Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And the state Republican Party and the Vatican are "Hate Speech"?You can run but you can't hide.
Stick to the truth: the student documented that it is political thought, not porn, that is being blocked.
And you say?
I thought you said it was the NRA site that was being blocked? Or is the NRA now a political thought company for right wingers?
The filtering software that many schools use frequently block sites about guns. They will display a message to the effect that the site has been blocked for having been categorized as 'Firearms'.
'Warrants further investigation' does not mean the student is absolutely correct.
".... absolutely correct."
I see you've found a new way to say 'I surrender.'
Nothing in your post either stated or implied that the student was absolutely correct, so why would you conclude that?
All you people had to have done, instead of immediately assuming that the student's accusation's were entirely factual,
(unlike your assumptions about Anita Hill's accusations, as I pointed out)
was to have offered a simple concession of 'if'. 'If' they are true, 'if' he is right.
The thread is a complaint about partisan bias, and yet, every conservative who came into the thread engaged in the partisan bias of assuming, without proof, that the story was absolutely true and the charges needed no proof to be assumed true;
you all committed the very wrong you were attacking.
With the parents, you dolt, as you've been repeatedly told.I do find it ironic that PC is using a link from the liberal media to rail against liberals. Or is it only the liberal media when they publish a story that doesnt agree with your narrative?
1. "... to rail against liberals."
I rail against censorship and indoctrination....but I must agree that those offenses are synonymous with 'liberals.'
2. The irony here is that you have not taken a position re: censorship and indoctrination, but see the opportunity to make this about me.
(I really don't mind that, I am my favorite topic.)
This was discussed earlier, or more precisely I tried to discuss it with your pals and they all ran away from it.
Should the courts have the power to dictate to the school boards how their filters should operate?
Or should the school boards be left to manage the internet in their schools as they see fit?
Where should the power of that decision lie?
Occam's Razor suggests it's a dumbass progressive who wants to shield children from dangerous ideas.To you, an accusation is the same as a conviction...
Should I wait for you to provide evidence to the contrary, or should I plan on having a future?
One data point. Really? This is a piss poor thread even for PC. The conclusion drawn and thanked by some really dumb people is tantamount to dropping a helium balloon off a ten story building and concluding gravity doesn't exist.
Inquiring minds want to know, were these sources of conservative web sites blocked before the accuser sat down at the computer? Are all computers within the school system effected in this same manner? Is someone in IT at the school or district office a right wing hack who decided to create a sensation to embarrass the school/district?
If you have to say you won...you didn't.Nothing in your post either stated or implied that the student was absolutely correct, so why would you conclude that?
All you people had to have done, instead of immediately assuming that the student's accusation's were entirely factual,
(unlike your assumptions about Anita Hill's accusations, as I pointed out)
was to have offered a simple concession of 'if'. 'If' they are true, 'if' he is right.
The thread is a complaint about partisan bias, and yet, every conservative who came into the thread engaged in the partisan bias of assuming, without proof, that the story was absolutely true and the charges needed no proof to be assumed true;
you all committed the very wrong you were attacking.
False an disingenuous.......as usual.
This is why you lose every debate with me you attempt on this forum.
Look at the USMB Libs, nice bunch, but they have no ability to think for themselves.
You show them the lies about FDR, LBJ and McCarthy, and you get back flying froth and spittle.
".... absolutely correct."
I see you've found a new way to say 'I surrender.'
Nothing in your post either stated or implied that the student was absolutely correct, so why would you conclude that?
All you people had to have done, instead of immediately assuming that the student's accusation's were entirely factual,
(unlike your assumptions about Anita Hill's accusations, as I pointed out)
was to have offered a simple concession of 'if'. 'If' they are true, 'if' he is right.
The thread is a complaint about partisan bias, and yet, every conservative who came into the thread engaged in the partisan bias of assuming, without proof, that the story was absolutely true and the charges needed no proof to be assumed true;
you all committed the very wrong you were attacking.
What about the progs who assumed the story was false? Are you going to chastise them?
Of course you're not.
If you have to say you won...you didn't.False an disingenuous.......as usual.
This is why you lose every debate with me you attempt on this forum.
Yawn.You pretty much suck at this.Once again, you snipe while concealing your own position, which means of course that your position is that big government should rule in this case,
but only because you think you'd like the outcome.
No Big Brother Progressive government intervention is required (although to be accurate, a Big Brother Progressive government would shut down conservative web sites and execute their owners).
