school are not for profit, ever though you say they are.

Yes the private schools may not accept kids with disciplinary
problems. So the parents might step up and discipline their kids. Or
if not, then you at least have school that are free of kids with
disciplinary problems. Or are you saying that it is a good thing to
have kids with discipline problems? Like I would really like to have
my kids in a school where they can be bullied.

If the vouchers are for less than the per student cost in public
schools, please explain how vouchers would leave public schools with
less money. They would actually end up with more money per student.

Teachers at private school generally get less money than public school
teachers. The one thing private schools can offer teachers is kids
that want to learn. Teachers generally will work for less money if
the environment is better.

The number of private schools will grow or shrink to meet the demand.

So if you really examine the idea you will find that none of your
arguments is valid. Vouchers allow choice. They do not force people
to go to private schools. But they do enable people to select the
school they attend.

Dan

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


I don't think we should have a church ran state or a state ran church.
What
I disagree with is the changing the constitution to mean what it never
meant
in the past. If a day of prayer wasn't unconstitutional from 1775 until
2010 then it isn't unconstitutional in 2010 but a judge needs fired.

Well, what about the Pledge of Allegiance? When it was written it didn't
have the words "under god" in it. Then in the 1950s it was added. By your
logic that was wrong because having "under god" in the Pledge wasn't the
original way. But I bet your happy it's in there now, right? Also, do you
believe that the constitution isn't going to have changes made to it over
time? I mean slavery was specifically mentioned in the constitution and it
was legal and accepted. So shouldn't that be changed either? The
constitution was made so it could be changed. That wasn't a mistake. The
founders knew in time it would need changing.

Why wasn't having "under God" added to the Pledge of Aleegiance seen as
unconstitutional in the 1950's. What religion does "under God" establish?
Is the "God" referred to necessarily Christian, Muslim, Idols, Money,
Television, Posessions, Secularism, Agod for Atheists or other?

The constitution can have changes but there is a process for that, it isn't
supposed to be done by Judges. Judges are supposed to interpert the law,
not change the law.

How about if we posted the commandments of the Koran or the Holy Books of
India? You just don't get it. You think that YOUR religion should be
treated as if it's OUR religion. You put up your rules and we don't have
to look at them if we don't want to? That's your idea of freedom? How
about we do it my way and put nobody's religious scriptures up in public
and you can do anything you want in private? That's a lot more fair than
your way where we all have to see what your particular faith says.

If there are Islamics in the school that want to have something of their
religion represented it should be OK. Understand we are all taught your
religion that we came from monkeys and were not created by God, even though
the probability of a living organism forming with no parent and having the
capability to survive and evolve into all life is near zero, and is only
taken by faith. And the evolutionists religiously defend that only their
evolution by faith be taught and don't tell the kids that not everyone
accepts their faith as fact.


No vouchers because we believe in small government. We already provide a
good public and non religious education for everybody. If that isn't good
enough for you then buy your kids your own religious education. Can't
afford it? Then be happy we have a free public education system. You're
lucky we still have it at all.



Because the "Pro-Choice" crowd doesn't want parents to have
a choice to send their kids to a private school.

Sure we do. We're just not going to pay for it. People like me with no
kids already pay for yours. I'll be darned if I'm going to pay for your
private religious schools too. You ask for too much from the government.

So you don't support a womans right to choose where her kids are educated?

Also do you claim the best and brightest students come from parents that
would prefer to have their kids in a Christian School? But then the public
school couldn't brain wash them!

But then again I don't think anyone should have religion shoved down
their
throats, that isn't the way Jesus did it either. In fact the "sinners"
wanted to be with Jesus but the religious folks of the day wanted Jesus
killed.

That is what you say but then you also want me to have to be exposed to
your religious ideas. In fact you want the government to put your
religion's scriptures up in schools filled with people who don't believe
in your religion. People like you have been doing this for years. You say
all you want is religious freedom but the minute you get power the next
thing you know everybody has to abide by your religion. Be happy being
free to practice your religion all you want but don't ask the government
to treat your religion like it's the only one. Many of us look at your
beliefs just like we do at primitive people who believe in magic or
witchcraft. We think it's unfounded superstition. So why should our
government be connected in any way to those kinds of things?

