Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!


Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 Author Thread: KY POF'ers looking for something to do??..Why is Northern KY so Boring???
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 29 (view)
KY POF'ers looking for something to do??..Why is Northern KY so Boring???
Posted: 8/30/2008 4:04:19 AM
This weekend

Sat 30th

Sun 31st

Mon 1st VanDells @7p
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 27 (view)
KY POF'ers looking for something to do??..Why is Northern KY so Boring???
Posted: 8/28/2008 6:55:40 AM
Take time out from Alexandria fair , Riverfest.

Come on out to St. Cecilia Festival, Independence, KY
Chance to win a VERY nice 69 Camaro hard top, plus all the games a great festival should have.
Daily-Weekend ride tickets
Sat 6-Mid – Euchre tourney sign up at 630, also The Sensations, a great band

Sun 5-Mid – another great band ,,, Eight Days a Week— 1st rate Beatles tribute band, fireworks at 10p

Mon 1-9 -- Family Day--- Free Kona Ice 1-2
2 great bands ,, Midnight Special @ 3 then Van Dells @ 7 , Chicken dinner, ect ect ect

Hope to see ya there
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 2 (view)
State of the unions
Posted: 7/24/2007 1:37:13 PM
I believe we do need them. A good strong union is a better defense against corp greed than the govt and new laws.

They should be recuiting these folks into their progams instead of throwing them a bone that has little to do with productivity.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 1 (view)
State of the unions
Posted: 7/24/2007 1:13:29 PM
Outsourcing the Picket Line
Carpenters Union Hires Homeless to Stage Protests

By Keith L. Alexander
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 24, 2007; A01

The picketers marching in a circle in front of a downtown Washington office building chanting about low wages do not seem fully focused on their message.

Many have arrived with large suitcases or bags holding their belongings, which they keep in sight. Several are smoking cigarettes. One works a crossword puzzle. Another bangs a tambourine, while several drum on large white buckets. Some of the men walking the line call out to passing women, "Hey, baby." A few picketers gyrate and dance while chanting: "What do we want? Fair wages. When do we want them? Now."

Although their placards identify the picketers as being with the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, they are not union members.

They're hired feet, or, as the union calls them, temporary workers, paid $8 an hour to picket. Many were recruited from homeless shelters or transitional houses. Several have recently been released from prison. Others are between jobs.

"It's about the cash," said Tina Shaw, 44, who lives in a House of Ruth women's shelter and has walked the line at various sites. "We're against low wages, but I'm here for the cash."

Carpenters locals across the country are outsourcing their picket lines, hiring the homeless, students, retirees and day laborers to get their message across. Larry Hujo, a spokesman for the Indiana-Kentucky Regional Council of Carpenters, calls it a "shift in the paradigm" of picketing.

Political groups also are tapping into local homeless shelters for temps.

One resident of the Community for Creative Non-Violence shelter earns $30 a day holding a sign outside a Metro stop protesting nuclear war. In 2004, residents of at least 10 shelters were paid to collect signatures on petitions in favor of legalized gambling. Residents call this type of work "lobbying."

The carpenters union is one of the most active picketers in the District, routinely staging as many as eight picket lines a day at buildings where construction or renovation work is being done without union labor.

Supporters of the practice consider it a creative tactic in an era of declining union membership and clout. But critics say the reliance on nonunion members -- who are paid $1 above minimum wage and receive no benefits -- diminishes the impact and undercuts a principle established over decades of union struggles.

"If I was a member of the general public, and I asked someone picketing why they were there, and they said they don't work for the union and they were just hired to stand there, that wouldn't create a very positive impression on me, nor would it create a very sympathetic position," said Wayne Ranick, spokesman for the United Steelworkers of America.

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, the Mid-Atlantic local's parent, is one of seven unions in Change to Win, a group formed in 2005 after a split from the AFL-CIO. One reason the carpenters union left was because it favored more aggressive organizing.

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters is the only union that routinely hires homeless people for its picket lines, union leaders and labor scholars say. It targets locations where work such as carpentry and drywall and floor installation is done without union labor. In a June newsletter on the union's Web site, the union's president and chief executive, Bill Halbert, referred to the pickets as "area standards campaigns."

Halbert did not respond to phone calls and messages left at the union's office in Forestville. George Eisner, the local's lead organizer in Baltimore, did not keep an appointment for a scheduled phone interview and did not answer several messages.

Hujo said the Indiana-Kentucky council has been hiring homeless people, retirees and college students as picketers for about two years.

Carpenters unions in Indianapolis, Atlanta, Baltimore, Miami, San Diego and Columbus, Ohio, also hire picketers, including the homeless, largely because the union members are busy working and aren't able to leave job sites, he said.

"People say it's not normal," Hujo said. "But this is a quality-of-life issue. This is not a union versus nonunion issue."

Other unions have not embraced the idea of hired feet, but few openly criticize the carpenters.

Joslyn Williams, president of the Metropolitan Washington AFL-CIO, differentiated between picketers calling for a boycott or a strike and picket lines such as the ones the carpenters have. "It's an informational picket, so it's a legitimate tool," he said.

John Boardman, executive secretary treasurer of UNITE HERE local 25 in Washington, said the issue of who the picketers are is less important than why they're there. "Let's focus on the message -- that there are people in this building that are working for substandard wages and benefits," he said.

In Washington, the carpenters union targets a different building almost daily.

At the protest site, union organizers ask for identification and a Social Security card from those who want to picket. The picketers are divided into groups of about 30, and some are sent on to other sites. They are often accompanied by an eight-foot-tall inflatable rat brought in by pickup.

On a recent Thursday morning, one group was sent to 1100 13th St. NW, another group to the corner of 21st and M streets. Typically, two or three union members are on hand to oversee each group. Armed with clipboards, they check off the names of picketers when they arrive and leave to ensure that they work their full two to four hours.

One day, a group picketed from 9 to 11 a.m. in the 600 block of Indiana Avenue NW. After an hour lunch break, the picketers headed to the 900 block of Capitol Street NW from noon to 2 p.m.

Their placards have the name of the targeted firm taped at the top; when the picketers move on to another company, the name is changed.

Capitol Drywall was the name on one placard two weeks ago. The carpenters' picketers were outside an office building on New Hampshire Avenue NW, where the company's employees were erecting drywall.

Mark Sokoloff, Capitol's vice president of operations, said his company is not unionized but offers its employees fair and competitive wages, as well as benefits.

"It's something that we would like to see disappear and go away," he said of the picket lines that appear frequently at job sites. "But if it won't, it's something that we will deal with."

The picketers get mixed reactions from passersby. Some drivers honk to show support. But many who work in nearby buildings and must listen to the picketers' chants for several hours are irritated.

