Dear Liberals: I Want a Divorce!

[occupied]

Neither Spinoza or Einstein entertained any religious fantasies of any kind; neither believed in a personal God and neither were religious in any sense. And yet both had open minds when it came to the concept of some sort of intelligence guiding processes in the universe that we can observe and experience. It is THAT which should be entertained by all who have an open mind whether or not they ultimately reject it as implausible or keep an open mind as to the possibilities in it. And if for no other reason than due to the great scientists who entertained the idea, it should not be taught as science but it should not be taboo in academia.

Many conservatives do believe in Jesus; many do not. In Conservativeland he, as well as other great religious figures, would be included in appropriate religious studies, and any honest history of the world has to include the influence of JudeoChristianity, Islam, and other religions. Conservatives know the difference between history and religion, but most Conservatives will not make a child's religion unwelcome in school or attempt to destroy or deny or exclude his/her faith.

Traditional Christmas carols spanning up to two hundred years will be legal in most Conservative Christmas programs at school and the great music of Handel, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Mozart, and Bach will be included in the music curriculum again. Such was the case when many of us were growing up before liberalism drove all religion out of the schools and no theocracy developed, no religious teachings were imposed upon any student, and nobody objected to everyday normal expressions of religion by anybody.

Seems you have a lot of faith in the fairness of people who have repeatedly resorted to some pretty evil things in the name of defining us as a christian nation. Dominionists are not interested in any kind of objective comparative theology and yet you talk as if they would be just fine with allowing anything other than christian dogma to come in contact with any young mind. Think Taliban with a suit and tie.

That is one of the differences between conservatism and liberalism. Conservatism looks at ALL the history, the good and the bad, the heroes and the villains, the saints and the sinners, and learns from the study. Liberalism tends to cherry pick any negative they can find and uses that to denigrate and/or attack something that they don't like while denying or ignoring any positives that also exist. Conservatism allows complete freedom of thought and does not attempt to regulate that by what is included in honest curriculum. Conservatism trust human liberty to produce a better world than any that government would direct or mandate; therefore it does not fear allowing students to explore all possibilities of a concept. Conservatism trust a mind taught to thnk critically to choose the best options out of many offered.

Liberalism seems to attempt to indoctrinate students by limiting what they are allowed to see, think about, express.

And that is why I am most happy to assign all the liberal academics to your side.

Now that's just wrong, might as well bring back ethnology and phrenology as valid scientific pursuits. There is a reason why these things have been left in the dustbin of history and it is the same reason this high sounding new theory called intelligent design was met with laughter and indignation by real scientists, it had nothing to do with prejudice or indoctrination and everything to do with avoiding cynically teaching kids made-up bullshit.

 

[Foxfyre]

Seems you have a lot of faith in the fairness of people who have repeatedly resorted to some pretty evil things in the name of defining us as a christian nation. Dominionists are not interested in any kind of objective comparative theology and yet you talk as if they would be just fine with allowing anything other than christian dogma to come in contact with any young mind. Think Taliban with a suit and tie.

That is one of the differences between conservatism and liberalism. Conservatism looks at ALL the history, the good and the bad, the heroes and the villains, the saints and the sinners, and learns from the study. Liberalism tends to cherry pick any negative they can find and uses that to denigrate and/or attack something that they don't like while denying or ignoring any positives that also exist. Conservatism allows complete freedom of thought and does not attempt to regulate that by what is included in honest curriculum. Conservatism trust human liberty to produce a better world than any that government would direct or mandate; therefore it does not fear allowing students to explore all possibilities of a concept. Conservatism trust a mind taught to thnk critically to choose the best options out of many offered.

Liberalism seems to attempt to indoctrinate students by limiting what they are allowed to see, think about, express.

And that is why I am most happy to assign all the liberal academics to your side.

Now that's just wrong, might as well bring back ethnology and phrenology as valid scientific pursuits. There is a reason why these things have been left in the dustbin of history and it is the same reason this high sounding new theory called intelligent design was met with laughter and indignation by real scientists, it had nothing to do with prejudice or indoctrination and everything to do with avoiding cynically teaching kids made-up bullshit.