All that's required is angry parents who don't accept the asinine prog notion that progs can raise their children better than their parents.
You suffer from a common prog failing: Believing that elected officials have a blank check to do whatever they want, and are not accountable to the people they work for.
Unsurprisingly, you guess wrong. Schools should teach science; parents, homeschoolers, and churches can teach creationism if they choose -- if progressives don't outlaw it. It would be Thoughtcrime, of course.I'm guessing you weren't quite as pleased with outcome in Kitzmiller v. Dover.
So, it looks like you've struck out. Now will you tell us why you oppose children being exposed to all views? It's because you believe they'll choose the wrong ideas, isn't it?
First you say that 'Big Brother' isn't needed, then you agree with Big Brother forcing the Dover school district to stop requiring the teaching of intelligent design as science.
Which is it?
Who should be able to decide what the school can teach? The school district itself, with its school board elected by those parents, and others, you referred to,
or should the federal government, through the courts and/or federal law?
Occam's Razor suggests it's a dumbass progressive who wants to shield children from dangerous ideas.Should I wait for you to provide evidence to the contrary, or should I plan on having a future?
One data point. Really? This is a piss poor thread even for PC. The conclusion drawn and thanked by some really dumb people is tantamount to dropping a helium balloon off a ten story building and concluding gravity doesn't exist.
Inquiring minds want to know, were these sources of conservative web sites blocked before the accuser sat down at the computer? Are all computers within the school system effected in this same manner? Is someone in IT at the school or district office a right wing hack who decided to create a sensation to embarrass the school/district?
None said it outright.Nothing in your post either stated or implied that the student was absolutely correct, so why would you conclude that?
All you people had to have done, instead of immediately assuming that the student's accusation's were entirely factual,
(unlike your assumptions about Anita Hill's accusations, as I pointed out)
was to have offered a simple concession of 'if'. 'If' they are true, 'if' he is right.
The thread is a complaint about partisan bias, and yet, every conservative who came into the thread engaged in the partisan bias of assuming, without proof, that the story was absolutely true and the charges needed no proof to be assumed true;
you all committed the very wrong you were attacking.
What about the progs who assumed the story was false? Are you going to chastise them?
Of course you're not.
Was there someone in this thread who claimed as fact that the kid was lying? Direct me to those posts and I'll state for the record my disagreement with that claim.
If you have to say you won...you didn't.This is why you lose every debate with me you attempt on this forum.
Why didn't you chastise her then?
None said it outright.What about the progs who assumed the story was false? Are you going to chastise them?
Of course you're not.
Was there someone in this thread who claimed as fact that the kid was lying? Direct me to those posts and I'll state for the record my disagreement with that claim.
But many agreed with the policy. How very tolerant of them!
I agree, if by sex "education" you mean sex "promotion".Occam's Razor suggests it's a dumbass progressive who wants to shield children from dangerous ideas.One data point. Really? This is a piss poor thread even for PC. The conclusion drawn and thanked by some really dumb people is tantamount to dropping a helium balloon off a ten story building and concluding gravity doesn't exist.
Inquiring minds want to know, were these sources of conservative web sites blocked before the accuser sat down at the computer? Are all computers within the school system effected in this same manner? Is someone in IT at the school or district office a right wing hack who decided to create a sensation to embarrass the school/district?
It's conservatives who fight to keep sex education out of schools.
If you have to say you won...you didn't.
Why didn't you chastise her then?
You misunderstand, naturally. When YOU -- Carby -- have to say YOU -- Carby -- won...you didn't.
The conservative conflict here is hilarious. They throw a tantrum over an injustice allegedly committed at the local level,
but their hatred of the federal government is so great that they cannot bring themselves to support the idea of that higher authority intervening to protect the students' rights.
Dood. When someone claims the sun rises in the west, no refutation is necessary.Why didn't you chastise her then?
You misunderstand, naturally. When YOU -- Carby -- have to say YOU -- Carby -- won...you didn't.
Actually I win all my debates with PC, usually because they end with my points standing unrefuted,
because they end up be responded to in the manner of the post I was referring to.
Can you name one instance where you've chastised your fellow lefties for an action you condemned right wingers for?None said it outright.Was there someone in this thread who claimed as fact that the kid was lying? Direct me to those posts and I'll state for the record my disagreement with that claim.
But many agreed with the policy. How very tolerant of them!
So you accused me of not doing something there was no reason to do.
...comon...
Get back to the issue. Is this a students' rights issue or not?
