Stacy Trasancos vented a bit on her blog, Accepting Abundance, the other day – while she mentioned specifically the actions of openly gay people engaging in public displays of affection in the local park, the clear issue was not whether or not two gay men will hold hands, but whether or not any part of the public square will be kept clear of the immorality of our age. The natural reaction of our loving, tolerant liberals was best encapsulated in this comment:
…Your view of what is sinful, immoral, and the like are because of your own thought processes. YOUR definition of sin and immorality are not the universal definitions and immorality. How dare you be so arrogant as to believe that your opinions are higher than others’. F*** off you ugly Christian slut…
I’d have to say that better than 90% of the comments attacking Mrs. Trasancos are “anonymous”. Which is probably a good thing because it would embarrass the authors if their names were known – hard to find such a collection of ignorance, hatred and misery in such a small area. These people don’t understand what the article is about, they don’t know what a Catholic like Mrs. Trasancos believes and they don’t know what “tolerance” and “liberty” mean. Their comments range from the mildly snarky to the crudely vulgar to the downright blasphemous. At no point is there any attempt to engage Mrs. Trasancos as a human being – to try and see things from her point of view or show some respect for the fact that a fellow human being courageously put their name to an opinion in the public square. Just anonymous, ignorant hatred is what she gets.
And why did she get this? Because she dared to question the liberal party line on morality. The liberal party line on morality is essentially negative in character – whatever breaks down the Judeo-Christian morality of Western Civilization is morally good, whatever upholds it is morally bad. If you step outside those parameters, you are going to be attacked…and as Mrs. Trasancos found, attacked quite cruelly and nauseatingly by people who would never show the courage to stand up in public and actually proclaim their beliefs under their own name.
I greatly sympathize with Mrs. Trasancos as I have been on the receiving end of this sort of thing, too. I’ve had my past dug in to, my car vandalized, I’ve been stalked at work, my computer has been hacked, people have tried to put a photo of my house in the web (and in their eagerness to harm me they actually put up a photo of a house belonging to a different Mark Noonan; there are several people with my name in Las Vegas). I’ve had a radio host suggest that people beat me up and one kind liberal opined upon a time that I was a fit subject to be hanged from a lamp post with a meat hook. And all of that just because I, too, dissent from the liberal orthodoxy.
Make no mistake about it, if the people who filled Mrs. Trasancos’ blog comments with filth and vituperation ever got the chance, they would imprison and kill people like myself and Mrs. Trasancos. Plenty of liberals scream with anger when I used the term “liberal-fascist”, but I chose that phrase with care. It is an exact description of that species of person who is liberal and demands that certain views be silenced in the public square – classified as “hate speech” and declared first out of bounds and, eventually, illegal. Inside of every liberal there is an NKVD agent straining to break free.
Mrs. Trasancos has asserted that the hate won’t stop her – and I applaud her courage. The one thing the left would really like is to just be able to shout down voices of reason. It is hard, at times, to stand against the fury of people who will go straight to the lowest gutter hoping that by being vile, they can disgust decent people and convince them to leave the public square. We dare not let them do this. Firm in our faith, ready for whatever sacrifice we are called upon to make, we must remain in the world while never being of it. Our duty – to God, ourselves and our fellows – is to do what is right, even if everyone disagrees and hates us for doing it (and Our Lord did warn us that we would be hated on account of Him). This is just part of the task of a Christian; indeed, the task of anyone who really believes in God – and if we carry it out faithfully, then even our defeats are victories…but the really good thing is that when we do stand firm, we win far more than we lose.
The time is coming when one side or the other will prevail…and we on our side already know who the Victor is.
Blogs For Victory 
Great post! Thanks for offering a rational and calm response to a topic that is so volatile. With all the nastiness its important that we step back and see beneath the surface to what is really going on.
“The time is coming when one side or the other will prevail…and we on our side already know who the Victor is.”
The cost is going to be high. Very high. Thiss fight is not going to be for the faint hearted. This fight is not going to be for those who uncomfortable with certain issues. This fight is going to be for those who are willing to make a stand.
The cost is going to be high. Very high.
GMB, it doesn’t have to be. That will be the Left’s choice. One of the primary driving forces behind, and goals of the Tea Party movement is to shift the direction of the country back toward the original Constitutional model through the political process.
Throughout my lifetime, one of the hallmarks of Progressives has been their patience; 2 steps forward, 1 step back — incrementalism, if you will. They’ve always known when to back off and regroup. I sense now, though, that a certain segment of the Left is becoming very impatient, and is starting to talk about speeding up the process. Now it’s the right that’s exhibiting patience and keeping our powder dry. As I said in a previous thread, I don’t think most of them have a clue as to how ready we are for them to try. Part of me wants to avoid conflict with my fellow Americans at all costs, and part of me just wants to get it on. I know the more we compromise with them, the more likely it is that my grandkids and great grandkids will live under tyranny.
