Will any Progressive answer this question?

[TemplarKormac]

She said that it is wrong to think that kids belong to their parents and should belong to the community.
This is absolutely wrong.
Kids belong to their parents.

Nothig like a rational, well thought out response to take this thread to new heights! Way to go, Peach! You are so smart and stuff.

Nothing like someone who defends the statements made in the interview, and then turns on a dime to agree with someone else who holds the same viewpoints. Nice pivot Loner.

 

[Sarah G]

You mean if posters don't say what you want to hear, they shouldn't come here?

Besides, you said there was a question and you wrote like six of them.

The rules of the thread are stated in the OP, if you don't like them, no one is compelling you to answer. You can just leave the thread.

However, I'm not going to argue when you libtards anymore, and it's obvious you won't answer the question either.

IGNORED​

Count of Progressives Not Answering the Question of this thread:
6​

Careful Sarah G!

If you quit the thread, you'll get a RageQuit YouTube link sent to you via PM!

In that case, I'd better watch it.. Thanks for the warning.

 

[JQPublic1]

Not only are you dictatorial but you're a massive hair-splitter as well.

The transcript is in your OP.

That wasn't the intent nor motive of your post, you goal was to spin and twist, and act as if I invented that transcript.

Remember, for every POST on the USMB, there are between 35-40 non-active viewers that visit the thread, all of which are watching you writhe in agony.

Oh, I don't think the visitors to this thread are watching sfc writhe an agony; more likely they are being amused by watching you make a fool of yourself.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Not only are you dictatorial but you're a massive hair-splitter as well.

The transcript is in your OP.

That wasn't the intent nor motive of your post, you goal was to spin and twist, and act as if I invented that transcript.

Remember, for every POST on the USMB, there are between 35-40 non-active viewers that visit the thread, all of which are watching you writhe in agony.

I'm still here and I'm still laughing.

 

[LoneLaugher]

She said that it is wrong to think that kids belong to their parents and should belong to the community.
This is absolutely wrong.
Kids belong to their parents.

Nothig like a rational, well thought out response to take this thread to new heights! Way to go, Peach! You are so smart and stuff.

Nothing like someone who defends the statements made in the interview, and then turns on a dime to agree with someone else who holds the same viewpoints. Nice pivot Loner.

Say what?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Remember, for every POST on the USMB, there are between 35-40 non-active viewers that visit the thread, all of which are watching you writhe in agony.

Oh, I don't think the visitors to this thread are watching sfc writhe an agony; more likely they are being amused by watching you make a fool of yourself.

The average person is a moderate, left or right. Here is what they see:

Can any Progressive answer some simple questions about this Promotion Ad from MNSBC? Please restrict your answers to the Ad itself.

The average person searches this thread in vain, to see if any Progressives have answered the question(s). The questions are very simple, as demonstrated with the Mitt Romney example.

The only answers that the average moderate viewer can discern from the Progressives are:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrmPehlHK3w]Batman ualuealuealeuale - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JQPublic1]

Do her students at Tulane University know that she is referring to them as "children."
J
These are ADULTS, some people their age are fighting overseas in COMBAT. She doesn't have responsibilities to her "children," she has an OBLIGATION because they are PAYING HER. This is what's wrong with you all, you think we're all children and the government is our big daddy.

Calm down! In many states you cannot legally drink alcohol, or smoke cigarettes until you reach the age of 21. However, I know people who have been in combat at ages 17, 18 ,19 and 20 ; some of whom died or suffered debilitating injuries when their "communities," yours and mine, needed them most. If you do not have a problem with that absurdity leave miss Harris-Perry alone.

In a sense Melissa Harris-Perry was right. We generally don't consider people to be adults in this country until they reach age 21.

Spoken like a 21st Century American male who has been pussified by the Progressive overlords.

And your response is just a knee jerk reaction coming from an oaf who doesn't know how to deal with the truth when he sees it. Is that all you got?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

And your response is just a knee jerk reaction coming from an oaf who doesn't know how to deal with the truth when he sees it. Is that all you got?