So we're back to square one. We need the divorce because you are never going to agree to any conservative point of view that allows complete freedom of thought, nor will we agree that your selective and limited liberalized curriculum is the proper course of study.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

It will be refreshing to have it again taught how black people, for instance, were the most rapidly advancing group economically BEFORE the Great Society and all the government programs to 'help' them, and how they have lagged behind ever since.

You SERIOUSLY didn't just post this with a straight face. Yes, yes you did. My god, the utter stupidity...
Rapidly advancing WHERE???

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Traditional Christmas carols spanning up to two hundred years will be legal in most Conservative Christmas programs at school and the great music of Handel, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Mozart, and Bach will be included in the music curriculum again.

Those things have never been banned in schools. And you're taking classical music? I thought you said NPR is a bastion of liberalism... yet they're the only radio station playing classical... hmmm.

 

[occupied]

That is one of the differences between conservatism and liberalism. Conservatism looks at ALL the history, the good and the bad, the heroes and the villains, the saints and the sinners, and learns from the study. Liberalism tends to cherry pick any negative they can find and uses that to denigrate and/or attack something that they don't like while denying or ignoring any positives that also exist. Conservatism allows complete freedom of thought and does not attempt to regulate that by what is included in honest curriculum. Conservatism trust human liberty to produce a better world than any that government would direct or mandate; therefore it does not fear allowing students to explore all possibilities of a concept. Conservatism trust a mind taught to thnk critically to choose the best options out of many offered.

Liberalism seems to attempt to indoctrinate students by limiting what they are allowed to see, think about, express.

And that is why I am most happy to assign all the liberal academics to your side.

Now that's just wrong, might as well bring back ethnology and phrenology as valid scientific pursuits. There is a reason why these things have been left in the dustbin of history and it is the same reason this high sounding new theory called intelligent design was met with laughter and indignation by real scientists, it had nothing to do with prejudice or indoctrination and everything to do with avoiding cynically teaching kids made-up bullshit.

So we're back to square one. We need the divorce because you are never going to agree to any conservative point of view that allows complete freedom of thought, nor will we agree that your selective and limited liberalized curriculum is the proper course of study.

Square one of any conservative plan of education is to go to the library with a list of books to ban, rewrite the textbooks to reflect a conservative view, and especially to pressure the teachers into not deviating from the approved curriculum designed by mere politicians at the cost of their jobs. This is happening right now in real America as we speak, are you saying that they would reverse this trend in conservative America? Not hardly, they would step it up several notches and such people as Ghandi, MLKjr., RFK, and any other liberal rabble rouser would disappear forever except perhaps as a lesson of what happens to you when you go against the powers that be.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

That is one of the differences between conservatism and liberalism. Conservatism looks at ALL the history, the good and the bad, the heroes and the villains, the saints and the sinners, and learns from the study. Liberalism tends to cherry pick any negative they can find and uses that to denigrate and/or attack something that they don't like while denying or ignoring any positives that also exist. Conservatism allows complete freedom of thought and does not attempt to regulate that by selectively including only the politically correct version in curriculum. Conservatism trusts human liberty to produce a better world than any that government would direct or mandate; therefore it does not fear allowing students to explore all possibilities of a concept. Conservatism trusts a mind taught to thnk critically to choose the best options out of many offered.

You know, I can't believe you really are typing this, and not sarcastically. History is not liberal or conservative. It either happened or it didn't - whether you like what happened (or how your side "looks") or not. Notice it isn't liberals trying to revise history and "whitewash" certain events. The corporatists, ahem "conservatives" sure are trying. Look at the Texas textbooks kerfluffle for example. And while you're at it, can you include ONE example of liberal revisionism, since you're obviously omniscient?

 

[kwc57]

You really believe that you think critically while the liberals here don't ( or can't ).

You actually believe that you have "dibs" on the USC and that liberals do not hold that document in high regard.

You honestly believe that conservative historians are determined to tell the whole story while liberal historians cherry pick the data.

You think our unwillingness to join you in this fucked up "exercise" is due to our not being able to fathom life without you there to keep us from harming ourselves?

