Real Estate Investing Forums

Miscellaneous => Random Ramblings => Topic started by: PositiveOutlook on December 09, 2009, 02:55:44 pm

Title: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: PositiveOutlook on December 09, 2009, 02:55:44 pm
Fistgate III: Obama’s Safe Schools Czar’s ‘Black Book’ For Kids Included Tips on Fisting and Pi$$ing on Your Partner
by Jim Hoft

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/09/fistgate-iii-obamas-safe-schools-czars-black-book-for-kids-included-tips-on-fisting-and-piing-on-your-partner/


Obama made this guy the "Safe Schools Czar" and he is now running the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools in the US Department of Education.  This is NOT what education is about...  With such a radical POV and having exposed kids to such debauchery, why would ANY parent feel safe with this guy involved with anything having to do with kids and school?

This is just another example of WHY these Czar's are so dangerous... by calling them a Czar, they bypass the Congress' Advise and Consent role... as we've seen with Obama radical Czar appointments, it becomes easier to destroy from within...
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: propertymanager on December 09, 2009, 04:46:56 pm
So much for safe schools!
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: Hoosier4life2005 on December 09, 2009, 06:35:49 pm
Just wait guys.... Im sure FurnishedOwner will explain how Obama is GREAT for doing this..

Waiting for her response..
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: JakeRodgers on December 09, 2009, 09:49:37 pm
Wow. I have no witty response or quip on this one. It's just scary...
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: robdedgar on December 09, 2009, 09:56:49 pm
Are the people he appoints to these positions just out to make him look stupider?  :biggrin
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: justin0419 on December 09, 2009, 11:33:27 pm
For those of you who want to see something else about this guy besides from a blog:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/28/at-the-presidents-pleasure/
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: propertymanager on December 10, 2009, 06:25:18 am
Quote
Are the people he appoints to these positions just out to make him look stupider?

No, the President CHOSE these people and he knows EXACTLY who they are.  These people reflect the attitude and philosophy of the President.  He's a SOCIALIST and he's not even trying to keep it a secret.  Short of wearing a sign around his neck that says "I'm A Socialist", I don't know what else he could do to let everyone know who he is.
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: PositiveOutlook on December 10, 2009, 06:36:59 am
After all, Obama himself said to judge him by the people he would surround himself with... quite a cast of characters to present his own character...

As Propertymanager said, he is telling us who he really is...  either that, or he is completely incompetent... I almost wish that this were the case, but too many of these czar's have turned out to be complete radicals, and since czars are appointed BY the President, Obama really has no excuse...  this is just another example of how dangerous czar's who are not vetted by the Congress can be... 

This is NOT the change people were hoping for...  Obama really had quite a historic opportunity that he has thus far completely blown, and at the same time, put the country in a bad position domestically and internationally...
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: Bluemoon06 on December 10, 2009, 08:46:30 am
Alright guys.  What is his job?
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: propertymanager on December 10, 2009, 09:00:01 am
...to protect and defend the constitution of the United States.  However, he thinks his job is to create a new Unites Socialist States of America!
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: Bluemoon06 on December 10, 2009, 11:17:47 am
No his job is to head the safe and drug free schools program.  His job has nothing to do with kissing anybody.  He is basically a bureaucrat that deals with funding for safety programs and drug prevention programs in schools that do more than just say no.

He has no policy responsibility.  His job is to make the program go, not make policy.  So what does that have to do with socialism?

Why are you guys so hard on Obama?  Somebody has to run this country it may as well be him.
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: PositiveOutlook on December 10, 2009, 12:19:46 pm
Bluemoon06,

"No his job is to head the safe and drug free schools program.  His job has nothing to do with kissing anybody. He is basically a bureaucrat that deals with funding for safety programs and drug prevention programs in schools that do more than just say no."

Are you serious?   :shocked      So the fact that he OPENLY PROMOTES debauchery to MINORS and is now in a position where his influence through materials being deciminated to minors in school in programs he develops is no concern???

Well, if that's the case, then we ought not worry about doing background checks for people in bureaucratic roles... whats the point in vetting them?... we could save LOTS of money that way...   :rolleyes

"He has no policy responsibility."

BS... he reports directly to Obama..

"His job is to make the program go, not make policy.  So what does that have to do with socialism?"

Wacko ideas and programs are dangerous things indeed... this is WHY Congress has the advise and consent powers for those who give input to the President... Czars remove that role and as has been evidenced by Obama's choices for Czars, they can get any unvetted radical in...  If you think they have no influence, you are kidding yourself...