Hawke

No one has to read them, is school a place of censorship? It's OK to tell
kids that they are just animals and their grandparent that died didn't go to
Heaven because Heaven doesn't exist, then wonder why they brought a gun to
school and killed a bunch of children/animals. But Science has -0- evidence
of abiogenesis even though it should happen billions of times per second in
every cubic inch of water on the globe for their to be a chance of the life
we observe today coming by evolution in a few billion years.

RogerN

On May 17, 9:16*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

But, on principle, I favor choice, and I do have a problem with the fact
that public schools have a lock on the major part of school funding. I just
don't believe that having more choices is going to do what many people seem
to think it will do.

--
Ed Huntress

I agree that vouchers are not a solution. They may make a difference
in a small percentage of the students. But I too favor giving people
a choice.

I cringe at the thought that kids in places like Washington DC have
crummy schools and no options.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On May 17, 9:16 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

But, on principle, I favor choice, and I do have a problem with the fact
that public schools have a lock on the major part of school funding. I
just
don't believe that having more choices is going to do what many people
seem
to think it will do.

--
Ed Huntress

I agree that vouchers are not a solution. They may make a difference
in a small percentage of the students. But I too favor giving people
a choice.

I cringe at the thought that kids in places like Washington DC have
crummy schools and no options.

Dan

Yeah, that bothers me a lot, too. DC is an interesting case, because their
school chancellor, Michelle Rhee, is as good as they get. She's really
shaken up the schools there. If she can't get results, then their system is
unfixable.

--
Ed Huntress

On 5/17/2010 1:17 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
On May 17, 9:16 am, "Ed wrote:

But, on principle, I favor choice, and I do have a problem with the fact
that public schools have a lock on the major part of school funding. I
just
don't believe that having more choices is going to do what many people
seem
to think it will do.

--
Ed Huntress

I agree that vouchers are not a solution. They may make a difference
in a small percentage of the students. But I too favor giving people
a choice.

I cringe at the thought that kids in places like Washington DC have
crummy schools and no options.

Dan

Yeah, that bothers me a lot, too. DC is an interesting case, because their
school chancellor, Michelle Rhee, is as good as they get. She's really
shaken up the schools there. If she can't get results, then their system is
unfixable.



Maybe it's not the system but the players. You mentioned what the school
system was like in and around Princeton. You didn't mention the racial
make up of the students. In DC almost everybody is black. It's possible
the no matter what system you put in there it isn't going to make a
difference just because of who you're trying to teach. We all know that
all men are created unequally. We know that some people are a lot more
able than others. If your players are not very good then the best coach
in the world won't be able to make them champions. When you look at the
public school system you have a universal system for everybody, the
good, the bad, and everyone in between. It just may be that it isn't the
system that's broke but it's that the players just aren't any good. The
people going into our schools today are not the same as they were in the
1950s. Could it be that there are enough that are so below average that
they will never do well and they are always going to pull down the
averages wherever they are?

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 5/17/2010 1:17 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
On May 17, 9:16 am, "Ed wrote:

But, on principle, I favor choice, and I do have a problem with the fact
that public schools have a lock on the major part of school funding. I
just
don't believe that having more choices is going to do what many people
seem
to think it will do.

--
Ed Huntress

I agree that vouchers are not a solution. They may make a difference
in a small percentage of the students. But I too favor giving people
a choice.

I cringe at the thought that kids in places like Washington DC have
crummy schools and no options.

Dan

Yeah, that bothers me a lot, too. DC is an interesting case, because
their
school chancellor, Michelle Rhee, is as good as they get. She's really
shaken up the schools there. If she can't get results, then their system
is
unfixable.



Maybe it's not the system but the players. You mentioned what the school
system was like in and around Princeton. You didn't mention the racial
make up of the students.

Around 85% or 90% white. The black kids came from a 100-year-old black
community at one end of town, which, aside from their location, was fully
integrated by the time I was in high school (early/mid '60s). There was no
systemic performance gap, either.

In DC almost everybody is black. It's possible the no matter what system
you put in there it isn't going to make a difference just because of who
you're trying to teach. We all know that all men are created unequally. We
know that some people are a lot more able than others.

Well, the "inability" in many inner cities stems from a combination of
dysfunctional families, poorly educated parents, etc.

If your players are not very good then the best coach in the world won't
be able to make them champions. When you look at the public school system
you have a universal system for everybody, the good, the bad, and everyone
in between. It just may be that it isn't the system that's broke but it's
that the players just aren't any good.