Several picketers said they have had water thrown on them from upper floors in office buildings. That only encourages picketers to get louder, said one picketer who asked that his name not be published.

D.C. police Cmdr. Patrick Burke, who oversees the homeland security and special operations division, said the picketers have never broken any laws. If police receive noise complaints, officers will ask them to quiet down, he said, and they always comply.

"They have a First Amendment right to engage in free speech and assembly," he said. "We don't want to discourage people from doing so. But they just have to do so within reason."

Some activists for the homeless are unhappy with the practice of paid picketing. They say it amounts to using people down on their luck rather than giving them a hand up. Ingrid Reed, who coordinates job placement and housing at the Community for Creative Non-Violence shelter, said the money the unions pay picketers would be better spent on training or apprentice programs that teach skills.

"These jobs won't pay the rent," Reed said. "If they're out there every day Monday through Friday, when are they looking for a job?"

Reed said many residents of the shelter are hired to demonstrate at corners throughout the city.

"On any given day, if you have 20 protesters out there somewhere, 15 of them live here," she said.

Several picketers said they see the time spent on the line as one of the few legal ways they are able to earn money.

William R. Strange, 41, said he started working as a for-hire picket two years ago when he lived in a homeless shelter on New York Avenue. He is now paid $12 an hour because he plays the buckets during the demonstrations.

A few months ago, after a day's picketing across from the National Geographic Society at 17th and M streets NW, Strange went inside and filled out a job application. He now loads trucks for National Geographic's warehouse at night. He still pickets during the day.

Strange also recently moved into his own one-bedroom apartment near the Brookland Metro station.

"Every day I turn that key to my apartment, I feel great. I owe that to the picketing," he said. "And it keeps me out of trouble."

This is just wrong, the union leadership and members should be ashamed. If the picketed issue isn't important enough for the members at large to join in on, then why waste union resources and reputation on it. This is a good example of why I couldn't throw support behind the unions of today.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 50 (view)
Covington/Ft Wright Party- July 14~ Shimmers Tavern
Posted: 7/14/2007 12:55:48 PM
Looks like about a 100 or better between this page , the other one , and guests of POF'ers.

Wow. It sounds big
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 23 (view)
The Rise of the Corporations
Posted: 7/5/2007 9:32:32 AM

On the other hand since Corporations have "gained" the rights of a person,

A mistake that should be reversed.

They get the benefits of our society, they should pay for it.

People get the benefits.
The faces and names of those who build and maintain any corp structure shouldn't be insulated by law from the corp actions.

Are you saying Tax them Less or Tax them More?

Tax based on consumption. Corporations consume alot of everything. Alot of that is written off as expense. Since they aren't people, nothing the corp consumes should be tax free.
If taxing private property it should be real estate size only, not value, after the original sale.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 22 (view)
The Rise of the Corporations
Posted: 7/5/2007 8:23:07 AM

Take that money out of the tax base, and it has to be paid off by other taxpayers. It artificially raises profits for those same corporations, while the workers (and their grandchildren ) get the privilege of paying off the bill.

The size of the budget is the problem. Don't bother taxing the corps as if they were people and they won't find it necessary to maximize profit by off shore shell games.
Taxing productivity whether it is individual or corporate is insane.

In the meantime corporate CEO's get huge salaries, and the rich (in general) get tax breaks (not to mention freedom from estate taxes) . What this means is an aristocracy that will transition to the next generation.

This is "earned" private property. How the margins became so high is a different matter.
(I don't believe for a minute that most of these executive class folks really "earned" these high margins, but that is a failure of the working class and unions, not necessarily the govt. or corps alone)
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 8 (view)
Laws that encourage racism and inequality
Posted: 7/5/2007 7:59:12 AM

Ever hear of nepotism or the good ol' boys network?!

Yep, that's something only white men in "power" do.

Keep looking at the differences, pay no mind to the similarities.

Keeping those differences in the spot light is big business for some folks.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 14 (view)
Israel has no motive therefore to must be guilty.
Posted: 7/5/2007 7:15:36 AM
The Jewish folks in US lean heavily Democratic party, as do the liberals. So perhaps an argument that the media is Democratic party leaning, not just liberal, would be more accurate.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 12 (view)
Israel has no motive therefore to must be guilty.
Posted: 7/5/2007 6:44:24 AM

Some here will argue that American media has a left wing slant, and that this has been the case for decades.
For those that still believe and accept that, I'd like to present some proof of why that isn't the case. One of the best examples I can give to show this is the attack on the USS Liberty that occurred over forty years ago.

I'm still trying to figure how this is proof against lib slant in media.
The event is despicable and so is the "cover-up" or shadows around it. But the thing that stands out is that this was during the President Johnson, and the Great Society.
Putting a spotlight on that would involve that lib icon being held accountable. He really is responsible for a lot of problems on the domestic and international fronts where the US is concerned.

It was mentioned previously in this thread; the media doesn't really care about military casualties, that is unless they fit into the larger political picture and what party is in power.
I suspect things like this, happening now and under this pres, will not be given the pass by treatment.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 23 (view)
Company to charge higher insurance for workers who live an unhealthy lifestyle
Posted: 7/3/2007 9:27:26 PM
Ok so there is this and it has it's supporters, what happens in universal healthcare when/if US does it. Invasion of privacy by the govt. ok here?

I don't shed a tear for the insurance companies, if they can't make money providing their service they need to fold.
They have been given too much "right" to dictate who they will provide for and how they will provide that service.
Nip makes the point, it's not really consumer product, it's a business to business product. Employers ought to get out of the insurance providing role. Insurance companies should have to deal directly with the consumer.
Do you really trust your employer with your best interest in this choice, why not car, home, renters, and in most cases life?
Insurance companies are about equal to crack dealers.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 1 (view)
Posted: 6/29/2007 9:14:03 AM
We're being invaded from the north.

This event is in N Ky but shows up under the Ohio event thread. Use that thread to sign up.

Come on up Louisville, Lexington . Folks are coming down from Columbus and Dayton.

Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 14 (view)
Cekret balot's
Posted: 6/26/2007 9:42:53 AM
Looks like it went down. So now Union organizers will just have to keep earning their support.
Get out of politics and I'd join one in a heartbeat.
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement after Senate Republicans succeeded in protecting workers’ right to conduct secret ballot elections:
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 61 (view)
Presidential Candidates
Posted: 6/26/2007 9:32:57 AM

That will be Bill going around the world visiting other countries trying to straighten out the mess W & Co. has created, for President Hillary Clinton.

Yep the King and Queen of the USA.