"Why are you guys so hard on Obama?  Somebody has to run this country it may as well be him."

Because we are watching him cause so much damage to the country... I can think of MANY other people more capable and more supportive of the founding of this great country than Obama...
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: Bluemoon06 on December 10, 2009, 12:47:23 pm
Bluemoon06,

"No his job is to head the safe and drug free schools program.  His job has nothing to do with kissing anybody. He is basically a bureaucrat that deals with funding for safety programs and drug prevention programs in schools that do more than just say no."

Are you serious?   :shocked      So the fact that he OPENLY PROMOTES debauchery to MINORS and is now in a position where his influence through materials being deciminated to minors in school in programs he develops is no concern???

Well, if that's the case, then we ought not worry about doing background checks for people in bureaucratic roles... whats the point in vetting them?... we could save LOTS of money that way...   :rolleyes

He will always be debauched.  That has nothing to do with his job, it has to do what who he has sex with.  I don’t think being heterosexual is a job requirement.


"He has no policy responsibility."

BS... he reports directly to Obama..


He does report to the President and so does his secretary.  She doesn’t have any policy setting responsibility either.  That is the problem with people running around giving the title Czar to all these advisors and bureaucrats.  They are not czars.

"His job is to make the program go, not make policy.  So what does that have to do with socialism?"

Wacko ideas and programs are dangerous things indeed... this is WHY Congress has the advise and consent powers for those who give input to the President... Czars remove that role and as has been evidenced by Obama's choices for Czars, they can get any unvetted radical in...  If you think they have no influence, you are kidding yourself...

Anybody that leads needs to have free access to ideas.  Wacky ones are the best because they cause you to find out where the envelop is so that we can progress.  Can you imagine how wacky the idea was to make a machine that could fly?  That is why it does not require congressional approval.

"Why are you guys so hard on Obama?  Somebody has to run this country it may as well be him."

Because we are watching him cause so much damage to the country... I can think of MANY other people more capable and more supportive of the founding of this great country than Obama...

You act like he is the only president that caused damage to this country.  If this country is so fragile that it must be kept under a bell jar and never moved.  You really want to conserve what we have instead of move the country forward then you must be a conserver…I mean a conservative.  We have to move forward.  When JFK decided he would try to overthrow the government of Cuba it caused “damage” to the country but worth the try, when Carter tried to effect a rescue of the hostages it “damaged” the county but needed to be tried, when Reagan tried to run guns to the Sandinista it “damaged” the country but needed to be done.  When Bush invaded Iraq…the jury is still out but it surely “damaged” the country.  That is what the President does.  When you go out and run or lift weights.  The tissues are “damaged” or broken down so that they can re form stronger and better.  You have to “damage” the country or you are placeholder.  Who wants a placeholder President?
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: PositiveOutlook on December 10, 2009, 01:44:21 pm
Bluemoon06,

"He will always be debauched.  That has nothing to do with his job, it has to do what who he has sex with.  I don’t think being heterosexual is a job requirement."

I never mentioned anything about who he was having sex with, nor whether he was homosexual or not, the debauchery I was referring to was what he was CAUGHT PROMOTING TO KIDS and without parental KNOWLEDGE to boot...  this lack of discernment and judgment on his part is MORE than enough reason to disqualify him from having any influence or contact with kids...  Otherwise, there is no reason NOT to have a pedophile work with kids programs where they would exert influence, but not have direct contact with kids...


"Anybody that leads needs to have free access to ideas.  Wacky ones are the best because they cause you to find out where the envelop is so that we can progress.  Can you imagine how wacky the idea was to make a machine that could fly?  That is why it does not require congressional approval."

Comparing flight to teaching KIDS about fisting. rimming and other debaucherous acts is a weird way to make your argument... It would lead one to believe you are OK with teaching KIDS this...

"You act like he is the only president that caused damage to this country."

I see, so that's a reason to go along with the damage that he is doing, because "others" have before...  well then, I guess we should just let him do whatever he wants.. damn the cost...   :rolleyes


"If this country is so fragile that it must be kept under a bell jar and never moved.  You really want to conserve what we have instead of move the country forward then you must be a conserver…I mean a conservative.  We have to move forward."

That argument could be used to continue to strip away our rights and give away our sovereignty...  If movement is all we need... then there is no need to defend that for which we believe, nor do we need right per se...  Having rights IS keeping the status quo...

