How Textbooks Push Children to the Left

[daveman]

SS would be sustainable if it would stay for SS only. Medicare in it's current form IS unsustainable and it is grossly unfair.

President Johnson, a good Democrat, put SS monies into the General Fund.

So you can thank the left for making SS unsustainable.

I know WHO did it. And I know that left, if they get what they want - a constant grip on power - will cut all the benefits they feel like it cold turkey. Left does not care about anybody except getting into power and staying there. Then they can do whatever they want - and they WILL.

Yup. And their sycophants and bootlickers will make excuses. They'll eat the shit sandwich they're given, and tell us normal people it's yummy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are no new ideas from the left. All they have is old, historically-proven failed ideas.

Is social security historically-proven to have failed? You "conservatives" would have to take in the old folks like the days before FDR. How about Medicare? Try getting your government hands off the most die hard teabagger's medicare.

Now what specific things have conservatives ever given the average person that would equal S.S or Medicare? Specific things now, not generalizations.

given?

both social security and medicare are earned benefits

And both would never have been put in place had conservatives ever had the kind of majority that thank you jesus they can never get in our government.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

What was rational about wanting to preserve the institution of slavery?

What was rational about wanting to deny women the right to vote?

Are you a dolt? No need to answer that, it was a rhetorical question.

What's rational about assigning 19th Century attitudes to 21st Century conservatives?

Perhaps you should re-assess what you consider rational.

I said what WAS rational about those things. That was conservatism in those times. You claimed conservatism is the basis for rational thought.

lol, a hundred years from now the future you will be complaining to the future me that I'm out of line for trying to pin crazy 21st century conservative beliefs on 22nd century conservatives.

No, it wasn't conservatism at the time. What you would call the religious right then was adamantly against slavery. The women's suffrage movement arose from the same place.

You seem to equate conservatism with bigotry and stupidity while displaying those qualities in your posts.

It's amusing to watch.

Conservatives acknowledge the need for change when needed, not for the sake of change or to be considered trendy.

You have a jaundiced, myopic view of history from your "studies" at government schools. Sadly, it's probably impossible for you to improve yourself, since acknowledging your ignorance is the first step toward education and you are obviously unwilling to do that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Another consequence of the government monopoly on affordable education.



And if government didn't control all aspects of affordable education, from which school you can attend, to what's in the text books, to how many frickin' tater tots get served at lunch...parents WOULD be aware of what their children are being taught because they'd have CHOICE in education.

The central planners do NOT know what's best for your family.

Then write a letter to your town, city, or state since they control schooling.

The federal government exerts control over local schools by withholding funding.

Stop pretending it doesn't.

The federal government protects your 2nd amendment rights. Do you consider that an overreach of big central government?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you a dolt? No need to answer that, it was a rhetorical question.

What's rational about assigning 19th Century attitudes to 21st Century conservatives?

Perhaps you should re-assess what you consider rational.

I said what WAS rational about those things. That was conservatism in those times. You claimed conservatism is the basis for rational thought.

lol, a hundred years from now the future you will be complaining to the future me that I'm out of line for trying to pin crazy 21st century conservative beliefs on 22nd century conservatives.

No, it wasn't conservatism at the time. What you would call the religious right then was adamantly against slavery. The women's suffrage movement arose from the same place.

You seem to equate conservatism with bigotry and stupidity while displaying those qualities in your posts.

It's amusing to watch.

Conservatives acknowledge the need for change when needed, not for the sake of change or to be considered trendy.

You have a jaundiced, myopic view of history from your "studies" at government schools. Sadly, it's probably impossible for you to improve yourself, since acknowledging your ignorance is the first step toward education and you are obviously unwilling to do that.

Stop being an asshole. Stop! Now! Slavery was supported by conservatives who believed their states' rights justified keeping the federal government out of it.

The abolitionists were not conservatives. Trying to claim religion as a conservative monopoly is absurd.

You forget that Martin Luther King, for example, was a reverend.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, conservatives consistently demonstrate that they are still in favor of slavery and denying women's rights.

Well, most of them know better than to advocate such things outright,

but it is absolutely true that conservatives overwhelmingly support such things as the right to discriminate, based on race and gender, in such things as business and employment.

No, we support the right for individuals to run their businesses as they see fit.

The totalitarian left uses racial and sexual discrimination as a wedge to control that which they have no legitimate right to control.

There is no right for individuals to run their businesses as they see fit, if 'fit' includes racial and gender discrimination.

The fact that you claim that racism is a right makes you at worst a racist, or at best a racist sympathizer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That was conservatism in those times.

Bullshit, as I proved. Here, ignore this post again, you coward.