Let's take a break from the Clinton and the Bush clans, there are other equally and more qualified folks out there.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 26 (view)
What would Jack Bauer do?
Posted: 6/22/2007 5:07:51 AM
So now you're thinking of torture for domestic policing purposes?

I've always thought of it like that. I've been stating military has a different standard and shouldn't be grouped in with civilian security/law enforcement (not private). Local police, state, and federal civilian security/law enforcement have a different mission. Can you make the distinction? Is "Jack Bauer" military or civilian?
There is a reason that we stopped using these methods.

Yep, we threw the baby out with the bath water. (that kinda sounds like torture, anyway). The bleeding hearts have a knack for doing that. They isolate the abuses and to provide "proof" it all should be done away with. Too bad they won't apply that same line of reasoning with more of their "general welfare" programs.
I don't shed a tear for anyone who is one the receiving end of these (well not entirely true). They have complete disregard for the lives that could be saved by simply releasing info. I would not take it off the table. I would have standards and review. Am I afraid of being on the receiving end?, hell no, I'll sing like a fricking canary. But then I don't see myself having that sort of info any way.
Republicans sound more like Sadam every day.

"The bleeding hearts have a knack for doing that. They isolate the abuses and to provide "proof" it all should be done away with. "
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 24 (view)
What would Jack Bauer do?
Posted: 6/21/2007 9:05:55 PM

"Dr.Evil is going to blow up the world, you have 15 minutes to extract the information and a set of hedge trimmers, what do you do... WHAT DO YOU DO!!!?"

Ok, I'll play your game, but you go 1st. Hell it's only fifteen minutes, why even bother.
Just sit back and reflect on what a long strange trip it's been.

Physical torture has not proven to be very effective.

Just having it permissible by law is the really more to the point of the OP. It's kinda like having nukes, for the deterance. When it does have to be used it should be reported. I wouldn't want to use it but it's better left on the table.
I really couldn't even fatham the situations where cops know someone has info that will save lives if acted upon quickly but have to sit back and watch some smug little @#$%% hold it in cause they know their "rights". Then you take that and keep uping the numbers of lives at risk. I would not want to have to make that choice and they shouldn't have to either.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 17 (view)
What would Jack Bauer do?
Posted: 6/21/2007 12:30:05 PM
As a goal, it should be reflected in our lawmaking and foreign policy, shouldn't it?
Yes it should. Effective physical torture IMO can be done from "moral high ground" and through laws. All you have to do is prove the urgency after the fact.

The alternate to torture isn't doing nothing.
Who said anything about doing nothing? If time is not a factor torture is not needed. Even if it is, you had better be able to prove it was needed to get info to save life/lives. Fear of torture and a simple question will bring out a lot of answers. Put yourself in that position. How willing are you to be that stubborn to either to have someone else die or stay out of prison.

"kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" doesn't wash with me.
Who said anything about killing, this is about physical torture. You can get facts from the dead.

Part of the problem is many of our enemies expect pain and death, and God will reward them fittingly in the hereafter.
Yep, I want them to know and see going in , though our laws and recorded cases, how much they better be willing to endure to withhold info before they ever get into having that sort of info. Let them know that death will not be an option, whether they expect it or not, pray for it or not.

I'm not talking about military, they are under a different set of circumstances than law enforcement. I believe they should use it. I don't believe the photos (the ones I saw) from Iraq prison showed physical torture. Just intimidation and humiliation, I'm ok with that to some degree,, war sucks. But that's not what we're talking about either. (another time, another place)

Alpina ---- I'll leave those answers to the screenplay writers.

I think Scalia is way wrong. IMHO torture is *never* acceptable.

I hope for your sake , and those depending on you, you never have to be faced with a situation that would cause you this moral dilemma on a personal level.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 11 (view)
What would Jack Bauer do?
Posted: 6/21/2007 11:17:01 AM

the moral high ground

It is not an illusion, it's a goal. When survival is the stakes it's not a reasonable excuse for inaction. Sometimes you gotta do what is nessesary and let the judges and God sort it out. It is easier for good and/or well intentioned people to act when the law is on their side in the end.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 8 (view)
What would Jack Bauer do?
Posted: 6/21/2007 10:10:21 AM
Torture doesn't work well, it's barbaric, and psychological pressure can give far more benefits in information gathering.

The fact that it can be used is "psychological pressure ". It is not punishment nor should it be used for that.
I'd always question it's use, and it better be recorded. Whether it should be used by the military is a different question. It's proper use is in the immediate life and death situations, and then almost exclusively civilian related security.
The only problem I'd have is whether you can prove after the fact that the tortured would be in position to have essential facts, and whether then facts panned out to a reasonable ends.
Yes, I believe that the ends can justify very aggressive means.
On a person level, if I had evidence or enough reason to believe and the means, I would make excruciating for a person to withhold info I need to save a loved one. Law or no law. Somethings just can't wait for a bureaucratic process to weigh and justify the means nor does the time it takes to use more passive "psychological pressure ". The legal consequences need to take that into account. The "withholders" need to be aware of how willing we are to prevent their criminal ends.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 13 (view)
Cekret balot's
Posted: 6/20/2007 11:07:02 PM

This Act was introduced because bosses - not unions - were abusing their power. In order to certify a union the company had the names of their employees who had signed up already. They would just do a massive hire before the certification vote, then after the feds had left, fire those who wanted to organize. And of course they didn't have a union to protect them.
This way if a majority of employees wants to organize, the union is in. Like most laws this one was written to correct a problem that was happening.

That's a hell of a stretch.
Why does the company even get to look at the names on the petition? Is one of the purposes of the "board" to have the whole list of employees so they can compare that to a petition? To be an objective 3rd party ?
For that to work, the "massive" new hires would have to be on board against organization all the way though the "secret" ballot.
"IF" the majority of employees want the union in, they'll be in anyway.
This is way too open for abuse from the more passionate union organizers. It will leave Joe Employee with an already strongarm union organizer to have more incentive to get a majority of signatures on a petition. This is the kinda crap that gives unions a bad name as it is. Just keep it up,,, how'd that work for the air traffic controllers in the 80's,,going to bed with politicians only to leave them with leverage over unions in the economy and finally in their employment status. Just say no to all politcal affiliations.
I believe unions have the potential to be great for any company or nation. They have squandered that potential by jumping in bed with a political party and some have over played their card and forced industries to move outside, in the US anyway. The different industries and trades don't play nice with each other, and they have allowed government to hold the unemployment insurance "ace in the hole".
This bill is proof that they are still in bed with a political party and continue down that path, of letting the "paid for legislature "fight their battles with new laws to give themselves an upper hand by putting the worker in the middle. They need to get back to plain old - win the hearts and mind through ideas.
The government has no role to play, other than objective 3rd party, between workers and companies. It is up to the unions and their leadership working cooperatively to get this to happen. The only friend of the worker is the worker. Government and companies are only there to be of service and to be serviced by the workers. If unions across the board would adopt that singleness of purpose, their membership would soar, Well, I mean, I would sign up.
BS bill ---it's worth contacting your senator about. IMHO
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 9 (view)
Cekret balot's
Posted: 6/20/2007 4:50:19 PM an alarmist misreading of the amendment. I'll bet that 'journalist' Mitch McConnell just wants attention.
Anyway, I suggest more research - as always.