That's why I say it's important to choose one's parents wisely.

The people going into our schools today are not the same as they were in
the 1950s. Could it be that there are enough that are so below average
that they will never do well and they are always going to pull down the
averages wherever they are?

Mostly we just ignored them in the '50s. We didn't start noticing them until
the late '60s.

The primary problems with inner-city schools is that learning is the last
thing the kids want to do, and teaching is the last thing that teachers are
able to do.

--
Ed Huntress

On May 18, 5:35*pm, Hawke wrote:


The people pushing vouchers don't even want any public
schools. They are against them in principle.
So say you. *Any proof that I am against public schools?

Just that fact that you're for vouchers argues that you want the
function of public education taken away from them and given to private
hands. Is that proof you're against public schools? I'd say it is.



Hawke

I can see that logical arguments are useless. You have your mind made
up.

Dan

On Thu, 13 May 2010 00:10:15 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

"Buerste" on Wed, 12 May 2010 22:18:29 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Actually I was thinking how nice it would be if the liberals and
conservatives could separate and each have their own part of the country
to run the way they wanted. But then when the conservatives did well and
the liberals spiraled down the toilet, the liberals would come in and ruin
what the conservatives accomplished. Then I realized that what I was
thinking about already happened and that's what I'm living in now, the
most blessed country but being destroyed by liberals. The enemy is here
and is destroying us from within!

Time to take my medicine and go to bed.

RogerN



As foretold. OBTW, it's not a good idea to mention God, He offends
liberals. Religious persecution will always exist and be blamed on
everything even remotely connected to any idiot doing something evil in the
name of his "god". I guess tolerance is only supposed to apply to gays and
terrorists.

And those religious fanatics who threaten gays and Western
Liberals with death.

Gays are of no issue. Western Liberals are mentally ill.

Gunner

--


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Fri, 14 May 2010 02:20:08 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"Jeff R." wrote in message
. au...
snip
Just don't try to attribute "truth" to that which is obviously fiction.
And don't tell my children that your fables and myths are the "truth".
It makes you look very silly and naive.

Don't you think?

No?

--
Jeff R.
(maybe you should)




Yet most atheists think nothing of shoving their faith down others' throats.
Gee, another double standard from the left.

Point, set and match


Gunner

--


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Thu, 13 May 2010 07:16:30 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Finally, something I can agree with Roger on. (And I do NOT mean the
first part of the rant far above.) But we're being ruined by
overzealous fringe conservatives, too, such as the tweaks who are the
Moral Majority/700 club/Religious Right. They pucker me as badly as
liberals.

And they are of such a tiny minority of the Right, as to not be worthy
of consideration. Unless you think Tofu America! is of some note as
well?

Gunner

--


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:58:25 -0500, Ignoramus23926
wrote:

On 2010-05-13, RogerN wrote:
Not Pelosi, that woman wouldn't know a moral if she stepped on it. I think
women like her is why the Bible says women shouldn't lead in the Church,

Nancy Pelosi has been married to one man since 1963.

Which means she simply couldnt find anyone stupid enough to remarry.
Or with that strong a stomach.

Conversely, Newt Gingrich, of whom I previously thought highly, is a
male whore and a perfect example of immorality.

Oh..then he is like a Kennedy?

Gunner


i

--


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Fri, 14 May 2010 02:03:05 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"RogerN" wrote in message
...

"Wild_Bill" wrote in message
...
Aren't there enough metalworking topics that you could coment on?

Ever wonder why that is?

--
WB
.........


"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

babble, fantasy, superstition

Anything interesting going on in metalworking here?

I always thought it would be awesome to design products and contract the
work out through the group, give the hobbyists a chance to have their
equipment pay for itself.

RogerN



I tried that a few times and the quotes I got for cash and time were out of
whack, even on simple parts. I got three quotes for a 1/2" x 6" O-1 drill
rod with both ends faced and a 17/64" hole drilled through the length. This
is a consumable part that holds a steel disk in a machine that makes
knot-type wheel brushes. Sometimes they last for months, sometimes we bend
four a day. The lowest quote I got from hobbyists was $25 each, with me
supplying the material cut to length. I can make one of these in 12
minutes. I only WISH I could get $125.00 per hour of lathe work. But, I
confess...I've made many hundreds of these and have a 10 hp lathe.

How many do you need per year?