"When you go out and run or lift weights.  The tissues are “damaged” or broken down so that they can re form stronger and better.  You have to “damage” the country or you are placeholder.  Who wants a placeholder President?"

Interesting analogy, however, more analogous would be the guy whose arms blew up... he exercised them so much, in the wrong way, with the wrong influences (steroids) that his biceps literally blew up causing PERMANENT damage... He is NOT the better for it..

In this case, I don't want to live in a socialistic country, nor do I wish to give up our sovereignty or rights just so we can "move forward"...   


Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: Bluemoon06 on December 10, 2009, 03:17:56 pm
Bluemoon06,

"He will always be debauched.  That has nothing to do with his job, it has to do what who he has sex with.  I don’t think being heterosexual is a job requirement."

I never mentioned anything about who he was having sex with, nor whether he was homosexual or not, the debauchery I was referring to was what he was CAUGHT PROMOTING TO KIDS and without parental KNOWLEDGE to boot...  this lack of discernment and judgment on his part is MORE than enough reason to disqualify him from having any influence or contact with kids...  Otherwise, there is no reason NOT to have a pedophile work with kids programs where they would exert influence, but not have direct contact with kids...


"Anybody that leads needs to have free access to ideas.  Wacky ones are the best because they cause you to find out where the envelop is so that we can progress.  Can you imagine how wacky the idea was to make a machine that could fly?  That is why it does not require congressional approval."

Comparing flight to teaching KIDS about fisting. rimming and other debaucherous acts is a weird way to make your argument... It would lead one to believe you are OK with teaching KIDS this...

Since we are not homosexuals we really can’t understand what it takes to raise a successful gay kid.  The parents of those kids probably needed some help teaching them to do the things that make them gay without hurting themselves.  His job has nothing to do with contact with children although he is not a pedophile, just a Peter Pan leading young homosexual kids through the dark forest of heterosexuality to the fairy land of gayness.

"You act like he is the only president that caused damage to this country."

I see, so that's a reason to go along with the damage that he is doing, because "others" have before...  well then, I guess we should just let him do whatever he wants.. damn the cost...   :rolleyes


No President gets to do whatever he wants.  Remember you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

"If this country is so fragile that it must be kept under a bell jar and never moved.  You really want to conserve what we have instead of move the country forward then you must be a conserver…I mean a conservative.  We have to move forward."

That argument could be used to continue to strip away our rights and give away our sovereignty...  If movement is all we need... then there is no need to defend that for which we believe, nor do we need right per se...  Having rights IS keeping the status quo...

I do not know every right and every gaining or losing of them.  Maybe I didn’t get it so tell me what rights are we losing and what sovereignty have we given away?


In this case, I don't want to live in a socialistic country, nor do I wish to give up our sovereignty or rights just so we can "move forward"...  

There is nothing wrong with socialism.  We already live in a socialist country.  What part of socialism do you have a problem with?
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: PositiveOutlook on December 10, 2009, 04:04:22 pm
Bluemoon06,

"Since we are not homosexuals we really can’t understand what it takes to raise a successful gay kid.  The parents of those kids probably needed some help teaching them to do the things that make them gay without hurting themselves."


And this is your reason to expose ALL the KIDS who attended (with school consent that they had to apologize afterwards because of the uproar) without parental consent to debauchery??? Are you serious???

"His job has nothing to do with contact with children although he is not a pedophile, just a Peter Pan leading young homosexual kids through the dark forest of heterosexuality to the fairy land of gayness."

What an absolutely ignorant analogy...  But in it, you ADMIT he is "leading them", which is the point... you cannot lead without influence... he does not deserve to be in such a position...

"No President gets to do whatever he wants."

What is funny about this is that so far, the only one stopping Obama are the ones in his own party...  lol...

"Remember you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs."

Yes, but some people don't like eggs...   :biggrin

"I do not know every right and every gaining or losing of them.  Maybe I didn’t get it so tell me what rights are we losing and what sovereignty have we given away?"

The rights are laid out for you... all you have to do is read...

"There is nothing wrong with socialism.  We already live in a socialist country.  What part of socialism do you have a problem with?"

No, you are incorrect...  we are not a socialist state... yet...  this country did not become the most powerful, most PRODUCTIVE, and richest nation in our short history through socialism...  in fact, the MORE we add socialistic programs, the WORSE off we become...  socialism is like potholes on the highway of freedom, the more you add, the HARDER it is to move ahead, and the more EXPENSIVE it becomes to maintain, and people become lulled into WAITING around for the government to fix it instead of forging and paving a new road for themselves, thus clogging the road with LESS productive members of society waiting on the government... wasted lives in the process...

