Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Oh, no?????

excon

---

You can but it would be a lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yes ,but the founding of the nation was more than the Constitution. It was also the values of the men behind it. If you are telling me that they valued the Enlightenment thinkers and in some cases were Enlightenment philosophers themselves ,I agree. But that was not the sole philosophical foundation. In fact ;neither would be the Enlightenment AND Christianity. They in fact borrowed from the native confederacies of the time too in constructing the government. ALL should be taught and NONE excluded from the education of the children.
.

---

No. I am saying they more than valued it- they implemented it.The sole philosophical foundation for the document is what we find in the document.

There may well have been other influences. I'm not denying that. The philosophical foundation must be in the document. Where else are we going to find it.

Tut

No it is not .Without discounting the impact the Enlightenment had on the founders thinking ,it was not the sole inspiration. As an example; the governing bodies are closer in structure to the Iroquois Confederacy model than any European Parliamentary model .

The founders had high hopes when they wrote the constitution, but as humans they didn't exactly meet the mark, because history tells us for all their morals,and high hopes, they had many exemptions to the goals they professed, and they justified through their morality, about what men qualified for life and liberty,and the pursuit of happiness, and the rest they subjugated.

Just as today, the minorities are subjugated by that same morality that continues to deny them access to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Saying the words is the easy part.Turning them into actions has been less easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Just as today, the minorities are subjugated by that same morality that continues to deny them access to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Saying the words is the easy part.Turning them into actions has been less easy.

---

Yes, and Democrats should be ashamed for holding African-Americans hostage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You can but it would be a lie.

---

Hello again, Steve:

I showed you what the Texas school book people wanted to do with the text of our history books.. They want to DUMB it down.. They want to bring RELIGION into science class. You do too, don't you??

Religion ISN'T science... As long as people like you INSIST on dumbing down our science curriculum, we're going to fall FURTHER and FURTHER down that list...

You're DAMN right I blame the right wing.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

I showed you what the Texas school book people wanted to do with the text of our history books.. They want to DUMB it down.. They want to bring RELIGION into science class. You do too, don't you???

Religion ISN'T science... As long as people like you INSIST on dumbing down our science curriculum, we're gonna fall FURTHER and FURTHER down that list...

You're DAMN right I blame the right wing.

excon

---

My offer at compromise has been made clear more than once so I'm not going to honor your distraction with a response.

The fact is liberals have been running public schools and the majority of higher education for decades, the failing results belong to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Yes, and Democrats should be ashamed for holding African-Americans hostage.

---

You're just mad because they run from you guys like a plague, and cannot understand why they refuse to act against their own self interest like you guys do. Females, and minorities have rejected the policies of Romney, and the conservative right wing.

Quote:

---

The fact is liberals have been running public schools and the majority of higher education for decades, the failing results belong to them.

---

States run their own school districts, and the red ones are no more successful than the blue ones.

I seem to have missed the compromises you and Tom have submitted, sorry, if you could help me find it,I would be grateful.

Did you not read my posting about Michelle Rhee ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Michelle Rhee was the chancellor of the Washington DC district from 2007 to 2010. During her tenure she was instituting a variety of reforms based on accountability and results . In doing so she stept on the toes of the entrenched .
She shut down 23 failing schools, fired 36 principals, 241 teachers and cut 121 unnecessary office jobs. She initiated new programs ;and renegotiated the teacher contracts. She supported a voucher system to aid poor parents in giving their children a choice in education. She wrote in an editiorial that vouchers give " poor families access to publicly funded scholarships to attend private schools,"..."All children deserve the chance to get a great education; no family should be forced to send kids to a school they know is failing."

Michelle Rhee: In Budget Crises, an Opening for School Reform - WSJ.com

Well that lasted until the 2010 elections in DC .IT became a referendum on her reforms .The incumbent lost ;and Rhee resigned before she got fired. DC sqaundered a golden opportunity for real change in favor of the failed status quo.

So no ,it is not conservatives that resist change . The established left is the entrenched group that has managed this failure.

---

And what is the compromise? Where do the kids go that are not accepted ,due to no more room, or underqualified? Your position is unclear to me so I beg your indulgence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You're just mad because they run from you guys like a plague, and cannot understand why they refuse to act against their own self interest like you guys do. Females, and minorities have rejected the policies of Romney, and the conservative right wing.

---

Blacks don't run from me and I don't run from them, neither does Mitt - unlike the current president.

Dude, we're not the ones telling them that all their problems are caused by white people and their only hope is government, particularly black politicians. We can see how the first black president has shown that vision to be hopeless, so yeah, why would blacks vote against being used as tools for the left's big-government agenda?

Or why would women vote against being told they're too helpless to take care of themselves, they're all just Julia's waiting for Obama to come to their rescue?

It just tells me the liberal indoctrination in schools has worked, blacks and (liberal) women are now too stupid to see what's in their own best interest.