I'm not the one denying the existence of the ad and transcript.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Has anyone denied the existence of the ad or the transcript?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And your response is just a knee jerk reaction coming from an oaf who doesn't know how to deal with the truth when he sees it. Is that all you got?

I'm not the one denying the existence of the ad and transcript.

Yours is yet another tedious and failed example of a rightist attempting to contrive a controversy where none exists.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Has anyone denied the existence of the ad or the transcript?

Can you provide me with any post in this thread where you guys have cited the transcript in your answers?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Has anyone denied the existence of the ad or the transcript?

Can you provide me with any post in this thread where you guys have cited the transcript in your answers?

Have you cited the Magna Carta in your posts?

You deny the existence of the Magna Carta?

Try harder, dummy.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Has anyone denied the existence of the ad or the transcript?

Can you provide me with any post in this thread where you guys have cited the transcript in your answers?

Have you cited the Magna Carta in your posts?

You deny the existence of the Magna Carta?

Try harder, dummy.

This thread is not about the Magna Carta, it's about the Promotion Ad, and thus the transcript of that ad.

Try harder dummy.

 

[LoneLaugher]

2A.......

Has any person denied the existence of the ad?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

2A.......

Has any person denied the existence of the ad?

None of you seem to cite the AD ITSELF when discussing your reaction to the ad. That is was this thread was STARTED FOR.

This thread is intended as a RIGOROUS response to a DOCUMENT. You must use the DOCUMENT in order to answers questions ABOUT THE DOCUMENT.


-----------------

Anyway, I enjoy have a monopoly on the interpretation of the ad itself:

1. We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we have always had a private notion of our children.

2. [Sarcastic] 'Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.'

3. We never had a collective notion that these are OUR children.

4. So part of it is that we have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents, or that kids belong to their families.

5. We must recognize that kids belong to the WHOLE COMMUNITY;

6. Once it is everyone's responsibility, and not just the household's [responsibility], we will start making better investments.

And you have the start of Communist disaster.

1: Which problem does she identify? That we aren't investing enough/properly into education - This is derived from Line 1.

2: What does she claim to be the cause of the problem? That parents are sovereign over their children - From Line 1, Line 2

3: What is her solution to the problem? To make government sovereign over your children - From lines 3 and 5

4: What are the means by which to implement her solution? To break (force) the idea of parental sovereignty over their children - From line 4

5: What will be the end result? That our investments in public education will succeed once we implement the solution to the cause of the problem - This is derived from Line 6.

--------------------------

In depth answers:

1: This promotion ad starts with the premise that we are not investing enough into education; however, statistics show (that are well agreed by both liberals and conservatives) that we spend more than any nation on earth per student, and get the worst return on that money as well.

But, if we look at the end of line 6, she says "we'll make better investments," so we'll give her the benefit of the doubt, and assume that her problem is that we don't invest CORRECTLY into education, instead of not investing enough.

2: She immediately identifies what she believes is the Cause of the problem. She says in Line 1:
"beCause we have always had a private notion of our children."

Thus, she claims the Cause of the problem is that Americans believe in parental sovereignty over their children, unless someone can else can dispute what "private notion" means.

Then, in Line 2, she mocks and derides the idea of parental sovereignty:
[Sarcastic] 'Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.'

Thus she believes that any person who believes that their kid is theirs, that they have sovereignty over their children, who believes that they are ultimately responsible for their child, is a person who should be derided.

3: Her solution to the problem is that we must declare that the government is sovereign over our children, not the parents, that parents may only have their children as a PRIVILEGE that is graciously extended to us by government, a privilege that can be revoked for any or no reason (such as teaching them something against the government's values).

We get this from Line 3 and Line 5:
"We haven't had a very collective notion of these are OUR children."

So, since we've translated "private notion" to "parental sovereignty," then we must translate "collective notion" to "government sovereignty." Although it is easy to see how "notion" is being used as euphemism for "sovereignty," how are we translating "collective" to "government?"

Well, she talks about "public education," with public education being the entire premise of her very short speech. Unless you know some form of public education that is NOT run by government, I cannot see how the word "collective" (which itself is often associated with Marxist ideology) can be construed to any other meaning.