Me too

Mitch McConnell, a Louisville Republican, is the U.S. Senate minority leader.

He may have heard a few complaints from his constituents.

The difference is that now, after verifying the names, the union is immediately certified. The old way was exactly the same, except they then had to vote on it - even though a majority had just been proven.

Honest question, I don't know where to find answer: In the "old way" or current way, Do you need a petition filed requiring a simple majority of verified employees? Or, is it any number in a group of employees signing a petition?

Big difference to me. You'll have few that want it, but lack the courage (or whatever) to sign publicly.

I see a good reason to have that pause between actions. IMO, I don't think a group of employees should have to present a petition with anymore than 10 - 20 % verified employees or really even less than that.

If the Board finds that a majority of the employees...has signed valid authorizations...the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a)..

With this, union organizers could/would bring pressure on folks "to go ahead and get it done" "you know you'd vote for it anyway" "why waste time and effort with an election" is a vote not a simple signature.
There is no guarantee once your signature hits that petition that it won't become very public, especially to the employer. If a petition is circulation that would be a majority,,,the employer knows of it. Harrassment will come from both sides anyway, before, during, and after the petition phase.
There is no reason other than "providing efficiency" to have this change, but it's potential for abuse is clear. It doesn't take much to beat a signature or blackmail one out of a person.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 5 (view)
School penalizes students for hugs, high-fives
Posted: 6/20/2007 1:09:38 PM
By public provided options, do you mean different schools I could sent my son to?
public paid vs private paid.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 4 (view)
School penalizes students for hugs, high-fives
Posted: 6/20/2007 12:37:45 PM

I can't believe that any parent in their right minds would stand up for this. My child would be taken out of that school so fast.

Honest question; Do you have that many public provided options in your community? If so, how many?
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 43 (view)
Presidential Candidates
Posted: 6/20/2007 11:55:25 AM

my nice cushy country of Canada where i live as a free citizen , can get healthcare on demand and still be a proud citizen of the United States of America.

Does that mean you are dual-citizen?
There's an axe that needs grinding, another place another time.

Hillary maybe considered qualified by many, but she is the wrong person with the wrong history for the job.
Anyone who is currently serving in any office and has already declared themselves candidate ought to be immediately dismissed.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 40 (view)
a better question about physical assault vs rape
Posted: 6/19/2007 9:26:22 AM

The corroboration rule was introduced to protect men from false accusation. However, all research conducted has shown that women are no more likely to falsly cry rape than men or women in general falsly accuse people of any other crime.

So you agree with the premise that it is better sacrifice a few innocents to provide justice on a larger scale. What if you personally are the innocent forced to sacrifice your own future? Would you be willing to accept the judgment and punishment for the greater scope of justice to be served.

The Lacrosse team from NC, just on the facts. Was there a circumstance that could be proven for either side? I don't think so. I don't know if any could truly know other than the girl at the receiving end. You're putting more weight on a victims right for justice than a potential innocents right to freedom and/or reputation.
I don't think women or anyone should sit back and suck it up when they've been wronged. But it is a whole other thing when a government put more emphasis on individuals justice than protections of personal freedoms. The history of the victim and the accused should be required as part of these sort of cases.
But that's just in my "New World Order"
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 14 (view)
Unemployment gives government 51 billion dollar surplus
Posted: 6/19/2007 7:42:41 AM
The theme here seems to be government forcing individuals to save as a group for a rainy day. Then restricting the rainy day fund for individuals and dispersing it to the folks who can hold out or fill out forms well.
If Canada has an abundant surplus on this fund, why are they still collecting the tax to fund it? Could it be as simple as putting a hold on the collection until the fund dips below a certain benchmark, then reinstate until it reaches benchmark again?
Is there a problem (other than current law) that prevents governments from funding a general welfare program or any anticipated government project prior to, or in small excess to provide sustainability?
US has these issues too in areas. The governments shouldn't even be involved. We have SSI, FSA, IRA, 401, ect. ect. The government claims rights to either the whole or portions of those raining day funds if pulled upon early or not at all by the individual contributing into their personal account.
I agree with government collecting funds for general welfare (unemployment, SSI, ect.) and dispersing to folks who either couldn't save, didn't save, or lost enough to need it. Why is it looked at as an individual entitlement to how much you get or whether you put in or not in relationship to receiving the funds? It doesn't seem right to me.
Government has no business or real right to interfere with its penalties including initial taxes on my "rainy day" savings in regards to health care, retirement, unemployment, college savings, home purchase, but they do. Even in the aspects of inheritance penalties of the personal wealth saved and who I would pass it on to. Does that respect personal private property in regards to the govt making laws to seize and control it?
I see the need to monitor personal levels and types of personal dispursements for tax abuse potential.But blocking access to my own funds or just out right seizes them through bureaucratic regulations and regular old laws. I don't know, but I'm guessing Canada has an income based tax. I'm guessing incomes across the board are over taxed given to the opinion of the individual who's income is being taxed. Do Canadians have tax free incentives on personal "rainy day" savings?
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 39 (view)
a better question about physical assault vs rape
Posted: 6/18/2007 10:32:42 PM

the law states (C.C. Section 274) that no corroborating evidence is required for conviction of sexual assault offenses.

Reading this on face value: Guilty until proven inoccent. Is that ok in Canada?