That is very well put. I have noticed how the left is getting more “in your face” and aggressive in this country and wondered if it was that they think they have an advantage with Obama in the White House or if electing such a radical gave them encouragement or if they are just fed up with the gradual erosion of traditional America and are ready to mount a true left style attack. I think they will find that a lot of what they think is support is there only because they have been so sneaky and deceptive in their goals and it will melt away the more aggressive and openly anti-America they admit they are.
luckee,
what is a true left style attack?
I think they will find that a lot of what they think is support is there only because they have been so sneaky and deceptive in their goals and it will melt away the more aggressive and openly anti-America they admit they are.
you really think that just because people disagree with you in politics and are on the opposite end of issues that they are anti-american?
what’s really anti-american? can you define that? is it fair to say that if you don’t agree with a liberal, that you are the one who is anti-american?
Don’t be so stupid. I know it’s hard but try. If you really think you are making a valid point then you are admitting how stupid you are.
I sense now, though, that a certain segment of the Left is becoming very impatient, – Spook
I believe that to be the younger generation of progressives, ie; Thomas, bodie, etc. They hold such a cartoonish construct of conservatism that in their mind, albeit small, liberalism is the only valid philosophy. You can chalk it up to a poor education.
Cluster the fool,
Oh tell us wise one, where did you get your education that now gives you the right to berate others for theirs? I thought Texas was your model for everything….I went to UT, now you’re saying that UT is a bad school?
Instead of talking in talking points like you always do, why don’t you actually tell us what think the cartoonish view is that Liberals hold of Conservatives. Also, do you not hold cartoonish views?
“They hold such a cartoonish construct of conservatism that in their mind, albeit small, liberalism is the only valid philosophy. You can chalk it up to a poor education.”
To what should we chalk up your cartoonish construct of liberalism and fact-averse insistence that conservatism is the only valid philosophy? Poor intellect? Poor perception of reality?
Thomas and Bodie, why don’t you lead off by explaining the left to us? Tell us what liberalism is and describe the left as you see it. It might make it easier to see what you are talking about/
Well, cluster?
In lieu of a response from you, let’s just say that the more likely answer–your cartoonish construct of liberalism and fact-averse insistence that conservatism is the only valid philosophy is a product of a meager intellect–is the correct one until you demonstrate otherwise, OK?
Spook,
pure fear mongering and talking points. If anything, conservatives are the ones who want to impose their version of tyranny on those who they disagree with.
examples of this is: prayer in public places, displaying of religious tenets in public places. Open animosity against other religions (which is a hallmark of the rightwing). Imposing moral views they see fit on others who may not share the same views on morality.
The list goes on and on. If anything, i’d be scared to live in Mark’s version, or your version for that matter of America. I’d be like living in Saudi Arabia light.
thomas,
All law is an imposition of morality – the only question is whose morality will be imposed. For 40 years now a tiny minority of leftists, using sympathetic judges, have imposed liberal morality upon us. The people never called for a ban on prayer in public school. The people never demanded that pornography be easily accessible. The people never demanded that movies, music and television become increasingly coarse. The people never demanded these things and the Constitution enacted by the people never required these things, either…it was just well-funded, determined liberals and their lapdog judges who did it…with the connivance of a cowardly political class which preferred to not fight it out for the people’s morality. You worry about us, on our side, imposing our morality…but I point out to you the complete absurdity of that tiny minority of a tiny minority (ie, the number of gay people who want to get married as opposed to the total gay population, in turn as opposed to the entire US population) being able to impose its morality on 99.9% of the population.
Toleration is just that – as Christians and as citizens we must be tolerant. If someone wishes to engage in gay sex, that is their business. If someone who is gay either has children or adopts them, they have parental rights to raise them as they see fit. But they don’t have a right to enforce their views upon an overwhelming majority who sees things differently. This is especially true in the matter of families – because the health of family is the determining factor on whether or not we will survive as a nation.
No matter how many gay couples there are with kids, there will never be sufficient numbers of them to maintain our population. It is only via the traditional man-and-woman-child family that we will continue. If we don’t have a healthy family, then we die…so, all policies must be directed towards ensuring that the common run of the human family is protected and advanced. Not the oddball, not the strange case…those are things for toleration, not for policy. Policy is what we will do with 99% of the families…and as 99% of them are and always will be normal, traditional families, that is what we must gear everything towards.
We will tolerate all the live, long day…but we won’t turn tolerance on its head and say that requires the destruction of the common in favor of the bizarre.
Mark, where to begin. your post is filled with lies, half truths, and outright distortions of reality.