Nothing. Which is why Democrats wanted to keep it.
Democratic Party's Position on Slavery

The utterly false, abnormal, and fatal position which this nation has occupied toward men of African descent is being rapidly changed to the natural and simple one which other civilized people maintain. Nor would there be any serious difficulty in immediately establishing it except for two things—the prejudice which always prevails in a country against an enslaved race, and the party capital which in this country is made out of it.

Such a person as Vallandigham, for instance, who comes from Ohio, is in practical collusion with slavery and its effort to destroy the Government, merely because it serves his political purpose. The slaveholders for many years had worked with the Democratic party. The consequence was that, to secure the unanimous slave section, the Democratic party gradually relinquished all its fundamental principles, and became an association for the propagation and extension of slavery and the annihilation of the safeguards of liberty. The consequence of this in turn was, that as the party left its principles the best Democrats left the party, until at last the Southern leaders stood in open rebellion, and all loyal national Democrats stood against them.​

What was rational about wanting to deny women the right to vote?

Nothing. Which is why a far greater percentage of Republicans voted for the 19th Amendment than did Democrats.

Everything you know is wrong.

You forget that the Republican Party of the early 20th century was not the conservative party it is today.

 

[koshergrl]

What's the evolutionary problem of a small percentage of a species being non-reproductive?

Hell with some species (ants, bees, etc.) almost ALL of the members of the species do not participate in reproduction!

So wee need homosexuals to do drudge work?

 

[daveman]

Then write a letter to your town, city, or state since they control schooling.

The federal government exerts control over local schools by withholding funding.

Stop pretending it doesn't.

The federal government protects your 2nd amendment rights. Do you consider that an overreach of big central government?

I forget -- which amendment gives the Federal government the power to control local education?

 

[koshergrl]

That was conservatism in those times.

Bullshit, as I proved. Here, ignore this post again, you coward.

Nothing. Which is why Democrats wanted to keep it.
Democratic Party's Position on Slavery

The utterly false, abnormal, and fatal position which this nation has occupied toward men of African descent is being rapidly changed to the natural and simple one which other civilized people maintain. Nor would there be any serious difficulty in immediately establishing it except for two things—the prejudice which always prevails in a country against an enslaved race, and the party capital which in this country is made out of it.

Such a person as Vallandigham, for instance, who comes from Ohio, is in practical collusion with slavery and its effort to destroy the Government, merely because it serves his political purpose. The slaveholders for many years had worked with the Democratic party. The consequence was that, to secure the unanimous slave section, the Democratic party gradually relinquished all its fundamental principles, and became an association for the propagation and extension of slavery and the annihilation of the safeguards of liberty. The consequence of this in turn was, that as the party left its principles the best Democrats left the party, until at last the Southern leaders stood in open rebellion, and all loyal national Democrats stood against them.​

Nothing. Which is why a far greater percentage of Republicans voted for the 19th Amendment than did Democrats.

Everything you know is wrong.

You forget that the Republican Party of the early 20th century was not the conservative party it is today.

The Republican Party isn't conservative, pea brain.

The Republican Party of today is the old dem party.

And the Dem party is straight up Progressive...with criminal and anarchist tendencies.

Well progressive/criminal are one and the same anyway.

 

[daveman]

I said what WAS rational about those things. That was conservatism in those times. You claimed conservatism is the basis for rational thought.

lol, a hundred years from now the future you will be complaining to the future me that I'm out of line for trying to pin crazy 21st century conservative beliefs on 22nd century conservatives.

No, it wasn't conservatism at the time. What you would call the religious right then was adamantly against slavery. The women's suffrage movement arose from the same place.

You seem to equate conservatism with bigotry and stupidity while displaying those qualities in your posts.

It's amusing to watch.

Conservatives acknowledge the need for change when needed, not for the sake of change or to be considered trendy.

You have a jaundiced, myopic view of history from your "studies" at government schools. Sadly, it's probably impossible for you to improve yourself, since acknowledging your ignorance is the first step toward education and you are obviously unwilling to do that.

Stop being an asshole. Stop! Now! Slavery was supported by conservatives who believed their states' rights justified keeping the federal government out of it.

The abolitionists were not conservatives. Trying to claim religion as a conservative monopoly is absurd.

You forget that Martin Luther King, for example, was a reverend.

Stop lying. Oh, yes -- you can't.

And MLK was a Republican.

 

[daveman]

That was conservatism in those times.

Bullshit, as I proved. Here, ignore this post again, you coward.