I don't want criminal behavior to go unpunished, but how could that language possibly prevent the inoccent from getting convicted.
Anyone making accusations need to prove them even if just with more probability than less. If you claim to be a "victim" a crime you need to back it up. There is no shame in that. I believe that is where women, especially, have lost it. It's not a good means to an end.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 40 (view)
Presidential Candidates
Posted: 6/18/2007 9:46:43 PM
a woman and a black man OBVIOUSLY have a different point of view than a white BUSH

Nothing racist or sexist with that comment. Would it be ok if they were conserves in GOP?
No blacks or women could possibly share the point of view as a white man let alone one of the Bush clan.

fact is Hillary unlike Bush, is a very smart person, and a relatively good "politician" she certainly has the credentials,

From my perspective you got that backwards, Bush is a smarter more qualified person. Hillary is a much better politician, for herself and others. If not for his values, merit, and experience he wouldn't have been elected, twice. He needed more gifted politicians than himself to work on getting him elected.
Hillary in her personal life and personal ambitions makes a fine influence peddling, cut throat, savvy, capitalist. She smells like GOP but sounds like Marxist. She is simply a control freak and bully. Nowhere near leader material. Hell, if her mission in life was to become secretary of defense or state, I doubt we'd have terror or islamo fascists as an issue, she'd have killed em all and then some, hell I might even support that. But no, her mission in life is to have the big chair, control it all. Plan out elaborate redistributions of private property. Will her health care be taken care of the same way as Joe-citizen's, nope. Shes got a whole different line of public paid health care, even though she has "earned" enough wealth to be self-pay. She needs to stick to what she is really good at --- pit-bull.
She reminds me of the "I want it now girl" on Willy Wonka. She will stomp and scream and scream and stomp until she gets what she wants. She is the smartest person in any room she enters, just ask her. The only folks she respects are the ones that agree with her. She will take a stand on everthing but her ideas in shutting down opposition. If you give her any concession she will stomp all over you. If you succeed in efforts against her its a conspiracy, it can't be because she was wrong or her ideas unpopular.
She may have been humbled in her personal and profesional life at times, but she has no humility.
She is definately the wrong person to become president. Dems should leave her to senate, she got longer shelf life left than Kennedy or Byrd.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 10 (view)
The Rise of the Corporations
Posted: 6/18/2007 12:39:39 PM
First off... putting unions in the same sentence with corporations as regards what is benificial to people is, I'm sorry stupid.

Unions took up an allied position with govt against corp. Corp has done the same against union.
The govt lobbied by both sides for protection and laws to benefit themselves. Much have what has become should have been addresses judicially not legislatively.
They both have and continue to fund abuse in legislative powers of the govt.
If not for the corps employing the union members, they'd have to sit on their butts and hoping for more govt projects.
The Dems- as a national party left the unions awhile ago--- without that political pull --- hows that membership doing? The unions depended on political pull to fight their battles.
Unions are not wrong nor evil, they are necessary, but without corps developing ways in producing the income you can't get paid nor receive benefits.

The Unions needs to become strong again, but this time without involving govt,.at any level to fight most of its battles against corp.
The unions depends on govt to provide the income for its members through special agreements and lop-sided legislation. The producers of the income (workers) need to demand reform in their Unions.
Workers of all industries need to be resolve in this and the unions need to be in cooperation with each other instead of going to the govt to secure their individual industry's slice of the pie.

Note the powers given unto the government... these are the blocks.

There are no simple blocks there, not even in the inclusion of Halliburton. Just oversight rights on incomes-in-trade and relations with other nations. I'm ok with that for the reason you applied plus the reasons on taxing.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 34 (view)
Presidential Candidates
Posted: 6/18/2007 11:06:19 AM
Hillary Clinton
Given she has the right to run, fair enough.
But supporting her,,wow.
IMO,,, before it even gets to her political leanings or even what she has done with her careers, she has 2 huge obstacles.
She is currently a serving senator and is a former 1st lady of a state and this nation.
Same with Obama, he has the serving senator problem for me.

Serving senators should not run for executive branch office. Conflict of interests.
House of Reps, differnt story, 2yr terms and their leader is 3rd in line anyway.
1st ladies, while not elected, clearly had access and influence to the office, especially in her case.
She should stay a senator or better yet, leave public-paid service all together.(IMHO)

No more Clintons or Bush's for at least 100 years---- Can't you Dems find another qualified candidate amongst your ranks?

Just think if she gets to be pres, Bill chances of UN pres = slim and none.
and slim will be packing its bags to leave town.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 9 (view)
The Rise of the Corporations
Posted: 6/18/2007 10:40:13 AM
everyone seems to have forgotten our forefathers put in place blocks against corporations

Blocks from doing what? Drive politics/policy/economics internally and externally. Only the largest of corps can do that, and they are made up of citizen members and supporters . The rest have to group together and still require citizen members and supporters to drive their actions to dominate politics/policy/economics.
Corps, Unions, Religions of all sizes are essentially bureaucracies, same as govt, and have the same potential as any other to dominate politics/policy/economics in their discipline.
It's no better to have government bureaucracies soley dominate all aspects of daily life than it is any other.
As I look at folks we all seem to put our dependence in one or a combination of these in our lives: Govt, Organized Religion, Organized Labor, Corps, Self.
Maybe it is a naive question, but, Would putting simple constitutional blocks between those prevent any of them from gaining dominance over politics/policy/economics? Would it at the very least give some sort of warning as to how we as a nation can be controlled by domination of any of those disciplines? The constitution defines the role of govt.and warns the citizens against itself and religion. IMO,, The future of this nation would be well served by simple constitutional warnings in regards to the citizens that make up Organized Labor and Corps and that they can be every bit as dangerous to our freedoms and the survival of this nation.
I don't know what society (on a scale of the US) has ever done this, or tried. It always seems that it is skewed and when a shift occurs to one of the others, they gain the upper hand in a correction, then the nation suffers or just dissolves.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 38 (view)
Smoking to affect movie ratings system
Posted: 6/18/2007 9:21:30 AM

Censorship is the issue here because we are talking about rating movies for people under the age of 18.

No, censorship is not the issue. Movies are being rated for specific content.
My use of "censorship" was in response to you including ideology into the ratings systems and putting an R on them for that alone.
Ratings are for kids but grown-ups like them too. Some adults (like my mom) won't see a movie based on it's rating in regards to the specifc content. Why muddy the waters?
Ratings are a draw for kids, mine really don't want to see G because it's a G. They want to see an R because it's a R.

If anyone does the censoring based on these ratings, it's the parents. Not the movie industry.

You want the MPA to determine what I censor from my kids based on a rating? Currently, It's a given that I will. I will not be able to if the current system begins including a very broad range of content to determine rating.

Now as far as glorification of faith goes, that's pretty obvious to me too.. but not the movie industry yet. But it's coming.