But if we follow your philosophy that we should just "move forward" to the next stage after socialism... communism...  I don't want to live under a totalitarian regime...  so I guess I'm rooting for the status quo there...   :beer

As far as parts of socialism I have a "problem" with... there are many, but as Reagan once said... the scary words - "I am from the government and I'm here to help" points to the fact that in relinquishing what you can do for yourself to the government, beyond their limited enumerated powers, you at the same time relinquish freedom under the guise of government "helping" you...  all the while making you servile to them or your fellow citizen on your behalf...

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are ALL affected by socialism...

 
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: Bluemoon06 on December 10, 2009, 04:33:10 pm
Bluemoon06,

"Since we are not homosexuals we really can’t understand what it takes to raise a successful gay kid.  The parents of those kids probably needed some help teaching them to do the things that make them gay without hurting themselves."


And this is your reason to expose ALL the KIDS who attended (with school consent that they had to apologize afterwards because of the uproar) without parental consent to debauchery??? Are you serious???

"His job has nothing to do with contact with children although he is not a pedophile, just a Peter Pan leading young homosexual kids through the dark forest of heterosexuality to the fairy land of gayness."

What an absolutely ignorant analogy...  But in it, you ADMIT he is "leading them", which is the point... you cannot lead without influence... he does not deserve to be in such a position...

I doubt that he just stood up in math class and started teaching gay sex.  This was a self selected group he was talking to.  They are going to do gay stuff they may as well do it right.

He is not changing regular kids to gay kids he was teaching these kids what they can’t learn anywhere else.  If you kid told you he was gay could you teach him how to fist without getting hurt?  You would need some help from a professional.


"Remember you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs."

Yes, but some people don't like eggs...   :biggrin

Good one

"I do not know every right and every gaining or losing of them.  Maybe I didn’t get it so tell me what rights are we losing and what sovereignty have we given away?"

The rights are laid out for you... all you have to do is read...

If they are still laid out for us then we are not losing any of them

"There is nothing wrong with socialism.  We already live in a socialist country.  What part of socialism do you have a problem with?"

No, you are incorrect...  we are not a socialist state... yet...  this country did not become the most powerful, most PRODUCTIVE,

We are the most productive because we work longer hours 1825/year compared with European workers 1300.  If you normalize it for hours worked it is Switzerland...the Swiss??

richest nation

Wrong again.  The richest nation is Liechtenstein at $118k per person the USA is 8th at $48k per person.

in fact, the MORE we add socialistic programs, the WORSE off we become...  socialism is like potholes on the highway of freedom, the more you add, the HARDER it is to move ahead, and the more EXPENSIVE it becomes to maintain, and people become lulled into WAITING around for the government to fix it instead of forging and paving a new road for themselves, thus clogging the road with LESS productive members of society waiting on the government... wasted lives in the process...

I have to agree with that.

But if we follow your philosophy that we should just "move forward" to the next stage after socialism... communism...  I don't want to live under a totalitarian regime...  so I guess I'm rooting for the status quo there...   :beer


Oh no it’s just like a gateway drug.  You know where you start in the gateway with been and you end up with harder and harder drugs and end up on heroin.

As far as parts of socialism I have a "problem" with... there are many, but as Reagan once said... the scary words - "I am from the government and I'm here to help" points to the fact that in relinquishing what you can do for yourself to the government, beyond their limited enumerated powers, you at the same time relinquish freedom under the guise of government "helping" you...  all the while making you servile to them or your fellow citizen on your behalf...

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are ALL affected by socialism...

 
You imply that we are a free nation.  What are we free to do?  We are no freer than any other country in the world.  What are we free to do that socialism takes from us?
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: propertymanager on December 10, 2009, 07:00:32 pm
Quote
What are we free to do that socialism takes from us?

You're kidding, right? No-one could possibly be this ignorant of history.  The socialists of the Soviet Union had to build a wall to keep their citizens from coming to the west.  The soviets killed MILLIONS of people in their purges as did the Chinese.  Breathing is one freedom that we have here in the USA that these MILLIONS of socialists didn't have.  Freedom of speech is another.  Freedom to assemble.  I could go on and on.
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: Bluemoon06 on December 10, 2009, 07:45:34 pm
Quote
What are we free to do that socialism takes from us?