What an outstanding display of arrogance you have put on for us.

You obviously don't care for the fare in our fine establishment. The door is to your left laughingstock.

What's the matter, bitch? Feeling a bit inferior all of sudden? Want the icky liberal with those nasty salient points to leave the discussion? Poor baby.

Inferrior? By you? Salient points? By you? View attachment 19347

No dipshit, like the other butt hurt liberals pissing and moaning in this thread, you don't get to change the conditions of our fun little exercise. Don't want to play, go make your own thread. Dismissed.

 

[kwc57]

You obviously don't care for the fare in our fine establishment. The door is to your left laughingstock.

What's the matter, bitch? Feeling a bit inferior all of sudden? Want the icky liberal with those nasty salient points to leave the discussion? Poor baby.

He has already told me to leave the thread or the country a couple of times because I keep bringing up uncomfortable questions about this insultingly simplistic approach to solving the problems we have, it's the King Solomon solution and look who is opposed to cutting the baby in two.

Now, now moron, you're simply lying. Find a single post in this thread where I told you to leave the country. You can't, because I didn't. I have suggested numerous times that if your aren't intellgent enough to understand the exercise and partipate, that you might find it more enjoyable elsewhere. There is no need to create your own alternate reality or lie to satisfy your sheeple mind. We deal in truth, honesty and reality here. Hmmmm, maybe you should leave and take your butt buddy Laughingstock with you.

 

[Foxfyre]

It will be refreshing to have it again taught how black people, for instance, were the most rapidly advancing group economically BEFORE the Great Society and all the government programs to 'help' them, and how they have lagged behind ever since.

You SERIOUSLY didn't just post this with a straight face. Yes, yes you did. My god, the utter stupidity...
Rapidly advancing WHERE???

Yep and I will continue to do so. For confirmation, I recommend that you read any of a number of books, essays, and articles written by Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams, Star Parker, and other historians who have done considerable research and study on the subject. But better hurry. Once the divorce agreement is settled, all those will be going to Conservativeland and I doubt they will be stocked in a Liberalland library.

All have written exhaustively on the subject. Just a few paragraphs fromThomas Sowell:

It is considered the height of callousness to tell blacks to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps. But the cold historical fact is that most blacks did lift themselves out of poverty by their own bootstraps -- before their political rescuers arrived on the scene with civil rights legislation in the 1960s or affirmative action policies in the 1970s.

As of 1940, 87 percent of black families lived below the official poverty line. This fell to 47 percent by 1960, without any major federal legislation on civil rights and before the rise and expansion of the welfare state under the Great Society programs of President Lyndon Johnson. . . .

. . . .Independent blacks who make it on their own are ignored as irrelevant or distracting. That is true not only of individuals, but also of institutions like all-black Dunbar High School in Washington, which for 85 years brought quality education to its students. Dunbar students exceeded national norms on IQ tests, years before the Supreme Court said that separate education was inherently unequal.

Dunbar was located within walking distance of the Supreme Court that essentially declared its existence impossible. Ironically, it was the political maneuvering following the historic desegregation decision of the High Court that ended Dunbar's long career as a quality institution and reduced it to just another failing ghetto school. But there are other quality black schools today -- and they are still largely ignored today. . . .
Thomas Sowell

You see in Conservativeland, such concepts will be taught. As you have already indicated in your post, such concepts are not being taught in Liberalland now and probably won't be after the divorce either.

 

[bobcollum]

"Exercise"...

 

[kwc57]

Seems you have a lot of faith in the fairness of people who have repeatedly resorted to some pretty evil things in the name of defining us as a christian nation. Dominionists are not interested in any kind of objective comparative theology and yet you talk as if they would be just fine with allowing anything other than christian dogma to come in contact with any young mind. Think Taliban with a suit and tie.

That is one of the differences between conservatism and liberalism. Conservatism looks at ALL the history, the good and the bad, the heroes and the villains, the saints and the sinners, and learns from the study. Liberalism tends to cherry pick any negative they can find and uses that to denigrate and/or attack something that they don't like while denying or ignoring any positives that also exist. Conservatism allows complete freedom of thought and does not attempt to regulate that by what is included in honest curriculum. Conservatism trust human liberty to produce a better world than any that government would direct or mandate; therefore it does not fear allowing students to explore all possibilities of a concept. Conservatism trust a mind taught to thnk critically to choose the best options out of many offered.