Quote:

---

I seem to have missed the compromises you and Tom have submitted, sorry, if you could help me find it,I would be grateful.

---

Sorry, not going to do your work for you.

Quote:

---

It just tells me the liberal indoctrination in schools has worked, blacks and (liberal) women are now too stupid to see what's in their own best interest.

---

That's been the conservative religious argument for centuries. YOU know what's best for someone else because they are stupid, and only you are smart.

Translation- " My way, or the highway"!! Your interpretation of the word compromise is FLAWED!

Follow-up to the last post, Obama has made another move in his imperial presidency, he just gutted work rules from welfare reform.

Quote:

---

Chairman Jordan: Add Welfare Reform to the List of Laws Obama Won’t Follow


Washington, Jul 12 - Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan responded to today’s announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services that it would violate the 1996 welfare reform law by waiving work requirements for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

“President Obama just tore up a basic foundation of the welfare contract. In exchange for taxpayer-funded TANF payments, the law calls on able-bodied adults to work, look for work, take classes, or undergo drug and alcohol counseling. It’s the tough love that gives people motivation to help themselves.”

“By waiving the law's requirements, President Obama will make it harder for Americans to escape poverty. He is hurting the very people he claims to help.”

---

Yes of course, one more way for the class warrior in chief to divide America and build on his government dependent constituency instead of helping people improve their lot in life.

Quote:

---

“Today’s action is also a blatant violation of the law. After immigration, education, marriage, and religious conscience protections, we can now add welfare reform to the list of laws President Obama refuses to follow.”

---

Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws, King Obama has decreed it and thus it is so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Thats been the conservative religious argument for centuries. YOU know whats best for someone else because they are stupid, and only you are smart.

Translation- " My way, or the highway"!!!! Your interpretation of the word compromise is FLAWED!

---

Been hanging out in opposite land again Tal? I made the compromise offer, you first ignored it, then said it was too difficult, then said you missed it so you're just pulling answers out of your rectum instead of dealing with reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

No it is not .Without discounting the impact the Enlightenment had on the founders thinking ,it was not the sole inspiration. As an example; the governing bodies are closer in structure to the Iroquois Confederacy model than any European Parliamentary model .

---

If you are saying that government has manifested itself in practice through a variety of inspirations then I am happy to go along with that.

However, that is to the point I am making. The history of government is littered with examples of theory not quite matching practice. Sometimes it turns out that theory has very little do do with practice. But again this is not the issue I am raising.

I was putting up a challenge to the claim that the founders were NOT committed to secular government. I think we have established they were because the document is actually a secular document. Isn't that a commitment?

Therefore, I know they were in fact committed to a secular government because the evidence is in the document. Are you wanting to challenge this aspect? I am not challenging your other claims as they may well be correct for all I know.

Tut

Quote:

---

was putting up a challenge to the claim that the founders were NOT committed to secular government. I think we have established they were because the document is actually a secular document. Isn't that a commitment?

Therefore, I know they were in fact committed to a secular government because the evidence is in the document. Are you wanting to challenge this aspect? I am not challenging your other claims as they may well be correct for all I know.

---

Then we wasted a bunch of words. I have never challenged that

. But I think you are missing the point... Trust me ;the fact that a "secular state " was estabilshed is being taught .It iis drilled into our heads .;;;;; and the rest is being excluded from the liberal education . It is a purging of anything that doesn't toe the liberal line. That is why Texas is taking the bull by the horn... to reintroduce the missing facts from public education.
Being a product of the same education;it took me years to deprogram .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Then we wasted a bunch of words. I have never challenged that

. But I think you are missing the point ...Trust me ;the fact that a "secular state " was estabilshed is being taught .It iis drilled into our heads .;;;;; and the rest is being excluded from the liberal education . It is a purging of anything that doesn't toe the liberal line. That is why Texas is taking the bull by the horn ...to reintroduce the missing facts from public education.
Being a product of the same education;it took me years to deprogram .

---

I am assuming you have read Ex's link. So you are happy with everything that is said in the article. Does this represent in you view what the curriculum should pursue in relation to history and evolution? In other words, this approach would represent is a legitimate reflection of some of the missing 'facts'?

Tut

Yes they would... It is way too simplistic to say 'they created a secular government ' while excluding the other factors that influenced their thinking .I have provided enough evidence of the fact that there was much more on their mind than secular Enlightenment thought. To exclude it is to create an agenda based education system .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yes they would .... It is way too simplistic to say 'they created a secular government ' while excluding the other factors that influenced their thinking .I have provided enough evidence of the fact that there was much more on their mind than secular Enlightenment thought. To exclude it is to create an agenda based education system .

---

Don't worry about it Tom. It's a circular argument.

Tut

Maybe from the outside looking in... From here it amts to another front in a ideological war. Not all the 'facts ' taught in our public k-12 education system are facts ;or if they are facts ,they are facts spun and filtered through an ideological agenda. The Texas school board is looking to restore balance.