Now let's investigate Line 5,
"and recognize that kids belong to WHOLE COMMUNITIES; "

First, we must draw our attention to the word "Community." So far, she has talked about Public Education, and thus, Government; she has also invoked the idea of "government sovereignty." People often confuse society and government, and will use the word "community" to mean either when they cannot decide which term [society or government] to use, or to conceal which one they actually mean.

In the words of Thomas Paine (Common Sense):

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one;

However, we're not here to engage in discourse on Common Sense, I quoted this to show the difference between society and government.

So let's return to the word "Community," in Line 5.

If she is saying that children belong to the "Community," as in society, then it contradicts her own premise that government should have sovereignty, because society and government are separate entities.

Therefore, in order for her own thesis to make sense, the word Community must imply government, which solidifies the logical foundation of her argument. To say that she actually meant "society" would only serve to turn her speech into an incoherent mess, as the speech would be plagued with an illogical union of phrases.

Thus, we finally conclude that her "solution" is to transfer the sovereignty and absolute responsibility over children from the parents and families to the government. This doesn't mean that the Government is going to rush in and take your kids, it simply means that legally, the government is the final authority over your children.

Today, the government can only claim sovereignty over your children if you do something that warrants the removal of your sovereignty (custody), such as abusing your children. Only then may the government become involved, and via due process, the government must prove its case against you.

Her solution is to make government sovereign right from the start, and thus allow them to remove custody of your children for any and no reason, because the custody was already theirs to begin with.

Now, how does she plan to implement this solution? We need only look at Line 4:
"So part of it is that we have to BREAK through our kind-of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families;"

This implies the following:
1) They must convince parents that the government knows better, because the government has "experts" in raising, teaching and nuturing your children. If they can convince us of this idea, then we will Consent to transfer sovereignty of our children over to government, without any resistance.

2) For parents who will not agree to this, then the sovereign relationship between mother and child must be BROKEN, by convincing the child to Consent to the transfer of Sovereignty from the parents to the Public Education (Government) system. This would be accomplished by teaching them these ideas while they are young and then fooling them into signing some sort of devious contract that would complete the transfer of sovereignty.


Finally, she says that once her solution is implemented, our failed investments will magically better themselves, because the government will now have sovereignty over your children, instead of the parents. The problem isn't the Government, it's You!
----------------------------
If you don't agree with my interpretation, ask yourselves the following:
Did she say that we weren't investing correctly into education? The obvious answer here is yes, however, I'll let you privately answer the rest of the questions.

Ok, since she says we're not investing correctly into Public Education, who does she blame the problem on, the government, or the people?

Furthermore, she never even said why our investments have failed. Has she mentioned that there are children whose schools are decrepit and dilapidated? Has she mentioned that there are children without desks? Without textbooks? With paper? Without computers? Without pens and pencils?

No, she says that the "people" are the problem, not government, and that government can fix the problem.

No, she never mentions that children are missing proper supplies, or that their educational facilities are either too small or not maintained correctly (or both), she says that YOU having the final authority over your children is the problem.

----------------------------

Overall, this is a very well designed and intentionally deceptive script. It conveys MILLIONS of words by only using hundred; it presents a dangerous and repulsive ideology, whilst masquerading a caring and loving philosophy.

----------------------------

However, if Progressives would like to give me their alternate explanation of the TRANSCRIPT, by using the TRANSCRIPT in their explanation, please, do so, I don't' want to think that this is what MSNBC (Progressive Headquarters) was trying to preach.

Soon I'll start another thread, with this interpretation right from the start

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I'm now done with this thread myself

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmkfSe1sZsk]Warcraft 2 Tides of Darkness - 007 - Human Victory - YouTube[/ame]

 

[LoneLaugher]

What? You quit?

 

[Sarah G]

Omg..

 

[Bfgrn]

And your response is just a knee jerk reaction coming from an oaf who doesn't know how to deal with the truth when he sees it. Is that all you got?

I'm not the one denying the existence of the ad and transcript.

Yours is yet another tedious and failed example of a rightist attempting to contrive a controversy where none exists.