For 40 years now a tiny minority of leftists, using sympathetic judges, have imposed liberal morality upon us.
that isa pure lie. you mean to tell me the Supreme Court was liberal when they decided Roe v. Wade? If you don’t like a decision, it’s a liberal judge. If you do like it, it’s moral and right. BS. the fact is, people approve of the laws that have been passed by congress or as a result of judicial interpretation because they VOTED for certain representation. If they are a tiny liberal minority as you claim, it would not be possible under our current system.
The people never called for a ban on prayer in public school.
so what? certain things are right and wrong. Would you let people vote on segregation? or bussing? or slavery? or how about women’s suffrage? There are certain things we ELECT our leaders to decide for us. Interpretation of the Constitution is one of those things.
The people never demanded that pornography be easily accessible.
non issue. If people didn’t demand it, they wouldn’t purchase it and grow the industry. bs again.
The people never demanded that movies, music and television become increasingly course.
same as above. if nobody wants violent movies…why are the theaters packed for violent movies?
The people never demanded these things and the Constitution enacted by the people never required these things
they did demand it, by consuming those services. Actions speak louder than anything else. The Constitution has nothing to do with this issue. The constitution is a framework of generalities and some specifics. YOu think the founding fathers cared about porn and violence? pure stupidity.
either…it was just well-funded, determined liberals and their lapdog judges who did it…with the connivance of a cowardly political class which preferred to not fight it out for the people’s morality.
talking points galore…we elect people to represent us, and so do you. when you are in the minority, as is often the case, you complain that it’s a conspiracy! when people who you claim don’t want those things end up consuming it anyway and growing the market for those things….you blame Democrats anyway.
You worry about us, on our side, imposing our morality…but I point out to you the complete absurdity of that tiny minority of a tiny minority (ie, the number of gay people who want to get married as opposed to the total gay population, in turn as opposed to the entire US population) being able to impose its morality on 99.9% of the population.
stop blabbering. come on, not only are your percentages innacurate, but your premise is completely false. If 99.9% of the population wanted to keep Slavery, would it be fair to keep it? Inequality is wrong. Period. it doesn’t matter what YOU think, it matters what the LAW states. Again, since we ELECT people to write our laws and represent us, you have no beef. Don’t like it? better luck getting Reid out next election.
Toleration is just that – as Christians and as citizens we must be tolerant. If someone wishes to engage in gay sex, that is their business. If someone who is gay either has children or adopts them, they have parental rights to raise them as they see fit. But they don’t have a right to enforce their views upon an overwhelming majority who sees things differently.
nobody is imposng anything, they are simply demanding complete tolerance, and that means EQUALITY. why is that so hard to understand for you? How can you claim to be tolerant, but not give them equality?
We will tolerate all the live, long day…but we won’t turn tolerance on its head and say that requires the destruction of the common in favor of the bizarre.
and that is the hallmark of someone who is really intolerant, but wishes to cloak it under the guise of fairness and difficulty. again, WRONG. tolerance means being tolerant of EVERYONE who may or may not be different. not “gearing” policy toward the majority, and ignoring the minority. That is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to avoid.
Thomas,
You’re problem here, I think, is that you don’t understand how “will of the people” is done in the United States. You know how slavery was banned? 2/3 of the members of Congress voted to ban it via amendment and then 3/4 of the States ratified…in other words the people banned it. Not judges. We actually left it up to the people to argue it out…we didn’t go to the absurdity of implying that if it were left up to the people, they’d keep slavery.
And if you want to state that consumer spending indicates support, then I see your $13 billion in annual porn revenues and raise you $90 billion given directly to religious groups. Seems that in purchasing the American people are massively in favor of one over the other.
The bottom line, though, is that people must be allowed to govern their own affairs…which includes setting the moral tone for their local community. In this sort of genuine liberty, the moral tone in San Francisco will be vastly different from the moral tone in Lincoln, Nebraska…and that is how it should be. It shouldn’t be a liberal-fascist enforced, one-ultra-kook-liberal-size-fits-all.
You’re problem here, I think, is that you don’t understand how “will of the people” is done in the United States.
bs. you don’t like what will of the people stands for in certain circumstances and you want to change the meaning of it.
You know how slavery was banned? 2/3 of the members of Congress voted to ban it via amendment and then 3/4 of the States ratified…in other words the people banned it. Not judges. We actually left it up to the people to argue it out…we didn’t go to the absurdity of implying that if it were left up to the people, they’d keep slavery.
what a load of crap!!! did the civil war not happen? if you remember, the South wanted to KEEP slavery, or at least have the right to keep slavery because their people SUPPORTED it. They lost the war and had it IMPOSED on them. Take a wild guess on which stated didn’t support the slavery banning amendment?? 27 out of 36 states ratified it when it was introduced immediately. These states didn’t: Floria, Texas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Delaware, New Jersey, Iowa, Oregon, California. Out of those states, Mississippi and Kentucky didn’t get to ratifying it….to 1996 and 1976 respectively!!! Imagine that! the people really did want slavery in Mississippi!