You're kidding, right? No-one could possibly be this ignorant of history.  The socialists of the Soviet Union had to build a wall to keep their citizens from coming to the west.  The soviets killed MILLIONS of people in their purges as did the Chinese.  Breathing is one freedom that we have here in the USA that these MILLIONS of socialists didn't have.  Freedom of speech is another.  Freedom to assemble.  I could go on and on.

Your problem is with the political system of totalitarianism.  Socialism is the economic system.  These actions were political not economic.  The problem with total socialist system is that the means of production is state owned.  I believe that in most cases control of the means of production should be in private hands but some areas (roads, air travel, post office, utilities, etc) socialism works best.

Socialism does not affect freedom of speech, assembly, or even the freedom to live and breathe.
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: PositiveOutlook on December 10, 2009, 08:46:12 pm
"Your problem is with the political system of totalitarianism.  Socialism is the economic system.  These actions were political not economic.  The problem with total socialist system is that the means of production is state owned.  I believe that in most cases control of the means of production should be in private hands but some areas (roads, air travel, post office, utilities, etc) socialism works best."

In Marxist theory, socialism is the system following capitalism with the next being communism. 

Socialism and its master Communism are both a political and economic system...  Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, USSR 

Communism IS totalitarian by definition, which is why the stage of Socialism is such a dangerous and slippery slope...  the more power the government has, the LESS you have... simple as that...

"Socialism does not affect freedom of speech, assembly, or even the freedom to live and breathe"

Whenever you cede control to the government, especially under socialism and communism, you are again, by definition, affecting freedom of speech, assembly and freedom to live (and soon) to breathe (just look at what they are doing in Copenhagen)...

Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: PositiveOutlook on December 10, 2009, 09:33:40 pm
Bluemoon06,

"I doubt that he just stood up in math class and started teaching gay sex.  This was a self selected group he was talking to.  They are going to do gay stuff they may as well do it right."

Did you even read the link provided?  From the link - "Massachusetts held its 10 Year Anniversary GLSEN/Boston conference at Tufts University. This conference was fully supported by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Safe Schools Program, the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and some of the presenters even received federal money. During the 2000 conference, workshop leaders led a “youth only, ages 14-21″ session that offered lessons in “fisting” a dangerous sexual practice. During the same workshop an activist asked 14 year-old students, “Spit or swallow?… Is it rude?”

"The event that day was designed for children and their teachers across Massachusetts, organized by the "Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network" (GLSEN).  This is the group that runs "Gay-Straight Alliance" clubs in public schools across the country. "

So for you to pretend that this was targeted at gays only is just ignorant to the facts...

"He is not changing regular kids to gay kids he was teaching these kids what they can’t learn anywhere else.  If you kid told you he was gay could you teach him how to fist without getting hurt?  You would need some help from a professional."

I can't even believe you are being serious here anymore... Promoting debaucherous practices such as fisting, pissing on one another, etc... is BEYOND the pale... it flies in the face of people's personal and religous practices and sensitivities, not to mention UNDERMINES the parental authority, and the fact that it was done behind parents backs, and then at first DENIED by the gay activists that it happened in the first place tells you all you need to know...

"If they are still laid out for us then we are not losing any of them"

Wrong,.. they are slowly, through gradualism, being stripped... 

"Wrong again.  The richest nation is Liechtenstein at $118k per person the USA is 8th at $48k per person."

You are talking per capita (off a population of 35,000), not aggregate GDP...  quite a difference, unless you are trying to assert that Liechtensteins GDP is larger than ours...  nice try...  yeah, everyones clamoring to move to Liechtenstein because of boundless opportunities...   :rolleyes

Talk about apples and oranges...

"Oh no it’s just like a gateway drug.  You know where you start in the gateway with been and you end up with harder and harder drugs and end up on heroin."

Hence the reason the status quo takes on a significant importance...

"You imply that we are a free nation. What are we free to do?  We are no freer than any other country in the world."

Now I am completely convinced that you are not serious about this...  The fact that you can compare us to IRAN (any other country) and say that we are not freer than them is LUDICROUS...

"What are we free to do that socialism takes from us?"

Socialism takes away FREEDOM... if you are FORCED to BUY health insurance on yourself, to support a socialist program, you no LONGER have the freedom to make the determination of whether or not you want it or the ability to say no...

Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: Bluemoon06 on December 11, 2009, 10:49:49 am
Bluemoon06,

"I doubt that he just stood up in math class and started teaching gay sex.  This was a self selected group he was talking to.  They are going to do gay stuff they may as well do it right."