And, the person who made the ad answered in a follow up article, which I posted here. But, 2nd demandment knows what she meant, not the person who said it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Has anyone denied the existence of the ad or the transcript?

Can you provide me with any post in this thread where you guys have cited the transcript in your answers?

Even BETTER...

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393


Let's try an approach that is totally adverse to 2nd amendment's right wing authoritarian approach to his questions. Let's try what intelligent liberals and progressives do; ask the person who said it.

Why caring for children is not just a parent’s job

Melissa Harris-Perry, @mharrisperry
.........1:14 PM on 04/09/2013

My inbox began filling with hateful, personal attacks on Monday, apparently as a result of conservative reactions to a recent “Lean Forward” advertisement now airing on MSNBC, which you can view above. What I thought was an uncontroversial comment on my desire for Americans to see children as everyone’s responsibility has created a bit of a tempest in the right’s teapot. Allow me to double down.

One thing is for sure: I have no intention of apologizing for saying that our children, all of our children, are part of more than our households, they are part of our communities and deserve to have the care, attention, resources, respect and opportunities of those communities.

When the flood of vitriolic responses to the ad began, my first reaction was relief. I had spent the entire day grading papers and was relieved that since these children were not my responsibility, I could simply mail the students’ papers to their moms and dads to grade! But of course, that is a ridiculous notion. As a teacher, I have unique responsibilities to the students in my classroom at Tulane University, and I embrace those responsibilities. It is why I love my job.

Then I started asking myself where did I learn this lesson about our collective responsibility to children. So many answers quickly became evident.

I learned it from my mother who, long after her own kids were teens, volunteered on the non profit boards of day care centers that served under-resourced children.

I learned it from my father who, despite a demanding career and a large family of his own, always coached boys’ basketball teams in our town.

I learned it from my third-grade public school teacher, who gave me creative extra work and opened up her classroom to me after school so that I wouldn’t get bored and get in trouble.

I learned it from the men who volunteered as crossing guards in my neighborhood even if they don’t have kids in the schools.

I learned it from the conservative, Republican moms at my daughter’s elementary school, who gave her a ride home every day while I was recovering from surgery.

I learned it watching the parents of Newtown and Chicago as they call for gun control legislation to protect all the children of our communities.

I learn it from my elderly neighbors who never complain about paying property taxes that support our schools, even if they have no children in the schools today.

And I have learned it from other, more surprising sources as well. I find very little common ground with former President George W. Bush, but I certainly agree that no child should be left behind. And while I disagree with the policies he implemented under that banner, I wholeheartedly support his belief that we have a collective national interest in all children doing well.

I’ll even admit that despite being an unwavering advocate for women’s reproductive rights, I have learned this lesson from some of my most sincere, ethically motivated, pro-life colleagues. Those people who truly believe that the potential life inherent in a fetus is equivalent to the actualized life of an infant have argued that the community has a distinct interest in children no matter what the mother’s and father’s interests or needs. So while we come down on different sides of the choice issue, we agree that kids are not the property of their parents. Their lives matter to all of us.

I believe wholeheartedly, and without apology, that we have a collective responsibility to the children of our communities even if we did not conceive and bear them. Of course, parents can and should raise their children with their own values. But they should be able to do so in a community that provides safe places to play, quality food to eat, terrific schools to attend, and economic opportunities to support them. No individual household can do that alone. We have to build that world together.

So those of you who were alarmed by the ad can relax. I have no designs on taking your children. Please keep your kids! But I understand the fear.

We do live in a nation where slaveholders took the infants from the arms of my foremothers and sold them for their own profit. We do live in a nation where the government snatched American Indian children from their families and “re-educated” them by forbidding them to speak their language and practice their traditions.

But that is not what I was talking about, and you know it.

I venture to say that anyone and everyone should know full well that my message in that ad was a call to see ourselves as connected to a larger whole. I don’t want your kids, but I want them to live in safe neighborhoods. I want them to learn in enriching and dynamic classrooms. I want them to be healthy and well and free from fear. I want them to grow up to agree or disagree with me or with you and to have all the freedom and tools they need to express what they believe.

And no hateful thing that you say to me or about me will ever change that I want those things for your children.

MSNBC