Well that's pretty sick and intolerant, but I wouldn't expect anything different from folks who have no personal understanding of "faith" and/or deny the existence of faith in their own life. It supports your censorship approach to ratings.
Would you like to see a broad range of morals/ ideologies /agendas mixed in with the rating? Or is it just yours? It's been done and rightfully left behind as a concept that just doesn't work.
Now if you want to hang your hat on the word "theme" as used in the ratings system the I suppose any movie with strong leanings or glorification of anything in addition to strong condemnations of anything would require PG-13. Look at Brokeback Mountain for example, (I've never seen it). Theme alone, personally I'd make it a PG13 not an R, I bet you'd find alot of folks to disagree on both sides for a lesser and higher rating based on theme.
Even then, the group who rates would have to be pretty balanced in it's members when determining those "strong leanings or glorification of anything in addition to strong condemnations of anything".
IMO,,,Most of the ratings given to movies today are far more forgiving as to content than I would personally put on them. As for theme, I don't really care, I don't censor based on the rating, that is better defined/rated by a review.
Found this:
It's just silly.
Read reviews from trusted sources, don't expect or demand guidance through life from movies or the MPA, for kids or anyone. The movies themselves do enough lifestyle promoting without further involvement needed from the rating system.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 35 (view)
a better question about physical assault vs rape
Posted: 6/17/2007 10:57:53 AM

Or is it only applicable if the people involved have had sex?

I'll pose a questions about the word "sex" and it being used as an all inclusive word.

I would say that none of the cases describe in this thread should even be considered "sex".
I would say they are better described as "rape" "molestation" or some sort of "masterbation" using another person as an object. Those have sex acts in them, but do they really consitute having "sex"?

Do you consider it having "sex" if there can be doubt to either persons willing or wanted intentions or desire?
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 7 (view)
The Rise of the Corporations
Posted: 6/17/2007 10:16:18 AM
Corporations and Unions ought to be legally separated from govt at all levels, just like organized/established or otherwise religion. Those entities have similar devotion from their members.
Having granted rights to any of those entities that are on par with those of an individual is wrong. Unions, organized religion, corporations don't make an income, so none of them should not be taxed as if they do. They bring in dues, donations, payments for goods/service, what they do with the cash is a private matter to the entity. There should be required transparency on what happens to the cash received, but that it between the entity, its members, and taxing authorities. All three of them should be taxed based on consumption in relation to cash received (flat tax every dollar in the door, no breaks). They must work on cash basis only (no barter of "free" stuff)
It's a 4 way power and control struggle that requires balance. Govt--Organized Religion--Corp--Organized Labor
Allowing any combination of these to "get in bed together" screws the balance, and the folks, especially those folks who don't want to be a member of any of them.
It's funny that folks are PO'd when theses entities are treated through law as an individual, then in their objections or praise in regards to the entity they treat it as an individual.
In the here and now the govt and corp have the power and control (speaking based on USA). How can that be changed? It could easily be any combination of them and that's no better. Can you think of a combination that would work without oppressing the one or ones left out?
Are you willing to have and maintain a balance through legal separations between the 4? How could a society get there?
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 12 (view)
Presidential Candidates
Posted: 6/16/2007 2:59:57 PM
The worst common denominator in the candidates is that they all seem to want the job too much.
I admire confidence, but these folks are just cocky.
Coming out 2 years before the job is even open for a vote, that's sick.
That campaign finance bill should have prevented funding, candidacy, and campaigning until 60-90 days prior to an election for an office.
It should have required that in order to be a candidate for a different branch they would have to give up their current office for at least that same time period.
Too many conflicts of interests.
They spend more of their time campaigning for their next job using their public and the legislative responsibilities, even when that job is the one they currently hold.
Politics is a year round sport, and with the amount of nationally available media, it looks a lot like pro wrestling.

I think a better question is ; Who is your "dream team" for next pres/vp? Why?
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 36 (view)
Smoking to affect movie ratings system
Posted: 6/16/2007 1:14:34 PM

Using your logic, there would be nothing wrong with giving them the teachings of Osama Bin Ladin just so they have the "choice" to follow it or not. lol

So how do you define censorship?

I have no problem giving kids the teachings of OBL, in combination with all the other opinions on his teachings. It is everyone's choice to follow as the see fit. The consequences are out there and known.

Perhaps it was a bad analogy but it still reflects what appears to be your belief.

The issue is the current movie rating system, should it follow a narrow scope or open the levels to any objections when judging the content ----behavior and it's potential influence.
Leave the ratings alone. They are only very basic guidelines and those lines move around too much as it is.
How about an additional rating:
PC- All content determined Politically Correct.
AG- Anything Goes--- anticipate a high probability of being offended if you're a little sensitive on things.
But then we have to rate it again for:
LB - Left Bias
RB- Right Bias
FM- Firmly in the Middle
CCL- Couldn't Care Less
Geez, we have to add another rating to better describe the content but I'm done thinking about this for now.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 18 (view)
how to give a fathers day gift not deserved???
Posted: 6/16/2007 12:25:23 PM

Child knows who his dad is and where he's at....I'm at a dilema with this as well. Any sugestions?

I wouldn't make a visit to the jail. Just a note, card or not, written on Sunday mailed on Monday. Not much detail other than "I was thinking of you" and "hope your doing well" whether the last part is true or not. If the last part isn't true, in time it may become that way. That will bring more to the givers life and well being than the recipient. Living in and with resentment sucks. But it's a choice we make to stay that way. We have to free ourselves from resentment and try not to breed it in others with our actions, inactions or apathy. It takes effort to be happy and free, it's not completely dependent on the actions of others.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 11 (view)
car addiction?
Posted: 6/16/2007 10:39:01 AM

why not solve Canada's problem by convincing 100 or so (or more) million people from other countries to move to Canada, so that the population density reaches that of European countries or at least the US's? The more, the merrier! Just a thought!

We are working on it. Global warming is suppose to shorten the cold season and lengthen the warm, right? Accomplish that,,, perfect conditions.

**** just leave it alone******just a poor attempt at humor from a neo-con*******

Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 10 (view)
car addiction?
Posted: 6/16/2007 10:24:57 AM
Yep, I wish more people would undertake the expirement and/or lifestyle. It would make life easier for me as I drive around fixing stuff for a living.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 31 (view)
a better question about physical assault vs rape
Posted: 6/16/2007 10:07:39 AM
Leaving alone the incidents where the perp is clearly using some sort of coercion leading up to event, how can you determine what a person's "will" is and what perspective it is coming from. It is also open to personal reflection and re-evaluation on the event on the side of the "victim". In most cases I believe some level of wrong/harm has been done to the "victim".
There is a reason guilt has to proven, not innocence, and this is a good area for it.

(2) with another against that person's will or without that person's consent

Including this the language is the problem with "rape" as a word, it includes more than it should. Excluding the legal use of it, "rape" in plain language covers a wide area of behavior from horrendous to much less or just different. When used, it can mean an evil violent act to an act of ignorance/impolite/stupid/bad/wrong,, it makes no sense. If you simply make a statement of someone being "raped" , what is your first assumption? Is it one on the more extreme end of what concepts the word represents? I typically assume the more violent possibilities. The word and the crime of rape should have that kind of impact when used/discussed. Including more concepts to the word, waters down it's rightfully extreme concept when used as a word.
I don't believe some words should be redefined by society/culture to be all inclusive like "rape" seems to have become.
I'm not excusing the actions in regards to ignorant/impolite/stupid/bad/wrong behavior. I believe that many of the actions cause very similar harm whether mental or physical. I would say they constitute actions more in common of a molestation than a rape.IMO,, the word "rape is being used for it's impact to bring attention to the event rather than define the action or behavior. I don't see the word "molestation" carrying any less weight than "rape" but it describes the actions more appropriately, and "adult molestations" should carry legal consequences on par with the degree of them.