Liberalism seems to attempt to indoctrinate students by limiting what they are allowed to see, think about, express.

And that is why I am most happy to assign all the liberal academics to your side.

Now that's just wrong, might as well bring back ethnology and phrenology as valid scientific pursuits. There is a reason why these things have been left in the dustbin of history and it is the same reason this high sounding new theory called intelligent design was met with laughter and indignation by real scientists, it had nothing to do with prejudice or indoctrination and everything to do with avoiding cynically teaching kids made-up bullshit.

Ahhhh, I see where you are getting your misguided ideas.

View attachment 19348

 

[occupied]

It will be refreshing to have it again taught how black people, for instance, were the most rapidly advancing group economically BEFORE the Great Society and all the government programs to 'help' them, and how they have lagged behind ever since.

You SERIOUSLY didn't just post this with a straight face. Yes, yes you did. My god, the utter stupidity...
Rapidly advancing WHERE???

Yep and I will continue to do so. For confirmation, I recommend that you read any of a number of books, essays, and articles written by Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams, Star Parker, and other historians who have done considerable research and study on the subject. But better hurry. Once the divorce agreement is settled, all those will be going to Conservativeland and I doubt they will be stocked in a Liberalland library.

All have written exhaustively on the subject. Just a few paragraphs fromThomas Sowell:

It is considered the height of callousness to tell blacks to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps. But the cold historical fact is that most blacks did lift themselves out of poverty by their own bootstraps -- before their political rescuers arrived on the scene with civil rights legislation in the 1960s or affirmative action policies in the 1970s.

As of 1940, 87 percent of black families lived below the official poverty line. This fell to 47 percent by 1960, without any major federal legislation on civil rights and before the rise and expansion of the welfare state under the Great Society programs of President Lyndon Johnson. . . .

. . . .Independent blacks who make it on their own are ignored as irrelevant or distracting. That is true not only of individuals, but also of institutions like all-black Dunbar High School in Washington, which for 85 years brought quality education to its students. Dunbar students exceeded national norms on IQ tests, years before the Supreme Court said that separate education was inherently unequal.

Dunbar was located within walking distance of the Supreme Court that essentially declared its existence impossible. Ironically, it was the political maneuvering following the historic desegregation decision of the High Court that ended Dunbar's long career as a quality institution and reduced it to just another failing ghetto school. But there are other quality black schools today -- and they are still largely ignored today. . . .
Thomas Sowell

You see in Conservativeland, such concepts will be taught. As you have already indicated in your post, such concepts are not being taught in Liberalland now and probably won't be after the divorvce either.

Did you just admit that schools would be segregated in conservative land? I think you did.

 

[kwc57]

It will be refreshing to have it again taught how black people, for instance, were the most rapidly advancing group economically BEFORE the Great Society and all the government programs to 'help' them, and how they have lagged behind ever since.

You SERIOUSLY didn't just post this with a straight face. Yes, yes you did. My god, the utter stupidity...
Rapidly advancing WHERE???

Yep and I will continue to do so. For confirmation, I recommend that you read any of a number of books, essays, and articles written by Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams, Star Parker, and other historians who have done considerable research and study on the subject. But better hurry. Once the divorce agreement is settled, all those will be going to Conservativeland and I doubt they will be stocked in a Liberalland library.

All have written exhaustively on the subject. Just a few paragraphs fromThomas Sowell:

It is considered the height of callousness to tell blacks to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps. But the cold historical fact is that most blacks did lift themselves out of poverty by their own bootstraps -- before their political rescuers arrived on the scene with civil rights legislation in the 1960s or affirmative action policies in the 1970s.

As of 1940, 87 percent of black families lived below the official poverty line. This fell to 47 percent by 1960, without any major federal legislation on civil rights and before the rise and expansion of the welfare state under the Great Society programs of President Lyndon Johnson. . . .

