Your opinion about perjury duly noted. I assume that you are a lawyer, and know exactly what you are talking about. Since all of their testimony is public record, shall I expect to see the appropriate prosecutor convening a grand jury to address this crime?

Your other opinion as to "how it works" is also duly noted. I guess SCOTUS should not have overruled Plessy vs Ferguson (decided in 1896) when they heard Brown vs Board of Education (1954).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

This is disturbing and sickening.

I live in Orange County, and my wife and I discuss every single day the madness of all the masses of insane people like those in this video.

These fucking idiots disgust me. There needs to be a lot more coverage of stories like that of Richard Rose, who just like morons in this video scoffed at it because he thought it was a hoax... then he got COVID-19 and died.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/richard-rose-covid-face-mask/

The Orange County Board of Education (OCBOE) is even pushing for all schools to return to full in-class sessions for all kids and with no masks. Since our governor has mandated virtual-only classes for counties that are out of control, the OCBOE has decided to sue the state. I can't begin to wrap my head around that kind of rationale (or lack thereof).

(Fortunately, each city is not obliged to do what the OCBOE recommends, and our city will have virtual-only classes available for the entire school year.)

Actually, Japanese kids learn about Unit 731, the rape of Nanking, and the issue of "comfort women" (though they are still not called by their proper term "sex slaves"). See here for more info.

What is controversial is that the right-wingers managed to get a textbook approved by the Ministry of Education that whitewashes Japan's military past--a textbook, by the way, that was shunned by almost every Board of Education in Japan (it was used by only 0.039% of the schools in Japan).

The notion that Japanese people are unaware of the crimes committed by the Japanese military during WWII is utterly false. As I mentioned, there are revisionist right-wingers out there who are actively working to change that but so far they have been unsuccessful.

Sorry, I missed the part where you "declared tribal Pakistan as being ... a separate state from Pakistan". I didn't realise we could do that.

In that case, I declare tribal USA (aka Arizona or Texas, take your pick) in every meaningful way, a separate and independent state from the USA. They're insane right wing christian nations who pretty much share the goals of fundamentalist Islam. They just have better weapons.

When do the rest of us get to drone strike the Arizona State Legislature or the Texas Board of Education?

As for Pakistan or Yemen, what do you think would happen if they declared war on the US? It would be an open invitation to be curb stomped and have haliburton run their country. The fact is, the US are drone striking their citizens and there isn't a god damn thing they can do about it.

I have no doubt that some of the people killed were evil scumbags who the world won't miss. But the video on this very page shows how often civilians were killed.

Besides aren't there laws around declaring war in the US? I'm pretty sure this is not something that should be done away with lightly.

I went to lower and middle school in Texas, private and public. In public school I was paddled with the 'board of education' for refusing to say there was no such thing as a negative number in 5th grade. (private school had taught me that there certainly WAS such a thing by that point, but no one had taught my 5th grade teacher).
This is a great reason for other states to ignore Texas when purchasing text books, their board of miss-education has a clear history of ignoring or re-writing history, science, and (from my experience) even math!
When the board is populated mostly (or solely) with people that don't believe in public education, you end up with books and teaching methods designed to prove that point rather than teach. That's not a method others should emulate.

I don't disagree about the snooping since 2001. As far as the koch brothers and the Tea Party, you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

They just want the Constitution follow or at least print current laws back towards it.

Instead of watching biased Democratic sucking media, go to an actual event .

They are not raciest, or the desire to go back to slavery as the media puts forth. . That's Bullshit. B.W.Y. the slavery shit and the KKK was the Democrat south doing its thing, not Republicans. MLK was Republican.


Today the Republican party is nothing more than a cheap intimation of the Democrat party. They will never win fighting that way. The Tea Party is they way to go.


FYI a little history ... Since you had a public education and hence only learned skewed left leaning revised history...


http://www.humanevents.com/2006/08/16/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican/

"
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act... And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican.

The Democrats were loosing the slavery battle and civil rights were breaking through and JFK/Johnson the

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans."


Democrats are still in the slavery business. They just use the welfare system to keep the poor poor and use the shallow promise of If you vote Democrat we will keep giving you a little cheese.

The Democrat party has been the most destructive political party to date.

I just read my original comment and I see that it sounds like I think there is a conspiracy. That wasn't what I meant, just that there are groups that have the sole purpose of undermining critical thinking in classrooms. You are right that a teacher still has the lead, but they are required to teach what the board of education wants them to teach (I don't if this is the right institution, in germany it's called Ministry of education).

Point 1: If by misquote, you mean substituted a larger term (religion) for a smaller one (churches), I suppose I did. But without religion, there -are- no churches. I don't see any meaningful difference.

Point 2: Texas has worked damned hard to earn its reputation as a major-league collection of wingnuts. I'm not sure how you can justify getting upset when that reputation is assumed to be true. You have a problem with the reputation, maybe you should start blaming the people who are going out of their way to earn it...like Rick Perry, or the Texas Board of Education. As long as the state is trying to rewrite history to eliminate reality's liberal bias, you're going to be stuck with that.

Point 3: Perhaps I should have slowed down and spent more time in the step-by-step logic...I really thought most people who read her could follow the shorthand, but I did indeed jump about a bit.

In many ways, churches are no different than any corporation. They exist as a means to concentrate funds and offer the controller(s) of those funds a method of avoiding personal responsibility for misuse of those funds. On top of that, churches pay no taxes, although they still make liberal use of publicly funded services, -and- in many cases, they keep lobbying for public funds to be handed over to them as well. Now add how many churches are politically active and advising their cult members how to vote, and you might begin to see why I refer to them all as corporate welfare queens. Or maybe not...I don't know if you're even going to try to follow it or not, and don't much care at this point.
>> ^chingalera:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^chingalera:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Someone just explained separation of church and state to him.

Jeeez dude, you are about a party-liner ain't ya?? Texas would be the first state to "separate" from the diseased political system you so faithfully believe in and, as we observe, believe in as fervently as any bible-thumping proselytizer determined to beat a moot point into oblivion.
As the government of the U.S. continues down her retrograde path, churches will become for many, a last bastion of sanity exempt from a really retarded form of totalitarianism and fascism. Retarded, because folks who talk shit from the comfort of their programming who belie intelligence with their words should have seen the shit coming from miles away but were too comfortable in their delusion to see the boots and badges-

I was gonna...but then decided it's not worth it, then changed my mind one last time.
I suspect aAnyone who can call religion "the last bastion of sanity" is too far gone to make sense, but... Religion supplies a cushy lifestyle for priests...that's the sum total of it's accomplishments. Churches have, if anything, helped push the government down the path you so self-righteously condemn...and they preach and stump political issues all without paying any taxes. Yet more corporate welfare.
It's time for the -real- welfare queens to start paying their share...churches, Wall Street, Defense contractors, big Pharma, etc. Time to either start contributing to the upkeep of society, or be broken up (or strung up, as the case may be).

No, you misquote me and then infer bullshit in that same smug manner that libby there used and that anyone on the receiving end of such smug could expect after reading a gajillion similar quips. I said CHURCHES and meant the members of the same whose communal efforts keep the building's physical plant in order and supports the members in time of want or need. You know...The first places to get raided and ransacked when the jackboots come??
This didn't start about about religion: I started it when Potato-libro there took a jab at Texas and lighted upon another opportunity to bash "them ignernt conservatives, etc.", NOT UNLIKE a shitload of folks with "holier than thou" attitudes concerning politics and government. QUITE laughable really, because the opinions they have and the conclusions they have arrived at, are based on limited and incomplete information or worse, they have been programmed to do so through systematic efforts by do-nothings in colleges or universities.
Stormsinger, YOUR rant began with religion and politics and manically concluded with corporations and Wall Street....WTF??!! By the way, my solution as an anarchistic, soon-to-be expatriate is to use the BIG TEX method on governments and corporations. You hate em so much, be like the Hulk. SMAAAASH! Then burn, repeat.
Can we talk about how fucking progressive IDAHO is now??? Jesus Christ, Allah Mustapha!!
I suspect anyone who can start with anti-religion rants, switch to blaming churches for the state of America's demise, bash tax-exemption and somehow blame corporate welfare (whatever the fuck!??...see where this is going?) and arrive at a total solution by blaming BELTWAY INSIDERS AND THE SENATORS/CONGRESSMEN THEY HAVE BOUGHT for pharma, defense, etc. shifting the blame to people without any power or influence???....I'd have to call them schizophrenic! Which is how most rabid concerning politics ion one side or the other are to me. ALLL OF THEM, conservative or liberal. I could give a fiddler's fist-fuck about working within a failed system. I prefer to keep to the fringes of this broken machine and put as little of my resources or mentations into it.
But some, like stormie and libby here...well, hopeless fiends and junkies for the dance politic. Playing right into the hands of the corporations iffn ya axe me!

I wasn't around (or at least clued in) at the time, but my dad frequently talks about the days when candidates were determined in "smoke filled rooms by the party big-wigs", rather than in caucuses and primaries. His take on that is that it is sort of nice to have the democratic process included in that initial stage, but that in all honesty the finger-on-the-pulse party bigwigs probably chose better, more electable candidates than the current system does.

In my home state of Kansas, the religious right-wing-nuts show up in force for primaries while a lot of the more moderate republicans are at home waiting for the actual election. That tends to push the party candidate further and further to the right, and results in situations like when the Kansas state Board of Education got filled with enough nut-bars to try to keep evolution out of schools. Only after that fiasco did enough of the moderate republicans realize that their votes are important in the primaries, too.

Maybe the whole caucus and primary system needs to have some high visible major trainwrecks like this to draw some attention to its deficiencies. Maybe things have to get worse before they will get better. Small comfort to Ron Paul and his supporters (I'd count myself as one).

Ron Paul doesn’t just oppose affirmative action, he opposes all civil rights measures, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - you know, the one that allows black people the LIBERTY to drink out of drinking fountains not marked colored? He voted against MLK day. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1983-289). He even voted against recognizing the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling on its 50th anniversary, which is beyond petty. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll176.xml He wants to dissolve all civil rights protections and allow government sanctioned discrimination at the state level, giving a new meaning to the term "state"-ism.

Why do you think he flip flopped on Gay rights in 2010? If this guy has been so ‘consistent’, fair and unprejudiced, why did it take him until 2010 to get on board with tolerance towards gay people? Is it possible that this deity among men could just be doing some old fashioned political pandering? Of course not! We must not challenge the Ron Paul hive mind!

Let’s take down your last two points (Ron Paul on the UN, Ron Paul is rational) with one stroke.

Ron Paul opposes the UN because he thinks it is a New World Order plot to steal our guns and take over America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQKQudNpkh0

Let me say that again. Ron Paul opposes the UN because he thinks it is a New World Order plot to steal our guns and take over America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQKQudNpkh0

One more time. Let the inanity of this sentence wash over you like a tropical shower. Ron Paul opposes the UN because he thinks it is a New World Order plot to steal our guns and take over America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

Does any of this seem rational to you?

Also this, from here (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/)

1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.

7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.

Like Matthews in this interview, I don't think it is necessary to get into those questionable incidents to that speak to Paul's motives. His policies in this area speak for themselves, and can't stand the light of day.

It is so striking how this man, who is so clear and succinct on matters of foreign policy and even some domestic issues (like drug laws in the beginning of the clip), can lapse into an indecipherable mess when confronted by his own positions on civil rights.

And I think that those particular views on civil rights have a huge following. Clearly it didn't hurt his son to have them.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Now that Ron Paul has gone mainstream, he's no longer able to hide behind his popular foreign policy views. He has already flip flopped on border fences (he now supports them), DADT (he now opposes) and evolution (he now supports).
He has had a long and troubled history with race. He was against the civil rights act, he was the only senator that voted against recognizing Brown vs the Board of Education (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll176.xml), he accepted campaign donations from a white supremacist and did not give the money back (http://www.chron.com/news/politics/articl
e/Ron-Paul-keeps-500-from-white-supremacist-aide-1805505.php), his official newsletter had a number of racist statements - which he initially said were taken out of context before he changed his story and blamed the quotes on an editor - he never ran a retraction, he called Abraham Lincoln a tyrant and he suggested the North should have paid the South for the slaves instead of going to war.
Getting national media attention comes at the cost of more scrutiny and criticism. The libertarian movement is all growed up.

Now that Ron Paul has gone mainstream, he's no longer able to hide behind his popular foreign policy views. He has already flip flopped on border fences (he now supports them), DADT (he now opposes) and evolution (he now supports).

He has had a long and troubled history with race. He was against the civil rights act, he was the only senator that voted against recognizing Brown vs the Board of Education (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll176.xml), he accepted campaign donations from a white supremacist and did not give the money back (http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Ron-Paul-keeps-500-from-white-supremacist-aide-1805505.php), his official newsletter had a number of racist statements - which he initially said were taken out of context before he changed his story and blamed the quotes on an editor - he never ran a retraction, he called Abraham Lincoln a tyrant and he suggested the North should have paid the South for the slaves instead of going to war.

Getting national media attention comes at the cost of more scrutiny and criticism. The libertarian movement is all growed up.

First of all, Schiff didn't get schooled, unless you count him appealing to the disbandment of the EPA, FDA, and Board of Education as him schooling himself. The protester he chose to verbsterbate over was not interested in the kind of 'debate' Schiff was looking for. Or, perhaps, that's what it's supposed to look like with the dude in the suit staring down a protester in a keffiyeh, and Schiff got what he wanted, firing up his fellow suit-wearer base. Looks pretty allegorical to me, though.

Anyway marbles, crosswords: Crosswords' post regarding the arguments Schiff is making were more or less in line with the points Schiff spoke. #1 is more in line, @1:25s Schiff makes the argument that corporations 'need' to move their production elsewhere because Americans demand lower prices than corps can profit from if production is in the US. Crossroads' statement of Schiff's position as: "AMERICAN WORKERS ARE DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND LOWER PRICES THAN CORPORATIONS CAN PROFIT FROM" is entirely in line with what Schiff is saying, simply adding that workers in the US want more money than workers elsewhere, which I'm sure Schiff himself wouldn't argue with.

Crossroads' #2 argument is a bit more of an extension of Schiff's ideas however I think it emerges out of the sentiment expressed by Schiff about the CEO of Apple having a right to give people jobs wherever he wants. The point being made by the protester is that Steve has an obligation to the US, from which he has gained so much, to try to keep manufacturing jobs in the US (another argument for another time, please) to which Schiff says @1:05 "The American people don't own those jobs. Steve Jobs has a right to manufacture where he wants." Now Crossroads' "I WORKED HARD TO EARN EVERYTHING I GOT, SO I DESERVE TO KEEP IT ALL AND DO WHATEVER I WANT" certainly echoes that sentiment. Also, I think you can glean that sentiment from virtually all of what Schiff is saying, from the Apple manufacturing to the abolishment of the various gov't agencies (I can explain that specific point more if you'd like, but think it would be beside the point right now).

So I really do feel like Crossroads' paraphrasing of Schiff's statements is entirely within the realm of the reasonable. And even where they're pushing those boundaries to call them 'douchey' arguments certainly seems baseless. So, marbles, do you have any anything to say about the content of Crossroad's rebuttals to the arguments Schiff has presented?

Fuck ReasonTV there is nothing Reasonable about them.

Issues such as the Lets disband the EPA, The Board of Education & FDA are popular now with a lot of conservatives because they like the status of being Fiscal protectionists but never think of the long term costs and how it will likely hurt other individuals (which is completely against the libertarian mantra of don't infringe on the rights and liberties of others if they are not hurting you in any way). this is exactly like how the issue of 'Tort reform' in the healthcare debate was the proposed solution to help bring down costs, but few explained that Tort is the legal right of public individuals to sue others within the healthcare industry for negligence or malpractice, thus taking away the right to protect possible harm caused through no fault of their own & further aid the corporations and healthcare lobby.