And if you want to state that consumer spending indicates support, then I see your $13 billion in annual porn revenues and raise you $90 billion given directly to religious groups. Seems that in purchasing the American people are massively in favor of one over the other.
again, false argument. the porn industry is a service, and people VOLUNTARILY spend money to consume it’s goods. The religious groups are NOT a choice for many poeple. They are commanded by the bible to Tithe and therefore have to give. You are dishonest.
The bottom line, though, is that people must be allowed to govern their own affairs…which includes setting the moral tone for their local community. In this sort of genuine liberty, the moral tone in San Francisco will be vastly different from the moral tone in Lincoln, Nebraska…
wrong agian. That’s why we had a civil war, to eliminate states being able to do whatever they hell they want in terms of morality or legality. If it was up to people in Mississippi, they’d still have slavery.
Thomas,
The 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6th, 1865 when Georgia voted to ratify. Prior to that date, the slave States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana and Missouri and Maryland had voted to ratify…and Missouri and Maryland had never left the Union. Because the United States government considered that the southern States never could secede it was held that 3/4 of all the States at the time of enactment would have to ratify…and that took southern, slave holding States to do it. The people abolished slavery – not a Ruling Class, liberal elite.
We didn’t fight the Civil War to extirpate local differences – that is only a dream of liberal-fascists. We fought the Civil War, as Lincoln correctly stated, to prove that popular government isn’t an absurdity. If the loser in an election can break up a polity at will, then the very concept of democracy is a fraud. The south was wrong primarily in this – an election had taken place in accordance with the United States Constitution and a winner had been declared…at that moment it became the patriotic duty of all Americans to bow to the will of the electorate and only seek redress in future elections.
But the basic thing of America is local control – what is called in Catholic Social Teaching (the part you liberals skip over in order to get to the part where we’re supposed to help the poor) “subsidiarity” – the right of people at the local level to make all decisions regarding the way they live, with higher levels of government only intervening at extreme need – when life threatening crisis occur, or the operations of justice become impossible.
We on our side want to be free…and we’re all kinds of tolerant; but our tolerance cannot extend to us being imposed upon by a tiny minority.
tommy-boy flails again: ” the fact is, people approve of the laws that have been passed by congress or as a result of judicial interpretation because they VOTED for certain representation.”
Laws passed by judicial interpretation? You say – the Supreme Court decisions are legit because the judges were appointed and confirmed by the representatives elected BY THE PEOPLE! (That is true to an extent of judicial limitations).
Let’s not forget the FACT that the Supreme Court once upheld slavery as legal and that blacks were property.
So, using your logic – slavery was upheld BY THE PEOPLE!
Campaign finance laws were struck down BY THE PEOPLE!
In 2000, Bush was elected BY THE PEOPLE! (HE WAS but liberals claimed he was appointed by the Supreme Court).
Parts of obamacare has been ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE PEOPLE.
All of these are decisions LIBERALS DISAGREE WITH!!! And I don’t see you defending those decisions and telling the liberals they are a bunch of whiners because they “simply disagree”. (BTW, we don’t simply disagree).
Your post shows how ignorant you are of our government, the Constitution and conservatism. Your limitations make you look foolish time and again.
Spook we have been compromising for 98 years. All that has been accomplished has been to further the progressive cause. President Reagan was able to it on hold somewhat during his years but afterwards it full speed ahead.
Why should the progressives compromise now that we given them most everything they want in the past?
green,
it’s not compromise. it’s evolution of society. society’s ideals and values change over time and that’s something you cannot stop. you may be able to stem the tide like your idol Reagan did, but in the long run, it cannot be stopped.
This movement isn’t something that is inorganic or fake…people demand more from their government, and that government shall deliver. Period.
“Part of me wants to avoid conflict with my fellow Americans at all costs, and part of me just wants to get it on.”
Go ahead and start the Civil War for which you’ve been agitating for years. Come on, go for it. You very clearly want to. It’ll be a blow against (wholly imagined) “tyranny,” right?
Mark, how far down did you have to read to find the anoymous attacks? I read quite a lot of the responses and did not read one that was an attack – nor anoymous. The responses that differed from her position were respectful and merely explained their own position. I think you may be stretching the truth here.
Sunny,
Nice try – but most of us are diligent enough to actually click on the linked article and see for ourselves. So, your little attempt here to convince a casual reader that I’m off base won’t work. The 2nd comment is anonymous and while it isn’t vulgar, it is belittling of the author’s opinions without addressing her actual issue. Some other quotes from the comments:
So calling bigotry bigotry is a “hateful attack,” Mark? Pretty pitiful attempt to play the victim there.