I do have a CNC lathe....shrug

Gunner

--


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

Gunner Asch on Sat, 22 May 2010 17:23:15 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 00:10:15 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

"Buerste" on Wed, 12 May 2010 22:18:29 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Actually I was thinking how nice it would be if the liberals and
conservatives could separate and each have their own part of the country
to run the way they wanted. But then when the conservatives did well and
the liberals spiraled down the toilet, the liberals would come in and ruin
what the conservatives accomplished. Then I realized that what I was
thinking about already happened and that's what I'm living in now, the
most blessed country but being destroyed by liberals. The enemy is here
and is destroying us from within!

Time to take my medicine and go to bed.

RogerN



As foretold. OBTW, it's not a good idea to mention God, He offends
liberals. Religious persecution will always exist and be blamed on
everything even remotely connected to any idiot doing something evil in the
name of his "god". I guess tolerance is only supposed to apply to gays and
terrorists.

And those religious fanatics who threaten gays and Western
Liberals with death.

Gays are of no issue. Western Liberals are mentally ill.

I wonder how many of the progressives out there, the ones
screaming for special consideration for practicing homosexuals, have
any idea how the Religion of Peace considers them?
They are loathe to understand it, but it was the Christian west
which came up with the idea that they might be human, and not
something to be destroyed out of hand.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Sun, 23 May 2010 13:48:41 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Sat, 22 May 2010 17:23:15 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 00:10:15 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

"Buerste" on Wed, 12 May 2010 22:18:29 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Actually I was thinking how nice it would be if the liberals and
conservatives could separate and each have their own part of the country
to run the way they wanted. But then when the conservatives did well and
the liberals spiraled down the toilet, the liberals would come in and ruin
what the conservatives accomplished. Then I realized that what I was
thinking about already happened and that's what I'm living in now, the
most blessed country but being destroyed by liberals. The enemy is here
and is destroying us from within!

Time to take my medicine and go to bed.

RogerN



As foretold. OBTW, it's not a good idea to mention God, He offends
liberals. Religious persecution will always exist and be blamed on
everything even remotely connected to any idiot doing something evil in the
name of his "god". I guess tolerance is only supposed to apply to gays and
terrorists.

And those religious fanatics who threaten gays and Western
Liberals with death.

Gays are of no issue. Western Liberals are mentally ill.

I wonder how many of the progressives out there, the ones
screaming for special consideration for practicing homosexuals, have
any idea how the Religion of Peace considers them?
They are loathe to understand it, but it was the Christian west
which came up with the idea that they might be human, and not
something to be destroyed out of hand.


Shrug..simply because Muslims believe that gays should be killed by
either A..tossing them from a tall building or B...collapsing a wall on
them, has no bearing on the leftwing gays fully approving of Islam.

Afterall...its "another culture"

Gunner

--


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

Gunner Asch on Mon, 24 May 2010 01:54:35 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Gays are of no issue. Western Liberals are mentally ill.

I wonder how many of the progressives out there, the ones
screaming for special consideration for practicing homosexuals, have
any idea how the Religion of Peace considers them?
They are loathe to understand it, but it was the Christian west
which came up with the idea that they might be human, and not
something to be destroyed out of hand.


Shrug..simply because Muslims believe that gays should be killed by
either A..tossing them from a tall building or B...collapsing a wall on
them, has no bearing on the leftwing gays fully approving of Islam.

Afterall...its "another culture"

I've noticed that ... weird people. Definitely have a death wish.
The ISlamists and their gay wanna be lovers.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Mon, 24 May 2010 13:18:54 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Mon, 24 May 2010 01:54:35 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Gays are of no issue. Western Liberals are mentally ill.

I wonder how many of the progressives out there, the ones
screaming for special consideration for practicing homosexuals, have
any idea how the Religion of Peace considers them?
They are loathe to understand it, but it was the Christian west
which came up with the idea that they might be human, and not
something to be destroyed out of hand.


Shrug..simply because Muslims believe that gays should be killed by
either A..tossing them from a tall building or B...collapsing a wall on
them, has no bearing on the leftwing gays fully approving of Islam.

Afterall...its "another culture"

I've noticed that ... weird people. Definitely have a death wish.
The ISlamists and their gay wanna be lovers.

It is fascinating isnt it. They kill gays with abandon..but its a well
known saying in their culture..."women are for children, boys are for
pleasure"

Wierd people indeed.

Gunner

--


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost