"Mom" and "Dad" banned in California Schools
By Bob Frazier Posted in State Politics — Comments (81) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Is this country going mad?
""Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose."
So reports World Net Daily. Funny, it does not seem to be getting a lot of "airplay" in the Main Street Media. This is a group of state bills signed by Arnold the terminator. For those of you who supported Arnold over McClintock because "he was electable" the chickens are now coming home to roost. (Is there a lesson here?)
The bills include SB777, which bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as "negative" toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other "alternative lifestyle choices." There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however.
Schools across the nation will be impacted by the decision, since textbook publishers typically base their texts on the rules set down by their largest customer, which often is California.
When did our public schools cease to be a way to give children a good education, a headstart in life, and become indoctrination centers to teach the beliefs of our left wing "elite"?
Also signed was AB394, which targets parents and teachers for such indoctrination through "anti-harassment" training.
This is right out of the old communist re-education center handbook. And you thought it could never happen here. They are starting with the children.
Schwarzenegger had vetoed almost identical provisions a year ago, saying existing state law already provided for penalties for discrimination. Obviously these new laws go way beyond that.
Now on a banned list will be any text, reference or teaching aid that portrays marriage as only between a man and woman, materials that say people are born male or female (and not in between), sources that fail to include a variety of transsexual, bisexual and homosexual historical figures, and sex education materials that fail to offer the option of sex changes.
Banning books? I suppose to the left it's ok. It just depends on which books are banned.
Homecoming kings now can be either male or female - as can homecoming queens, and students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify.
It's madness.
It also creates the circumstances where a parent who says marriage is only for a man and a woman in the presence of a lesbian teacher could be convicted of "harassment," and a student who believes people are born either male or female could be reported as a "harasser" by a male teacher who wears women's clothes, CCF said.
Welcome to the spirit of Cuba where neighbors are put on watch to be sure everyone follows the government line. And if you aren't... Political correctness enacted into law.
Schwarzenegger also signed AB14, which prohibits state funding for any program that does not support a range of alternative sexual practices, including state-funded social services run by churches. Affected will be day cares, preschool or after-school programs, food and housing programs, senior services, anti-gang efforts, jobs programs and others.
That would force every hospital in California - even private, religious hospitals - to adopt policies in support of transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality and open up non-profit organizations to lawsuits if they exclude members that engage in homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual conduct.
This is being shoved down your throat by a Republican Governor and a Democratic legislature. All in the name of tolerance. Only there is no tolerance here.
Look out. Governor Terminator is coming for your uncool niece. Where is the outrage?
The World Net Daily Article discussing this can be found here.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130
So much time and energy is wasted on so much social engineering/political indoctrination BS. If they would only invest that time & energy into actually teaching "the 3 R's" maybe we wouldn't have such dismal acedemic results.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
...for reverse discrimination. The California Supreme Court could be hearing this case soon!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
You think the California Supreme Court or the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, both based in Sodomcisco, will give you any hearing if you oppose the [redacted] phallusophy?
This ain't one of them.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however."
Culture war 101.
absentee
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
the Barbarian" against a wimpy Grey Davis. He has become a joke as the governator. California is descending into hell. Whether it ever returns is very problematic. I'm glad I don't have any children.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
I get the part about follow the government line quite well. I just don't see political correctness laws being enacted there. It is a dictatorship that does not worry about enacting a law. You don't embrace the government line there, and you go directly to jail with no hesitation. The political correctness part reminds me more of the Dutch and the Belgians.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
""Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose."
My mind just can't accept that California is really this insane. Does anyone have the actual text of the bill that states this? While I'm waiting, I'd better go find a helmet to protect my co-workers when my brain explodes.
-
NARF
Why use facts, if they would spoil the fun of having all this indignation and hysteria?
If the law did say such a thing, the story would have provided the relevant passage from the actual text of the statute and link. But since the actual law doesn't say that, the story has to resort to making up horror stories and claiming that's what the the law says.
Quoting and linking to the actual law would be more informative, but not half as much fun as some World Net Daily satire, claiming California passed a law that that punishes teachers and students for saying "Mom and Dad" or "husband and wife".
""Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose."
You're right to suspect that this is BS -- because it is. The bill is available here (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20...). It's a revision to a long-established antidiscrimination bill in California. The part of the bill that seems to have generated the most heat is the decision to strike the definition of "sex" and replace it with the definition of gender. Here is the relevant change:
"210.7. "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.
SEC. 5. Section 212 of the Education Code is repealed [Section 212 stated: "'Sex' means the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being."]
The obvious intent is to ban discrimination against transgendered people, which I support, although I agree that the bill is poorly drafted and needs to be changed so that it doesn't create more problems than it solves. (It's hard to believe that this diarist's parade of horribles would come to pass, but certainly this bill is vague enough as drafted to potentially allow stereotypically effeminate men [or masculine women] into the locker room of the opposite sex, even if they are not transgendered. I doubt that such was intended.)
The bill also adds "sexual orientation" to the list of protected classes, which I also support.
Incidentally, contrary to WND and our diarist, the change also bans discrimination based on "religion."
There is a lot of unwarranted hysteria regarding this bill. There are also some problems with it. I respectfully suggest that everyone calm down and, before they offer an opinion regarding something they've never read (as the WND author and this diarist did), actually read the bill.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
The hysteria is definitely warranted.
Well, that link is surely hysterical, but I don't know that it shows that the hysteria is warranted.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
"The bill also adds "sexual orientation" to the list of protected classes"
Yeah, nothing to worry about there. Making someone a protected class based on an activity they engage in or a preference they claim. Not at all troublesome, how silly of us. Protected classes. That's just plain untroubling. Yeesh!
Not to mention things like "assigned at birth" etcetera. I think you misunderstand. Reading the bill is precisely what causes the reaction. Even your brief downplayed summary is alarming enough.
absentee
Absentee, I'm not "downplaying" anything. I support protecting gay folks from discrimination based on the fact that they're gay.
I also lack your self-assurance in the view that it is certainly an "activity" or a "preference," rather than a genetic or biologically-determined trait.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Von, that assurance is not required. What difference would it make?
The BBC had an interactive website a few years ago all about the tongue. It went to great detail, explaining how taste works, the components of flavor, etc. One of the points I treasure was the idea that those who prefer vanilla to chocolate actually have a more refined palate. I prefer vanilla, and typically this has been reason to consider my taste in the other sense of the word vanilla: plain, unadorned, ordinary. But you see, it's my tongue. It has more taste buds. So I taste more acutely. My preference for vanilla is, in short, genetic.
So what? What difference does it make. In realistic terms, the only difference is my personal enjoyment, and the actions I take as a result of this preference.
Whether a preference is genetic or not, I don't see how it should entitle anyone to be a "protected class".
Then again, I object to the idea of protected classes in the first place.
absentee
Von, that assurance is not required. What difference would it make?
The BBC had an interactive website a few years ago all about the tongue. It went to great detail, explaining how taste works, the components of flavor, etc. One of the points I treasure was the idea that those who prefer vanilla to chocolate actually have a more refined palate. I prefer vanilla, and typically this has been reason to consider my taste in the other sense of the word vanilla: plain, unadorned, ordinary. But you see, it's my tongue. It has more taste buds. So I taste more acutely. My preference for vanilla is, in short, genetic.
So what? What difference does it make. In realistic terms, the only difference is my personal enjoyment, and the actions I take as a result of this preference.
Fair enough, if that was your meaning: biological preferences are irrelevant to you because existence controls. And that's a perfectly sound strain of Christian theology, so I'll simply note my disagreement as to the morality because I doubt that I'll convince you of the error in your position any more than you'll convince me of the error in mine.
I do, however, respectfully disagree that yours is a wise political policy.
Then again, I object to the idea of protected classes in the first place.
You object to forbidding discrimination based on race and sex? You would provide no recourse in the law to the black man who was denied a job for which he was qualified simply because he was black? Or Jewish? Or Christian?
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
That is a trap, though I don't think you meant it that way. Your question is not specific enough. Forbidding discrimination how, or by whom? Discrimination meaning ....?
It is possible I may agree to some extent with some of what you are suggesting. But I think that is a far cry from creating a "protected class".
"biological preferences are irrelevant to you because existence controls"
I'm afraid I didn't quite catch that one.
absentee
Then again, I object to the idea of protected classes in the first place.You object to forbidding discrimination based on race and sex? You would provide no recourse in the law to the black man who was denied a job for which he was qualified simply because he was black? Or Jewish? Or Christian?
Yep, I certainly would not provide recourse in the law for any of the possibilities you mentioned. Businesses are private property and the owner's may run them as they see fit. To say otherwise is to give control over private property to the government.
Exactly. This is why I said the question was too vague. Were we talking private or governmental? Education-specific, or broadly applicable to the public at large?
absentee
Here is the supertaster quiz. As I recall, the breakdown and other information are after you take the quiz, but don't quote me on that, it may be that you have to surf around that section for it.
absentee
Take the senses challenge there too, it's interesting.
I got 15/20
absentee
I have always wondered what would happen if, say, pedophiles were proven to have a biologically determined sexual orientation.
This possibility is one of the disturbing things about bills such as this one.
I have always wondered what would happen if, say, pedophiles were proven to have a biologically determined sexual orientation.
It would suggest a need to permanently monitor and/or separate them from children, wouldn't it? The question is not whether something is biological, but the harm to others caused by that biological trait.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
but here is a link to the bill.
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20070...
i think "parental unit" is a perfectly aceptable substitute. although you would need to designate parental unit A and parantal unit B to avoid confussion.
The only way it wouldn't be goofy is if some parent somewhere in the world ever referred to the other parent as "parental unit 1".
Well, maybe Frank Zappa.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
And I can't find the language banning the term "Mom and Dad" or "husband and wife". Can you direct me to the portions of the bills, or exctract the text, that indicates this?
Thanks!
to those bills-- I'd like to read them also.
=========
About the Author
Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers the term Mixed Breed. Vegas prefers a less formal picture of himself and would never be seen wearing ribbons.
The actual implementation will be left up to the courts, as is usually the case. Someone will sue the school district because they think those terms are discriminatory against gay couples. The court will agree. It is pretty much inevitable.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Since "parental units" are gender-specific, married couples or a family with a “father and a mother” would be portrayed as old stereotypes and could be prohibited from textbooks because their discriminatory inclusion “reflects adversely.” Under SB 777, school curriculum in every public school throughout California, in every grade K-12, would have to portray transsexual and bisexual “parents” as normal. Thus, SB 777 would teach schoolchildren that there is no such thing as the natural family. To say otherwise might be deemed "offensive" and another part of the bill kicks in.
Apparently,the Los Angeles Unified School District already has a policy concerning transgender and "gender nonconforming" students. In their policy, teachers are instructed to keep a student's transgender status private, including from the student's parents. Teachers are told to consult the student first, before talking with parents, "to determine an appropriate way to reference the student's gender identity." This treats parents as the enemy, at the expense of the student's relationship with family.
The LAUSD policy instructs schools to provide access to restroom and locker room facilities that "corresponds to the gender identity that the student consistently asserts at school." If a male student "consistently asserts" himself as a female at school, he will be granted access to female restrooms and locker rooms. Think the young ladies will be confortable with that? Want your daughter in that room? Then there are those young men who may be going to these areas for less than honorable reasons. This poses a serious danger to the safety of young female students.
SB 777 will implement statewide the policies LAUSD already enforces. So we have a chance to glimpse at the future.
The law will do its work without having to specifically ban "mom" or "dad" because of what it requires.
This is from a follow-up article to the one I mentioned previously.
"Karen England, chief of CRI, advised that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.
"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory.""
And lets be honest. It's exactly what they are trying to do!
Many school districts will proactively ban this stuff in an attempt to comply with the law. Some school district will eventually end up in court, but it start to have an effect before then.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
This is why my wife and I homeschool.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It must not be supposed that folly is as powerful as truth,
just because it can, if it likes, shout louder and longer than truth.”
--Augustine
Time for another recall, maybe.
Oh, and CA GOP - this is your opportunity to build a coalition of conservatives, minorities, moderates, socially conservative Democrats and independents, because they can all unite against such lunacy.
Our ability to get a majority coalition is severely hampered as long as we fight the good fight on abortion.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
As you know, California Senate and Assembly districts are so gerrymandered that a huge percentage of several groups in the Democratic coalition would have to be swayed before a district would flip. Just look at the vote percentages. Virtually no districts are really in play other than those R districts demographically trending minority do to population increases of illegal aliens and their offspring.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I have read the bill and my understanding is that it will provide a broader definition of hate crime, with the inclusion of reference to gender specificity being a prosecutable offense.
Now, what that means to me, a public school teacher, is that I had better watch every word that comes out of my mouth, or be subject to a lawsuit. I must also monitor my eighth grade students to make sure none of them commit a hate crime by specifying the gender of their parent in the presence (possibly)of a student whose parents are homosexual. The second student might be offended, and therefore a hate crime would have occurred.
Now some of you will point out that the law does not contain language that states the above to be possible, but we already have many restrictions on our speech, and SB 777 allows for that interpretation. The bill was sold as a clean up job on existing legislation, but it broadens (considerably) the definition of hate crime, and the possible victims of so called hate crimes. It also requires the inclusion within all teaching material non-discriminatory reference to all genders. Of course, gender includes five categories - male, female, male homosexual, female homesexual, and bi-sexual. Don't forget the transgenders and the repeated reference within the bill to "gender assignment at birth" which is a snide way of saying that when the doctor pronounced me a girl, he doomed me to certain gender stereotypes.
The California legislature is out of control and this will open the floodgates to litigation against teachers, eliminate the possibility of passing vouchers, and restrict every institution and teacher that is funded through the state. It has a practical effect on the classroom that is chilling.
By the way, I am thinking of looking for a job - anyone in another state want a really good Humanities teacher?
(Just wondering what my union will do when they have to pay for defending teachers being prosecuted under this travesty - they bought the legislature that passed it)
Soldier's Mom - Golfer's Wife - Home alone a lot
I hope not, but I do wonder at times...
There are social issue items beyond Supreme Court picks that a President could impact.
...does it really matter? It's looking more and more like we're going to have a choice between Rudy Giuliani or Hillary Clinton. And those are the only two choices.
For those of you who are uncomfortable with the idea of voting for Rudy Giuliani, just consider it a vote against Hillary Clinton. Because a vote for Rudy is a vote for Rudy...anything else is a vote for Hillary.
Remember that Ahnuld governs one of the more liberal states in the country. Remember, too, that he's a product of Hollywood, married to a Kennedy, etc.
But, even in his case, doncha think he's better than Gray Davis was?
As John Podhoretz has, poignantly, written: few politicians in recent history have more frustrated the left-wing than Rudy Giuliani has. That really ought to be enough to convince wary conservatives that he ain't all bad.
And no, he's not better than Gray Davis for Californians. He's worse. He splits our party unity, which is VITAL for holding the line in the legislature.
And I don't know who your 'we' is, but on my ballot come next November, there will be more than two choices. If the Republican party can't earn votes, we will lose some.
Is that what you want? Is it worth nominating Giuliani just so you can point fingers at the defectors, making some point about party loyalty or your views of third parties?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
I said -- or intended to say, anyway -- that only one of two people will be our next president. You can vote for Pat Paulsen for all I care -- and I'm fairly certain he's dead! The point is, either Hillary or (probably) Giuliani will be our next president.
That's it. You may not like that choice. You may decline to participate (which is, actually, impossible). But that's it and you just need to deal with it.
While it's nice to wax poetic about the horrors of voting for the "lesser of two evils", that's just the reality of a two-party political system. Twas always thus and always thus shall be.
The time to try to push your preferred Republican to the ballot is now. But, if you fail (as appears you will), then you're left with what is, to you, a Hobson's choice. And there's no way to avoid it, either. However you vote and whoever you vote for, you will either be helping Hillary Clinton (by voting for her or any candidate who doesn't have a chance to win) or hurting her (by voting for the only other candidate who does have a chance to win).
It's called pragmatism. It's called realism.
I agree that splitting the Republican base is not a good thing. But, then, it's up to the Republican base whether to be split or not. It's a choice we all have to make. I think it's an incredibly easy choice to make, myself. But everybody has to make their own minds up.
The Democrats are probably going to have between 56-60 Senators in the next Congress. If they've got the White House, there will be absolutely nothing to stop anything they want to do. There is no filibuster in the House. They'll have the Specters and Snowes of the world to help them get to 60 if they don't have it on their own, and there'll be no veto pen.
And the next president will nominate at least 2 justices for the Supreme Court and probably 3. With the Senate shaping up to be what it's going to be, are you really sure you want Hillary Clinton to be the one nominating them?
Arnold's problem is that he is way too eager to become great friends with liberal Democrats and win admirers in the media, so he does everything he can to appease them on every issue. If anything, that seems more like Bush (either 41 or 43) than like Rudy.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I've just been told TODAY that the reason Rudy Giuliani endorsed Mario Cuomo, was that he was eager to buddy up with Albany Democrats in order to ensure he could get what he wanted from them for New York City.
Why should we expect him to change that kind of behavior now, if he's going to be faced with the possibility of at least one Democratic-controlled house of Congress?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Rudy did whatever it took to get free money for his city as mayor (there are plenty of other examples of this, as well). I don't blame him for that. It's his responsibility. He wouldn't be doing his job as mayor if he didn't try.
Arnold, on the other hand, simply sells out the Republicans just so he can seem like this cool, reasonable "Maverick" independent type guy that everybody likes.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Probably because he and Pataki were never terribly friendly. Probably more because he was interested in keeping his job as mayor.
New York politics are a lot different than US politics, Neil. Of course he's going to operate differently while holding office in New York than he would nationally. The same goes for Democrats, by the way. Evan Bayh did a lot of positively conservative things while governor of Indiana...when he, briefly, decided to seek the presidency he suddenly sounded quite a bit more liberal. Wonder why?
But, even assuming you are right, are you honestly saying that you'd rather have Hillary Clinton in there -- who won't simply cross the aisle to be making deals with Democrats, she'd be in the aisle to begin with!
And the Dems aren't going to have just one house of Congress next term. They'll have them both and, probably, increase the size of their majority in both. Look at the Senate landscape, it ain't pretty.
Now, ask yourself, when it comes time for John Paul Stevens to retire -- and he will -- wouldn't you rather have somebody who said they liked the picks of Alito and Roberts making the pick than the person responsible for giving us Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
I realize that you'd rather have neither of them. But assuming that won't be an option -- a pretty safe assumption -- then what are going to be your feelings come nomination time?
I think all of us agree that we'd rather have a strong movement conservative in the White House -- a Newt Gingrich, a Sam Brownback, etc. But it's just not in the cards...so you have to start making adjustments for reality.
When Republicans had a chance to choose a very credible conservative (Tom McClintock), they instead chose an "electable" liberal in Arnold. Just think, if the Republicans united under McClintock instead! I'm sure the recall would have still been successful, and I'm sure that McClintock would be the frontrunner for President today! Missed opportunities...
This is what we get when we elect RINOS. On the national scene, do we want an Arnold archetype as President (e.g. the electable but liberal RUDY) or do we want a McClintock conservative?
What if the Republicans in California had united under Tom McClintock?
It's a very good question. And, if you're honest about it, you'll understand the conundrum a bit better. Because I think most sane people realize that the voters of California were not going to hand the governorship over to Tom McClintock. They'd have either kept Davis or elected Bustamante. But they simply were not going to put McClintock in power.
So, which would you rather be: somebody who stands on principle and loses...or somebody who triangulates (for lack of a better term) and wins?
In a winner take all electoral system, I don't really see a whole lot of good coming from losing. Yeah, you can make a point. And that and a quarter will buy you a pack of Juicy Fruit. That's what I've been telling my Libertarian Party friends all these years. And they still can't seem to get the point.
They're entirely meaningless to the American political system despite having very strong beliefs. Many of them don't accept that they're irrelevant, others accept it as the price paid for being ideologically pure.
I'm an ideologue -- and proudly so. I'm shaped by my ideas, first and foremost. And I will discuss and debate my ideas with anybody in good faith.
But you can't afford to be ideologically rigid in an electoral system. To borrow a phrase from my beloved Indianapolis Colts: you have to take what the defense gives you.
It just wasn't in the cards to elect Tom McClintock Governor of California. It wasn't going to happen. You had, realistically, three choices: keep Gray Davis, elect Cruz Bustamante, or elect Arnold Schwarzenegger.
And, yeah, Arnold's governed a liberal state as a, generally, liberal governor. That may or may not mean that one of the other two options was better than him. But at least be up front and honest with yourself about the options.
The options in '08 are almost certainly going to be Giuliani or Clinton. Take your pick.
Nowhere does it say that mom and dad will be banned words in future text books. This is lunacy. What kind of hysterical phobe would read so much in such a fair bill?
You've jumped the gun: optimal time for poking-with-sticks would be more along noonish, EST. I'm sure that people will be along eventually to react to this and your Nancy-is-clever! post, but you have to let them get their coffee first.
Moe
PS: By the way? Stop doing this. It's tedious.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
you just don't get it...do you?.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
of your day ahead looks like! :P
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
...he'll be trying to find his way around the block, whereupon he will triumphantly post again - and be banned again. Rinse and repeat until the effort/reward imbalance grows too great for him to ignore.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
It reminds me of a movie starring Johnny Depp and Cheech Marin. Cheech taunts Depp by saying, "You wouldn't dare kill me. You wouldn't DARE." After Cheech leaves the table, Depp mouths the words "Oh yes I would", then shoots him.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Ahh, yes. Redstate is a monolithic enterprise wherein no dissent is tolerated from any diary.
Perhaps you failed to see my comments, Michael Buchanan.
Idiot.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
when another regular makes points out the fact that a new troll is, in fact, an idiot.
Good job von!
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
for my unfortunate homestate to change the flag to red with perhaps a rainbow in its center...increase taxes to over 50%...outlaw the super minority republican party from running...install Arnold as supreme secretary and change its name to the peoples' democratic republic of California or PDRC.
it is safe to say I'll never return...
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy."
–John Marshall
Christ warned this was coming:
"As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." (Matthew 24:37)
Every perversion imaginable (and not imaginable) reigned in the time of Noah. So it shall be again when Jesus Christ returns to restore order & justice.
Adopt the tactic of the liberal lunatics, this time regarding sodomitic perversion: REFUSE & RESIST.
Schwarzenegger is surely a closet AC/DC pervert. As Alan Stang points out, he proudly posed for [redacted] Freako Mapplethorpe nude.
Why is it that so many Republicans are homosexuals? Bush is AC/DC (look up Victor Ashe or Jeff Gannon), Cheney has a queer offspring, and need I mention Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, or Larry the [redacted] Craig? Me thinks the GOP is riddled with sodomites as readily as the Demo[redacted]s. We just can't depend on either party anymore to support Godly, natural/normal, Christian values.
h ttp://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan6.htm
h ttp://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan9.htm
caricature! Begone!
=========
About the Author
Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers the term Mixed Breed. He eats trolls for breakfast, or gives them to Franz to bury in the back yard!
We are playing the wrong game. Years ago there was a movie called "the Westing Game". One of the lines was that the actors were playing the wrong game.
We need to concentrate on those running the game instead of the many acts they pull to confuse us. As long as we keep chasing their acts they will keep feeding them to us, until we are finally wore out. Those that are running the game are running both sides against each other, as long as we are fighting they are winning.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
you are a RonPaul™ supporter.
*SWAG = Scientific Wild A** Guess
=========
About the Author
Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers the Term Mixed Breed. He would help Franz bury RonPaul™ in the backyard!
Geesh! While I am for equal rights, this is just entirely too much! I don't think that diversity should include denying certain portions of the population and in fact it should be quite the opposite. This is to extreme.