. . . .Independent blacks who make it on their own are ignored as irrelevant or distracting. That is true not only of individuals, but also of institutions like all-black Dunbar High School in Washington, which for 85 years brought quality education to its students. Dunbar students exceeded national norms on IQ tests, years before the Supreme Court said that separate education was inherently unequal.

Dunbar was located within walking distance of the Supreme Court that essentially declared its existence impossible. Ironically, it was the political maneuvering following the historic desegregation decision of the High Court that ended Dunbar's long career as a quality institution and reduced it to just another failing ghetto school. But there are other quality black schools today -- and they are still largely ignored today. . . .
Thomas Sowell

You see in Conservativeland, such concepts will be taught. As you have already indicated in your post, such concepts are not being taught in Liberalland now and probably won't be after the divorce either.

Fox, every good liberal knows Sowell is just an Uncle Tom, a tool of his white masters.

 

[kwc57]

You SERIOUSLY didn't just post this with a straight face. Yes, yes you did. My god, the utter stupidity...
Rapidly advancing WHERE???

Yep and I will continue to do so. For confirmation, I recommend that you read any of a number of books, essays, and articles written by Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams, Star Parker, and other historians who have done considerable research and study on the subject. But better hurry. Once the divorce agreement is settled, all those will be going to Conservativeland and I doubt they will be stocked in a Liberalland library.

All have written exhaustively on the subject. Just a few paragraphs fromThomas Sowell:

It is considered the height of callousness to tell blacks to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps. But the cold historical fact is that most blacks did lift themselves out of poverty by their own bootstraps -- before their political rescuers arrived on the scene with civil rights legislation in the 1960s or affirmative action policies in the 1970s.

As of 1940, 87 percent of black families lived below the official poverty line. This fell to 47 percent by 1960, without any major federal legislation on civil rights and before the rise and expansion of the welfare state under the Great Society programs of President Lyndon Johnson. . . .

. . . .Independent blacks who make it on their own are ignored as irrelevant or distracting. That is true not only of individuals, but also of institutions like all-black Dunbar High School in Washington, which for 85 years brought quality education to its students. Dunbar students exceeded national norms on IQ tests, years before the Supreme Court said that separate education was inherently unequal.

Dunbar was located within walking distance of the Supreme Court that essentially declared its existence impossible. Ironically, it was the political maneuvering following the historic desegregation decision of the High Court that ended Dunbar's long career as a quality institution and reduced it to just another failing ghetto school. But there are other quality black schools today -- and they are still largely ignored today. . . .
Thomas Sowell

You see in Conservativeland, such concepts will be taught. As you have already indicated in your post, such concepts are not being taught in Liberalland now and probably won't be after the divorvce either.

Did you just admit that schools would be segregated in conservative land? I think you did.

You can't be that stoopid......can you?

 

[occupied]

Yep and I will continue to do so. For confirmation, I recommend that you read any of a number of books, essays, and articles written by Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams, Star Parker, and other historians who have done considerable research and study on the subject. But better hurry. Once the divorce agreement is settled, all those will be going to Conservativeland and I doubt they will be stocked in a Liberalland library.

All have written exhaustively on the subject. Just a few paragraphs fromThomas Sowell:



You see in Conservativeland, such concepts will be taught. As you have already indicated in your post, such concepts are not being taught in Liberalland now and probably won't be after the divorvce either.

Did you just admit that schools would be segregated in conservative land? I think you did.

You can't be that stoopid......can you?

Sure I can, want to answer for all conservatives on the official policy on racial segregation in conservative America or do all the blacks get packed off to liberal land along with the professors?

 

[Foxfyre]

You SERIOUSLY didn't just post this with a straight face. Yes, yes you did. My god, the utter stupidity...
Rapidly advancing WHERE???

Yep and I will continue to do so. For confirmation, I recommend that you read any of a number of books, essays, and articles written by Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams, Star Parker, and other historians who have done considerable research and study on the subject. But better hurry. Once the divorce agreement is settled, all those will be going to Conservativeland and I doubt they will be stocked in a Liberalland library.