Bodie,
I can see no bigotry in her statements – unless you want to hold that the mere assertion of Christianity is bigoted.
Well of course you can’t, Mark–you share it. But let’s just revel in the fact that this idiot blogger is horrendously offended!!!! that gay people would have the temerity, the hubris, the gall to hold hands in public! And the mere presence of these gays and their wanton displays of hand-holding is enough to make this idiot blogger declare that she is “unable to even leave the house anymore without worrying about what in tarnation we are going to encounter.”
Bigoted? Yup. Pathetically whiny? Absolutely. Desperate to be a victim? Undoubtedly. But all the same, you right wingers are just going to have to get over your homophobia.
Bodie,
No, they are just statements of opinion… I don’t like to see public displays of affection all that much, either. And there is a need for adults to strictly censor their behavior around children because you can never tell how they might take it and its better that the knowledge of how the world can work is presented to them in an orderly fashion and only when they’re ready for it.
Bigotry, Bodie, would be someone who says they hate all gay people, sight unseen. I can’t speak for the author of the linked article, but I have gay friends – some of them very close friends. I could hardly be bigoted and have such friends…but friends or no, I must speak the truth…homosexual sex is inherently disordered. If any gay friend of mine decides to stop being my friend because I hold to such views, then that would sadden me…but it wouldn’t make me change my views, nor would it make me a bigot.
I did click on the link Mark and did not see many unkind remarks. There will always be a few who are ugly in responding, like neo here, but overall, they were pretty respectful. Talk about belitting remarks – neo does it daily and yet you never call him out on it or delete them. He is not the only one, so does cluster and a few others. Can you say “hypocrite”?
Sunny,
Oh, please…almost all the remarks opposing the article are vulgar and/or hate-filled. Stop it – you’re making yourself look foolish.
Nah, Stacy Trasancos made herself look foolish. And hysterical. And small-minded. And more than a little ridiculous.
…why don’t you actually tell us what think the cartoonish view is that Liberals hold of Conservatives. – thomas
That’s easy. Just the other day you labeled most all conservatives as evil white men that don’t care about the poor.
just the same as you label all liberals as union members, or victims of bad education….
your cartoonish views are just reflected back on you on purpose.
nice try.
Did anybody ever label all liberals as union members? And if liberals are liberals because they do not understand the history of liberalism then yes they are the victims of bad education. Schools should be teaching real history not politically edited history. If people do understand the history and ideology of liberalism and still choose to be liberals then we can’t blame their education, just their lack of common sense. A good education would cover the founding of our country and understanding of our constitution and the results of having that constitution so people could understand how it contributed to making this country great. It would cover the ideas of liberalism and the facts of what has happened when liberals are in charge. It would give a solid factual foundation for people to choose instead of emotion.
What I see in Bodie and Thomas is not a real dedication to liberalism but just a hatred of their cartoonish view of conservatives. What I see in most liberals is that they are against things, really strongly against, and feel justified in being as vicious and mean and hateful as they can be because they feel they are right in being so much against whatever it is they hate. What I see in conservatives is that they are for things and have a hard time understanding why the other side is so hateful and nasty instead of arguing on facts.
“This movement isn’t something that is inorganic or fake…people demand more from their government, and that government shall deliver. Period.”
Perfect example of what we are up against. Just how many Thamases are out there? Tens of millions? Does it matter? To keep him happy you have to keep the money flowing. Will any one presidential candidate be able to stop it?
Thomas is saying “pay me, because I exist” You tell me how to stop people like him.
what?
you deny that people who elect people to government want government in turn to be there for them?
so you’d rather elect people to government, and then don’t require them to do anything but maintain a military?
get outta here.
I never said what you quoted and attributed to me. try to not lie next time around. It will make discussion with you easier.
“Pay me, because I exist” That ,Thomas is exactly what you are saying. You will not be happy until whatever free thought you have left is controlled by the government.
Cradle to grave, you want to be taken care of and have somebody else take care of you. And you want it by any means. If by some magic trick the repubs are able to shut the money off I belive it would not take you long to start your class war.
Give this, give that, and if you dont you are an evil racist. Blah blah blah
talk about cartoonish world views….wow. you’re truly deluded.
in the future, don’t fake quote people. stick to what you know. I know that limits what you can post, but it’s best for you.
Also, I work and pay taxes, who ever said I need cradle to grave support? but I do expect my tax dollars to be put to good use. good public transport, good healthcare, cheap healthcare, good schools, good roads, decent social security, and some other things.
If expecting something for your tax dollars to the treasury is cradle to grave…then count me in and sign me up.
..in the future, don’t fake quote people. stick to what you know. – thomas
You make a living doing that thomas. Practice what you preach.