In other words... "It ain't rape"
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 96 (view)
Religious right suddenly wants religion out of school.
Posted: 6/15/2007 11:09:35 AM
Contrary? To blanket statements, of course.
I see that you and I agree more than disagree. The approach to the mission is different and so is the acceptable level of beauracracy.

But it has occurred to me that it isn't really the function of government to give kickbacks on services we don't use individually. I don't have any kids in school, yet my tax dollars are going to it.

Apply that to the other general welfare systems/programs. If the same model was used anyone regardless of income would have to be segregated if they wanted access to SSI or Medicaid.
The means to hand out food would have to be in goverment supplied kitchens.
Public provided education is used individually by kids, parents, and those without kids. It should be distributed with that in mind. Schools are not libraries but they are treated as such or they try to include too much to accomplish the mission.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 94 (view)
Religious right suddenly wants religion out of school.
Posted: 6/15/2007 9:17:08 AM

So, when material is inevitably presented with a biased perspective, it will be recognized rather than believed at face value.

That's not the case and it does have implications/conflicts to the home life. The problem is that when it does become an issue at home, the parents only options are to suck it up or refuse public funds.
If the mission is to educate our citizens, why is it the business of the government agents to build, staff and monitor schools. I went to private school for all but 3 years of grades k-12 and religion was part of the curriculum. That did not take away from the required levels of other curriculum. The public system existed as well, of course, and we all got along, our diplomas carry similar weight. We had other faiths in attendance. We used the same or similar text books as the public system. But we could not have the same access to public funds to reach the same goal, based on part of the curriculum being religious? The same access to funds per child is being held back on the basis of religious doctrine being taught. Please explain to me how that is not discrimination.

Really, school can only get the ball rolling. Hopefully it sparks some genuine interest or passion in one or more areas. After that, it is up to the individual to continue their education for a lifetime.

Not true, some kids thrive in home school and private settings. Justify excluding them from access to equal portions of public funds for education. Please do so without including the bureaucracy costs to support it.
A whole other thread could be started as to the value these bureaucracies have brought to schools in the more cut throat neighborhoods around the country. I'd go nuts if my only option to have my kids attend school was to send them to those places that are rougher than some prisons. In the end it's the bureaucracy that is doing the cash grab to support it's own existence. If the private sector has demonstrated what it can do, why withhold any per child funds ? Why even support these bureaucracies? Why even allow government to even get involved in this hot potato?

Just for kicks, I looked up the cost per child both federal and county. Federal is double and local is about a third higher than what I pay.
I'll tell ya what, just give my kids the portion they need to cover their expenses in the private sector and you can keep the rest. I promise, they won't come over to the public school and distribute flyers or ask the teachers to explain God.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 86 (view)
Religious right suddenly wants religion out of school.
Posted: 6/14/2007 10:22:00 PM
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. What does school teach that is in direct conflict with home life? Evolution might be an obvious one, but what else is controversial?

What does school teach that is in direct conflict with home life?
My main concern is k-8,,,, I'd even be inclined to split up highschool to 2- 2yr programs.
Math and language are the only 2 things that could really be taught pure, without making some leaps to introduce doctrines and bias into the curriculum.
History, science, & social studies can all be taught as fact but with the perspective of the different doctrines and bias that exist.
It's those perspectives of the facts that I have a problem with and can be in conflict of what is being lived in the home. I don't really want to give specific example or scenario as that tends to throw the thread to some micro-symptom of what I'm trying to point out. Pick any one of thousand events in history or social studies and you can see my point. There are so many different ideologies, spiritual, religious, cultural and combinations of them that obscure the general facts of the curriculum and teaching one or two of them can't be fair to whoever is excluded.(Who started the war? Who won the war? Why is this the law? Where did the law come from? What about God? Are my parents wrong? ) Those are some questions I want taught from a perspective that is close to my own. Do you, for yours?

If science and math scores and teen pregnancies in the US are any indication, I'd say that US schools are not doing enough, rather than overdoing it.

It hasn't always been that way.
I'm not sure when the public schools in the US were really put under the federal microscope and management system but I do know that it is a chaotic system full of inconsistencies/hypocrisies. I don't really see it as a matter of too much or too little. They need only to be the "Sugar Uncle", set the bar, measure the results, and stay out of the process. They can't do that if they supply the buildings and the bureaucracies involved in the process.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 81 (view)
Religious right suddenly wants religion out of school.
Posted: 6/14/2007 7:49:36 PM
Not an illusion, a fact, backed by plenty of case law.

Case law is not Constitution, it's judicial opinion and open to be revisited and reversed.
The opinions on rights change with the generations and the arguements presented.

The Religious Right will want as much tax money as it can get it's hands on, but won't want it to go to other religious schools

Education is the general welfare (as I see it). Same as SSI, it's open to all the same abuses. It is not treated the same in that, the goverment does not mandate where you spend the money, give it all to the church, feed yourself, or off to the riverboat, it's your choice. Food Stamp/Card same deal with some restrictions and oversight to help ensure it goes to food. (Ya, I know where alot of it goes) You can use it to purchase any food product regardless of what it is. Goverment provided housing and housing projects, anything goes in regards to practice of faith or not.
Why have this "protection" from religon over the public provided eduction and not these others?
It's the buildings and the burocrats that are the problem, not whose doctrine is okay for consumption or should be removed. They have countless abuses of funds as well.
I'm okay with the government taxing to fund, and using oversight/regulation to the original intent of the funding, but building institutions that regulate opinion and doctrine is wrong, and that is the only way to have access to those funds. To claim it would be the religious right making a cash grab and monopolize funds. Well, I use the private system as do many others, we pay our own way and for others who want to but can't afford it, we also pay into the public system that we'd have to give up privacy rights to access funds. I know who is hoarding and controlling the money. The ones that care are "protecting" their kids from stuff they don't want them near, same as me.

Everything happens for a reason. If there wasn't a reason it wouldn't happen.
Science tries to explain why.

Sounds very spiritual maybe even religious.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 43 (view)
Faith politics
Posted: 6/14/2007 6:39:59 PM
It's unfortunate we have to choose leaders largely based on the politics and rhetoric whether faith based or not.