All have written exhaustively on the subject. Just a few paragraphs fromThomas Sowell:

It is considered the height of callousness to tell blacks to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps. But the cold historical fact is that most blacks did lift themselves out of poverty by their own bootstraps -- before their political rescuers arrived on the scene with civil rights legislation in the 1960s or affirmative action policies in the 1970s.

As of 1940, 87 percent of black families lived below the official poverty line. This fell to 47 percent by 1960, without any major federal legislation on civil rights and before the rise and expansion of the welfare state under the Great Society programs of President Lyndon Johnson. . . .

. . . .Independent blacks who make it on their own are ignored as irrelevant or distracting. That is true not only of individuals, but also of institutions like all-black Dunbar High School in Washington, which for 85 years brought quality education to its students. Dunbar students exceeded national norms on IQ tests, years before the Supreme Court said that separate education was inherently unequal.

Dunbar was located within walking distance of the Supreme Court that essentially declared its existence impossible. Ironically, it was the political maneuvering following the historic desegregation decision of the High Court that ended Dunbar's long career as a quality institution and reduced it to just another failing ghetto school. But there are other quality black schools today -- and they are still largely ignored today. . . .
Thomas Sowell

You see in Conservativeland, such concepts will be taught. As you have already indicated in your post, such concepts are not being taught in Liberalland now and probably won't be after the divorce either.

Fox, every good liberal knows Sowell is just an Uncle Tom, a tool of his white masters.

He touched on that in this short essay; does so more in depth in other writings as do the other authors I mentioned and many other historians.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Thomas Sowell? You are shitting me, yes? Can I get a real source for those numbers? Good god.
I guess that had nothing to do with migration from the south to northern states during industrialization since there was very little work other than sharecropping in the south, would it - and at that, the poverty rate hovers around half? Do you read anything other than republican screed? Of course not.

There were many "black" schools that did well. So did Morehouse college. Are you suggesting that schools should still be segregated? Or that anyone shoud be able to go to any school they wanted regardless? Affirmative action was brought about due to very real, very visible discrimination. Here, read the account of the first black students to enter my college. My aunt was working downtown and there were RIOTS. It's not by a conservative, but... wait, is that civil rights legislation I see in there? Yep.

Charlayne Hunter-Gault (b. 1942)

 

[Foxfyre]

Did you just admit that schools would be segregated in conservative land? I think you did.

You can't be that stoopid......can you?

Sure I can, want to answer for all conservatives on the official policy on racial segregation in conservative America or do all the blacks get packed off to liberal land along with the professors?

Nope. Schools will not be segregated or designed by race or any other demographics in Conservativeland. However if an all white school or an all black school or an all Hispanic school should be established, so long as they did not exclude any student of any race, the Conservativeland government will not be forcing it to 'desegregate' as they did Dunbar. I believe, however, as race will not be made an issue in any respect in Conservativeland, there won't be any incentive by anybody to voluntarily segregate themselves. Subsidized racism will be a thing of the past. Probably within a decade or two, the color of a person's skin will be of no more consequence than eye color or hair color.

 

[occupied]

I think we are finally getting to the red meat of this thing, conservatives know that conservative minorities are becoming rare as hen's teeth. "Goodbye brown people" might as well be the alternate title of this piece. Conservative America continues to shrink, numerically they will now be entitled to about half of the old confederacy.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thomas Sowell? You are shitting me, yes? Can I get a real source for those numbers? Good god.
I guess that had nothing to do with migration from the south to northern states during industrialization since there was very little work other than sharecropping in the south, would it - and at that, the poverty rate hovers around half? Do you read anything other than republican screed? Of course not.

There were many "black" schools that did well. So did Morehouse college. Are you suggesting that schools should still be segregated? Or that anyone shoud be able to go to any school they wanted regardless? Affirmative action was brought about due to very real, very visible discrimination. Here, read the account of the first black students to enter my college. My aunt was working downtown and there were RIOTS. It's not by a conservative, but... wait, is that civil rights legislation I see in there? Yep.

Charlayne Hunter-Gault (b. 1942)

You are going to make such a wonderful addition to Liberalland. You'll require no brainwashing at all. Hell, they'll probably elect you to high office right away.