Nothing. Which is why Democrats wanted to keep it.
Democratic Party's Position on Slavery

The utterly false, abnormal, and fatal position which this nation has occupied toward men of African descent is being rapidly changed to the natural and simple one which other civilized people maintain. Nor would there be any serious difficulty in immediately establishing it except for two things—the prejudice which always prevails in a country against an enslaved race, and the party capital which in this country is made out of it.

Such a person as Vallandigham, for instance, who comes from Ohio, is in practical collusion with slavery and its effort to destroy the Government, merely because it serves his political purpose. The slaveholders for many years had worked with the Democratic party. The consequence was that, to secure the unanimous slave section, the Democratic party gradually relinquished all its fundamental principles, and became an association for the propagation and extension of slavery and the annihilation of the safeguards of liberty. The consequence of this in turn was, that as the party left its principles the best Democrats left the party, until at last the Southern leaders stood in open rebellion, and all loyal national Democrats stood against them.​

Nothing. Which is why a far greater percentage of Republicans voted for the 19th Amendment than did Democrats.

Everything you know is wrong.

You forget that the Republican Party of the early 20th century was not the conservative party it is today.

You lie. Yet again, you lie.

And I bet you believe the liberals of today are just like the Classical Liberals the Founding Fathers were.

In fact, had you been there, you personally would have informed on the Revolutionaries to the Crown. You would have been a loyalist. There can be no discussion on this.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bullshit, as I proved. Here, ignore this post again, you coward.

​

You forget that the Republican Party of the early 20th century was not the conservative party it is today.

The Republican Party isn't conservative, pea brain.

The Republican Party of today is the old dem party.

And the Dem party is straight up Progressive...with criminal and anarchist tendencies.

Well progressive/criminal are one and the same anyway.

So if the conservatives aren't in the Republican party today, and they're obviously not in the Democratic Party,

1. who are the modern Republicans?

2. where are the conservatives?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bullshit, as I proved. Here, ignore this post again, you coward.

​

You forget that the Republican Party of the early 20th century was not the conservative party it is today.

You lie. Yet again, you lie.

And I bet you believe the liberals of today are just like the Classical Liberals the Founding Fathers were.

In fact, had you been there, you personally would have informed on the Revolutionaries to the Crown. You would have been a loyalist. There can be no discussion on this.

So the South of a hundred years ago was liberal?? And how exactly did that liberalism manifest itself?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The federal government exerts control over local schools by withholding funding.

Stop pretending it doesn't.

The federal government protects your 2nd amendment rights. Do you consider that an overreach of big central government?

I forget -- which amendment gives the Federal government the power to control local education?

Was Brown vs. Board of Education wrongly decided?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

link us to the texts that cover up slavery and the Indian wars.

Exactly! The problem is these liberals keep wanting to talk about everything America has done wrong. If they'd just shut up there would be no need for a cover up. Our children would grow up increasingly ignorant to the basic facts of America's past misdeeds, and American would be safe. But since these week kneed pansy liberals insist on writing books about these things, America is in peril!

Any suggestions as to what to do? We cannot allow our children to grow up educated!

suggestion:


show us the cover up or shut up

??? THERE IS NONE, can't you READ?

 

[Plasmaball]

Another consequence of the government monopoly on affordable education.



And if government didn't control all aspects of affordable education, from which school you can attend, to what's in the text books, to how many frickin' tater tots get served at lunch...parents WOULD be aware of what their children are being taught because they'd have CHOICE in education.

The central planners do NOT know what's best for your family.

Then write a letter to your town, city, or state since they control schooling.

The federal government exerts control over local schools by withholding funding.

Stop pretending it doesn't.

It really doesnt. Go look at their website. Where they say local and state cover 90%+ and federal is emergency only....
But hey you keep buying the lies, ill use facts...

 

[daveman]

You forget that the Republican Party of the early 20th century was not the conservative party it is today.

You lie. Yet again, you lie.

And I bet you believe the liberals of today are just like the Classical Liberals the Founding Fathers were.

In fact, had you been there, you personally would have informed on the Revolutionaries to the Crown. You would have been a loyalist. There can be no discussion on this.

So the South of a hundred years ago was liberal?? And how exactly did that liberalism manifest itself?

Isn't this where you're supposed to mindlessly screech "Southern Strategy!!"?

Now, you just run along and report me to ATTACK WATCH!! for saying you'd inform on people to a powerful government.

 

[daveman]

The federal government protects your 2nd amendment rights. Do you consider that an overreach of big central government?

I forget -- which amendment gives the Federal government the power to control local education?

Was Brown vs. Board of Education wrongly decided?

What part of the Constitution -- if any -- was it based on? NOTE: It has to be in the REAL Constitution, not the blank liberal one.

 

[velvtacheeze]

The failure of the Dubya administration is what has pushed young people to the left.

Duh!