The best leaders I know aren't followed for their self promoting and rhetoric but for their deeds, humility, philosophy.

I rather be presented with great people who would rather not serve, but will when called, than with those who think they know how to do it and convince enough folks to think they can.

2 party system blows.

Mother Therese made a better leader and example of Catholic Faith than the politicians of the Vatican.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 77 (view)
Religious right suddenly wants religion out of school.
Posted: 6/14/2007 5:24:21 PM
Yep, Frog outlines the problems: "Districts make the choices, legal or not." There can be no consistency without a vacuumed approach and enforcement.

"Creationism and ID are very particular religious beliefs and are unscientific. Teaching the nature of these ideas is fine." If ya pay for a teachers time to do one, you gotta do them all.

" Teaching them as factual or correct constitutes teaching one faith, which is unconstitutional." Teaching consensus and theory on the same level as fact is also teaching a faith. Science is the religions of "there is nothing that can't be proven" or "we can understand everything, we might get some of it wrong along the way"

Bookworm offers the illusion:
"Freedom of religion does not mean that you get to do whatever you want wherever you want and say it's protected because it's your religion."
Putting aside some of the really creepy, intoxicated, and violent things that should be scrutinized. Yes it does.

I don't see the need for these institutions to even exists. The involvement in religious debate is only one of the hurdles these bureaucracies create while we're raising kids. The limits and expectations based on age, time of day, and hours in the year are others. It's an institutionalized bureaucracy whose primary goal is to grow and never die.

Hell, some might even argue, if you've never been a parent then your opinion doesn't count. (not me)

Since this started as a thread to point out hypocrisy, I'll offer this; The courts could take the same stance on this as it does with abortion. The court says it's a woman's right to have one. In R vs. W the court would not approach the science, the moral grounds, or the majority opinion just the whether she had the right to make a choice on her personal affairs. Raising kids is a personal affair and society has determined it suits its interests to pay for that as a society, that makes it a right. Educating our kids is mandated and punishable if not tended to by the parents, that makes it a responsibility. So in order to take advantage of that right in addition to adhering to that responsibility parents only have one choice. The right to access public paid education has to be weighed against how I as parent wish to raise my kids and what/who I expose them to as determined by a bureaucracy. If I can't afford or secure private contributions to send them to private, I have to submit to the bureaucracy and feed my kids the government cheese and why did the government cheese go away in favor of food stamps. (Please, don't bother to offer that as a reason why this bureaucracy should not be done away with.)

Personally I don't really care what belief or doctrine other folks teach their children or if they want to narrow exposure or have a free for all. It's none of my business. Raising kids well is a matter of consistency for all parents. It is inconsistent to send kids to school for the 6+ hours with no regard or reference for what is happening in the home and is often in direct conflict with it. You do it your way, I'll do it mine, but in the process do not withhold public funds, I won't either.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 74 (view)
Religious right suddenly wants religion out of school.
Posted: 6/14/2007 12:16:35 PM

It's pretty simple. Whether we like it or not. It protects both sides. The Constitution protects both sides.

I don't need nor want government protection from others opinions. But as parent I may want to keep opinions of others from my kids while they are kids. I have and exercise that right. But I/we have to do it without the benefit of public money to assist this effort.
To reach the all inclusive ends, you have to allow all and the teacher's bias in the classroom will be clear.
To reach the none inclusive, you have to create the vacuum, and the teacher's bias in the classroom will still be clear.

It is unreasonable to impose either on a national scale, whether the community is large or small. I don't see any possibility of a "somewhere in the middle" compromise that would serve all without stepping on parental rights on how to raise their kids and providing publicly funded education through a government institution.

Dump the institution.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 72 (view)
Religious right suddenly wants religion out of school.
Posted: 6/14/2007 11:49:05 AM
I hate when the best part of the discussion is off-topic :S

How does one create a new thread?

We have the right for any and all religions to be expressed in all institutions governed by the Constitution and I believe schools are. It also addresses the freedoms from religion. Either/Or. Thing is BOTH are protected. Legally. On a Federal and State level.

That's why the people would be best served by private education with the public money.
Without the buildings and bearucrats there would be no institutions to govern or opinions on what constitutes religion/doctrine coming into conflict on this.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 21 (view)
a better question about physical assault vs rape
Posted: 6/14/2007 11:36:40 AM

Any kind of intimidation such as "pulling her" into a room (kidnapping) "pressure to avoid confrontation" (cohersion), "going to have you" (intimidation) and "she doesn't want any violence" (fear of personal injury) sounds like rape to me!

Well I don't know, never happened to me..... but....
If I were at or in a public place, I don't think any guy could intimidate or force me to submit to sex for any reason with out one hell of a fight.

maybe cause I'm a guy myself.

Imposing yourself on another, ain't right, and is some degree of harrassment.
Submission on the grounds of fear from an indivual in public and without a substanital fear of physical harm from the public within earshout or physical proximity, ain't rape ,,,, IMO.

Buck up girls,,, act like a man when ya gotta. It's a pride and honor fight, and up to you to fight it.
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 68 (view)
Religious right suddenly wants religion out of school.
Posted: 6/14/2007 10:01:30 AM

Did you miss the part where the religious right lobbied to put religion (theirs) in the school?

Both sides are using hypocrisy to prove their points and push the issues to an all or nothing end. That's useless. IMO,, at k-8 is harmful.
Discussions / debate on hypocrisy present no solutions. Discussing the merit of any claims or how best to deal with the conflict at hand will.
I agree with your ending statement of #56, put that in the context of school and kids k-8.
Education on the different sub-cultures with in the US should be taught and monitored, just as fact that they exist and that their rights are protected as well as our own. That is not meaning I would support segregation of them to the point of discrimination and measures would have to be put in place to monitor and enforce it within these private entities (we do that with businesses all the time). Like minded folks tend to want to stick together anyway. Bringing those sub-subcultures and all the beliefs/doctrines as active participants in educating k-8 clouds and is in direct conflict the belief/doctrines some parents (like me) are trying to do at home. I choose and sacrifice money to send mine to private school, as was done for me. That is my only choice if I want a consistent exposure to our belief/doctrine along with the basics. What business is that of any other citizen. I/we have no access to publicly provided education unless I submit our family to a barrage of anything the local, state and federal bureaucrats deem fit and necessary. Whose rights are being infringed upon? The current bureaucrats seem hell-bent on erasing the different sub-cultures and leave behind the benefits having them bring. I would add , with it's possible hypocrisy, that I am in favor of establishing 1 language as the official one of the US and testing to ensure it's proficiency in any of the schools ,,, under my new world order. That's just good business.
Show ALL Forums