Thomas you never point out where in our constitution the federal government has the legal right to do what you say it ought to do and you never have a plan for changing the constitution to allow the federal government to do what you want it to do. You just want to ignore the constitution. Do you have a contract with your employer? Do you expect that contract to be binding on both of you? Do you think you can demand that your employer do more and give more than what the contract says? Do you even know what a contract is? Do you know what a law is?
Do you think all laws ought to be so flexible they can mean one thing one day and another thing another day? Do you think contracts ought to be just suggestions instead of binding? We consider the constitution to be a binding contract with Americans and also established law. Maybe if you would take the time to study our constitution and understand it you would not sound so stupid and childish when you have a temper tantrum and demand that we just ignore it and give you what you want. Try that at work first and let us know how that works out.
….but I do expect my tax dollars to be put to good use. good public transport, good healthcare, cheap healthcare, good schools, good roads, decent social security, and some other things. – thomas
Loved the bit about healthcare – not only good healthcare but cheap too. Thomas may expect it, but he sure wont hold any of them accountable for it. Our congress critters have raided SS, not a word from Thomas. The liberally controlled DOE oversees a multitude of failing schools, not a word from Thomas. Many of our roads are old and in decay, and an $800 billion stimulus package was designed to correct it, but not a word from Thomas.
And I am curious as to what “some other things” are.
The reason for failing schools is not because of liberals. One of the main problems with our public schools today is NCLB. Terrible legislation. The majority of liberals are better educated than the majority of conservatives.
Since “cheap health care” seems to offend you, how about affordable health care? Is that offensive?
Oh, so now the reason children can’t learn is because they are supposed to take tests to see if they have learned anything. I suppose you think that makes sense. The only reason anyone thought NCLB was necessary was because our children were getting out of school without knowing anything. If our education here is so good we would not need a federal plan to test students to see if their teachers teach them anything. If liberals are better educated than conservatives why don’t you even know or understand liberalism, conservatives sure have a better grasp of the constitution than you do of the writings and actions of your chosen side.
Affordable health care is an excellent goal. Please tell us where in the constitution the federal government has any responsibility for providing it. See, there is some more of that education showing up. You don’t even know what the constitution of your own country says and you claim liberals are better educated than conservatives?
luckee, lucky for the US, not every law must come from the Constitution. If a law is Constitutional, they it stands upon the Supreme Court rulings. We as a nation have a Congress that enacts laws – statutes and regulations. Unless the law is deemed unconstitutional it becomes the law of the land. No where in the Constituiton say that the state has the authority to determine speed limits (afterall, the founding fathers did not know about cars when signed). Our nation has evolved since the Constitution was signed by our founding fathers and as such so do our laws. There is NOTHING, to the best of my knowledge, in the Constitution that even addresses the issue of health care or any other modern day issues. Those of you who believe the Constitution is a dead document need to re-think such thinking. How can a dead document continue to serve this nation if it cannot be applicable today and is interperted so narrowly? I do not believe that it what they intended to have happen.
So luckee, you can stop lecturing me on the Constitution. And teaching children how to take and past national tests does not necessarily mean students are really learning anything but how to pass a test. NCLB is terrible legislation. It dictates how teachers are to teach their students – which is very ineffectual in most instantces. Ask any teacher what value these constant tests serve and most will tell you they do not do what was intended. If this is not working it needs to end and put into place teaching methods that really do work. If it is broken (and it is) it should be fixed for the sake of the children.
One more thing luckee – I do not believe I wrote that the government should be responsible for providing health care. I merely said that affordable health care would be good – for everyone – but the insurance industry.
“The time is coming when one side or the other will prevail”
Yup, and your side is steadily losing. People just aren’t holding the anti-gay bigotry you want them to hold, Mark, and your desperate attempt to be a victim isn’t exactly helping your cause.
the atheistic, left = marxist = communist = nazi = abortion = sodomy = EVIL.
there is becoming a huge divide and a bigger chasm between the light of God = Christianity,
and darkness the marxist left and islam.
We were warned of this as the end times draw near.
scummy, boobie, thomasTurban are mere symptoms of what is to come.
buckle up and cling to God, your bible and your gun.
boobie
sodomy is a pathology, a disease, a sickness filled perversion.
repulsion of this mental illness is not bigotry, and never will be.
have fun and enjoy what you reap.
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)
Bodie,
Demography is destiny – and liberals have far fewer children than conservatives do. You’re doomed to disappear…to be sure, you’ll reappear again and again until the End…it is a disease of civilization that it must continually rebuild because it is continually destroyed by the last heirs, who set about undermining the very thing which created the civilization they live in. But, you’re time is already passing…you are thinking yourselves on the verge of eternal victory when you are actually the last gasp of a dying worldview. The only slight advantage you have at the moment is that most kids are still forced to attend the government-funded, liberal-indoctrination centers (you call them “schools” in a laughable attempt to convince all and sundry that education goes on there)…it is there that liberalism is force-fed in to the children of conservatism. But we’ve got the answer to that in school choice…and it is slowly spreading, and liberals who really know understand that if we kick them off the education system, then there is no way to maintain power, or even survive (the fight in Wisconsin was ultimately about just that – keeping liberalism in control of the schools; all else was secondary).
Mark, have you read anything about Indiana’s school choice initiative lately. Got libbies begging parents not to take thier kids out of public schools. Look for Mr.Holder to step in do something about it.
“you are thinking yourselves on the verge of eternal victory when you are actually the last gasp of a dying worldview.”
Finally, a succinct statement about the Tea Party!
But seriously, Mark, people just aren’t holding to homophobia and hatred like you want them to. They’re realizing that for all your fire-and-brimstone blather (and related pathetic inanities like your paranoia about “liberal-indoctrination centers”–there’s that conservative fear of facts and education!), you really don’t have much of a point to make aside from feeling that gays are icky because, well, the Bible says so. Gay bashing used to be a good way to whip up the right-wing base, but it’s a tactic that’s suffering diminishing returns (how’s it working out for ya, Santorum?), and with good reason: People just don’t buy it anymore. Not that this will get you to stop clutching your pearls and pretending to be victimized by the mere existence of gays–nothing will accomplish that.
GMB,
No, hadn’t looked in to it…but I’m sure that even the smallest wedge of choice in education is putting liberals in a dither. They are losing their captive audience.
Bodie,
This is from a lesson plan on the Civil War considered appropriate for grades 9-12:
The exercise eventually divides up the class in to three sections – on representing northerners, one southerners and one slaves…with a series of bizarre evolutions which are claimed to help the students understand the Civil War but which don’t impart any actual facts related to that event.
That is the quality of education in the public school system…better if the kids never went at all than be subjected to such mind-numbing garbage.
Mark Edward Noonan August 30, 2011 at 7:32 pm #
“This is from a lesson plan on the Civil War considered appropriate for grades 9-12:
…As Americans we have had our share of experiences. Since our inception, with the American Revolutionary War, we have been at war. Furthermore, in our 200 plus years of existence there was one war that cannot be compared to any other in terms of American loss of lives and destruction. This war was the American Civil War. As in any civil war there is no winner- only a loser, as losses on both sides constitute the total loss of that country…”
Two questions.
1- Where did you get this “lesson”? I’m guessing either a right wing site or a textbook.
2- How would you have taught this lesson differently? Just so you know, I would have made a lot of changes as it’s not a very well designed lesson.
Casper,
Just looked it up – and I bet I could look up more and more and keep finding worse and worse garbage. I realize the class time is limited and so it would probably be difficult to bring in to it really comprehensive detail…but to baldly state that no one won the Civil War is absurdly stupid; ie, it’s liberal.
“Inside of every liberal there is an NKVD agent straining to break free?
I think that’s a bit alarmist.
Yeah you are right. I would of used KGB agent. They are kinder and gentler than thier predecessors.
GMB
yup, or the SS both out of the same cloth.
*would have
John,
I don’t think so – a long number of years studying these people tells me precisely what they would do if given the power to do it.
Mark
they show us EVERY day who they are and what they WILL do.
http://thereligionofpeace.com/
HOW MANY DID
COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER?*
By R.J. Rummel
Note that I completed this study in November 1993 while still engaged in collecting democide data. Not all the democide totals I mention here may be complete, therefore. For final figures on communist megamurderers, see my summary Table 1.2 in my Death by Government. For all final estimates, see the summary table in Statistics of Democide
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
“I think that’s a bit alarmist.”
Oh, it’s well past alarmist and into the realm of the outright ridiculous. The fact that Mark thinks it’s a sober, rational viewpoint says an awful lot about Mark’s connection with reality, or rather, his lack thereof.
Jeffy, is this person an alarmist and has he gone into the realm of the outright ridiculous?
http://nation.foxnews.com/congressional-black-caucus/2011/08/30/congressional-black-caucus-declares-war-tea-party
We have a whole group of leftists who believe this non-sense and many of those are in the Democratic side of the House and Senate, and even the White House!!!
Of course, you will deny simply because of the source.
Also, I guess you forgot about the Reno ATF? Or are we just being a bunch of alarmists? How about Big Sis Napolitano and her views of the right being a bunch of home grown terrorists?
Please stop with your mental diarrhea for once.
Because you have a proven inability to multitask (and even proven difficulties with mon-tasking), let’s just start with the dumbest of your statements, shall we?
“How about Big Sis Napolitano and her views of the right being a bunch of home grown terrorists?”
1. Is this a lie or just the latest in a very long line of examples of your lack of reading comprehension? I’ll let you make the call, but please understand that this is one instance in which I will give you no free reading comprehension lessons, so if the answer is, in fact, a reading comprehension failure on your part, then you’re going to have to help yourself with it for once, moocher.
2. Do you deny the existence of right-wing domestic terrorism?
Bodie is there supposed to be an idea in there or is your purpose in life nothing more than showing off how rude you are?
Bitch-slapping time for jeffy (bodie) again:
1) FACT (here is one of many examples):
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/
2) I never denied it. The extremely FEW times in history of “domestic right wing terrorism” are overshadowed and massively outnumbered by those of the left.
Again, jeffy, your mental diarrhea needs to stop as well as your ability to be truly dishonest by choice.
Your pathetic example of dodge, deflect and lie has been easily countered AGAIN. You will never admit the fear mongering and “the sky is falling” shouts of alarm by the left.
Thanks for playing. You lost. Get over it.
So you’re upset about a report on right-wing extremism that the Bush administration asked for and that in no way, shape, or form declared that the right is “a bunch of homegrown terrorists,” but merely pointed out that there is, in fact, domestic right-wing terrorism (something even somebody of your extremely limited mental abilities understands) and detailed where these terrorists might be and who they might try to recruit to join them. Oh, and it was not Napolitano’s report. This all means that the answer to question 1 the former answer: It’s a lie. Big shocker that you’d have to rely on lies to make an argument, though I suppose it is a change of pace from your monumental failures in reading comprehension of late.
And your losing streak continues with no end in sight. This is pretty sad, but then again, you’re a grown man who doesn’t know the definition of the word “everything,” so “sad” is just your normal life. Buck up, though, kiddo–the Law of Averages says you’ve gotta emerge victorious sometime, right?
Awwwwww, poor bodie apparently cannot read…. or just too eager to continue on with your mindless rants…..
You missed the HEADLINE: “Napolitano stands by controversial report”
Regardless of who wrote it, asked for it, etc. etc. SHE STANDS BY IT AND WILL MAKE POLICY FROM IT!!!
You also missed the most important:
“In her statement Wednesday, Ms. Napolitano defended the report, which says “rightwing extremism” may include groups opposed to abortion and immigration, as merely one among several threat assessments. But she agreed to meet with the head of the American Legion, who had expressed anger over the report, when she returns to Washington next week from a tour of the U.S.-Mexico border.”
So anyone who is expressing their 1st amendment rights by protesting (opposing) abortion, ILLEGAL immigration are a bunch of “rightwing extremists”. They are included in the threat assessments and responses to those threats will be determined.
Sheesh, you are monumentally dumb.
So once again, I have proved you to be the dumbed down drone that you are. You have been sufficiently bitch-slapped for one day.
Thanks for playing, you lost again.
“So anyone who is expressing their 1st amendment rights by protesting (opposing) abortion, ILLEGAL immigration are a bunch of “rightwing extremists”.”
Ah, so it’s a reading comprehension failure on your part (evidently the word “may” gives you as much trouble as the word “everything” does. Basic vocabulary is a pretty bad Achilles heel to have, tired; no wonder you spend so much time being an angry, embarrassing failure). As I indicated above, you’re getting no free help from me on that in this thread. You’ve gotta do for yourself at some point, moocher, and there’s no time like the present. Best of luck to you! And my sympathies to your tutor.
“may” does not exclude jeffy. Are you tired of getting bitch-slapped yet?
She states they can be considered. Why should a person(s) expressing their 1st amendment rights be placed on a domestic terror watch list or even considered for such a list?
She said it, get over it.
You are just desperate to grasp at any frayed little thread for an wiggle room or weasel words to deny the whole thing. Yes you will deny EVERYTHING for the word MAY.
Try again, drone. You lost. You can’t deal with defeat at all can you?
Wow, when are you going to exercise the first rule of holes?
Ta ta, loser.
So you still don’t understand the definition of the word “may” (or the definition of the word “everything,” for that matter)? Geez, tired. You’re going to go into serious debt having to pay for all the tutoring you require.
“She states they can be considered.”
Do you think they can’t be? Or is that question too complicated for you, given your long, long track record of failure and proven deficiencies in basic grammar and reading comprehension?
I’ll give you some time to work it out. Ask your tutor for help if you need to. That’s what you’re paying him or her for, right?
I read Stacy’s blog. The “offense” was vague: rubbing elbows? Plus if it bothered her, why didn’t she speak to the people involved? It was a chance for different people to learn about each other. She might have learned that they too were parents who had similar concerns for their children. But that’s not what Stacy wanted, rather she just preferred to vilify them in her blog.
Me thinks M.E.N. secretly fancies MEN, lol
YOU ARE A CUNT 🙂