Did you even read the link provided?  From the link - "Massachusetts held its 10 Year Anniversary GLSEN/Boston conference at Tufts University. This conference was fully supported by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Safe Schools Program, the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and some of the presenters even received federal money. During the 2000 conference, workshop leaders led a “youth only, ages 14-21″ session that offered lessons in “fisting” a dangerous sexual practice. During the same workshop an activist asked 14 year-old students, “Spit or swallow?… Is it rude?”

"The event that day was designed for children and their teachers across Massachusetts, organized by the "Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network" (GLSEN).  This is the group that runs "Gay-Straight Alliance" clubs in public schools across the country. "

So for you to pretend that this was targeted at gays only is just ignorant to the facts...

"He is not changing regular kids to gay kids he was teaching these kids what they can’t learn anywhere else.  If you kid told you he was gay could you teach him how to fist without getting hurt?  You would need some help from a professional."

I can't even believe you are being serious here anymore... Promoting debaucherous practices such as fisting, pissing on one another, etc... is BEYOND the pale... it flies in the face of people's personal and religous practices and sensitivities, not to mention UNDERMINES the parental authority, and the fact that it was done behind parents backs, and then at first DENIED by the gay activists that it happened in the first place tells you all you need to know...

When you go to these things you are interested in them.  The motor heads don’t go to the science fair, and the geeks don’t go to the FFA fair.  The only kids that showed up to the sessions were kids that had interest in the subject matter. 

Let’s say your kid turns out to be gay.  Do you want him figuring out how to do this stuff on his own?

These sessions were not for every kid.  It was for the kids that need to learn how to do these things safely. 

It is not for my straight kid it is for your gay kid that wants to get fisted.

"If they are still laid out for us then we are not losing any of them"

Wrong,.. they are slowly, through gradualism, being stripped... 

That is what I am asking, what rights do we not have anymore?

"Oh no it’s just like a gateway drug.  You know where you start in the gateway with been and you end up with harder and harder drugs and end up on heroin."

Hence the reason the status quo takes on a significant importance...

So the natural progression of a nation is to start capitalist, move to socialism and end up communism.  We are already on the gateway economy capitalism.  I don't think so.  We need (like we have) a blend of them.  Don’t be scared of it understand it so that it is used in the proper context.


"You imply that we are a free nation. What are we free to do?  We are no freer than any other country in the world."

Now I am completely convinced that you are not serious about this...  The fact that you can compare us to IRAN (any other country) and say that we are not freer than them is LUDICROUS...

"What are we free to do that socialism takes from us?"

Socialism takes away FREEDOM... if you are FORCED to BUY health insurance on yourself, to support a socialist program, you no LONGER have the freedom to make the determination of whether or not you want it or the ability to say no...



As I asked what are we free to do?  In Iran for example the government provides everyone with work to provide their essential needs.  They never have to worry about housing or food.  We don’t have that freedom.  I was looking at the news this weekend and a father took his adult daughter out for dinner and drinking.  They didn’t want to drink and drive so they called a cab.  When they were waiting in front of the restaurant for the cab a police officer came along and arrested them for being drunk in public.  That is real freedom in the USA. http://www.click2houston.com/video/21790121/index.html

So I ask again what are we free to do?
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: propertymanager on December 11, 2009, 11:42:26 am
Quote
In Iran for example the government provides everyone with work to provide their essential needs.  They never have to worry about housing or food.  We don’t have that freedom.

And in Iran, if you protest against the government, you're thrown in jail or executed!  Yeah - that's freedom! :rolleyes
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: Bluemoon06 on December 11, 2009, 12:10:04 pm
Quote
In Iran for example the government provides everyone with work to provide their essential needs.  They never have to worry about housing or food.  We don’t have that freedom.

And in Iran, if you protest against the government, you're thrown in jail or executed!  Yeah - that's freedom! :rolleyes

We get thrown in jail trying not to drink and drive.  Freedom is relative.  Nobody is free that would be anarchy. Iranians think we are crazy for having to find our way through life with the uncertainty of a finicky company that only cares about profit deciding if we have a job day to day.  We think they are crazy for living where they can’t freely speak.
Title: Re: Yet ANOTHER example of why "CZAR's" who are not vetter are a BAD idea...
Post by: Hoosier4life2005 on December 11, 2009, 02:47:43 pm
Bluemoon,

Freedom is living without an oppresive government, not without any government.