Making Our Children Stalinists

[Mustang]

You obviously do not. So perhaps you need to question your idea of what constitutes morality, especially if you consider yourself as someone who believes in moral absolutes. So, let me put essentially the same question to you about something that's both equivalent in terms of the example, but it's also less immediate because it happened a long time ago, and anyone who participated in the events or witnessed the events has long since died. Keep in mind that this is a historical fact.

Back in the 1800s, marauding Indians killed settlers and their families, members of wagon trains, farmers and their families etc.

Back in the 1800s, American cavalry rode into villages and killed innocent old men, women, and children even when the young men were away in hunting parties.

Do you consider those events to be morally equivalent?

I sort of do. Because humans who were enlightened, even when facing ills, would be able to separate misguidance from murder (especially of women and children).

To clarify:

If a fleet of men were killing my people: men, women and children, I wouldn't then find it justified to kill their women and children also (in any moral sense).

Since you don't read, you probably don't know that most of the "genocide of Indians" is a Liberal myth.

You sound EXACTLY like a holocaust denier!

 

[Plasmaball]

Making Our Children Stalinists

Oh, no! Warn Political Chic: the KGB and the NKVD are onto her.

You can actually become relevant by engaging the OP.

Novel approach?

you wont even engage people like a debate

 

[koshergrl]

Making our children civilized = Stalinist. People like you are no different then the Taliban and muslim brotherhood that wants our children to bow to rocks throughout the middle east.

We should be spending more money on education and demanding better teachers.

Leftist drones always maintain that socialism and anti-American sentiment is the epitome of being "civilized".

It's akin to their equally slavish devotion to the ass backwards concept that killing babies is actually good for babies.


A perfect world, lefty-style:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/inside-north-korea-video-photos-1826234

 

[Moonglow]

You obviously do not. So perhaps you need to question your idea of what constitutes morality, especially if you consider yourself as someone who believes in moral absolutes. So, let me put essentially the same question to you about something that's both equivalent in terms of the example, but it's also less immediate because it happened a long time ago, and anyone who participated in the events or witnessed the events has long since died. Keep in mind that this is a historical fact.

Back in the 1800s, marauding Indians killed settlers and their families, members of wagon trains, farmers and their families etc.

Back in the 1800s, American cavalry rode into villages and killed innocent old men, women, and children even when the young men were away in hunting parties.

Do you consider those events to be morally equivalent?

I sort of do. Because humans who were enlightened, even when facing ills, would be able to separate misguidance from murder (especially of women and children).

To clarify:

If a fleet of men were killing my people: men, women and children, I wouldn't then find it justified to kill their women and children also (in any moral sense).

Since you don't read, you probably don't know that most of the "genocide of Indians" is a Liberal myth.

Or the truth being covered up by right wingers.

 

[Moonglow]

Making our children civilized = Stalinist. People like you are no different then the Taliban and muslim brotherhood that wants our children to bow to rocks throughout the middle east.

We should be spending more money on education and demanding better teachers.

Leftist drones always maintain that socialism and anti-American sentiment is the epitome of being "civilized".

It's akin to their equally slavish devotion to the ass backwards concept that killing babies is actually good for babies.

project much?

 

[Plasmaball]

Making our children civilized = Stalinist. People like you are no different then the Taliban and muslim brotherhood that wants our children to bow to rocks throughout the middle east.

We should be spending more money on education and demanding better teachers.

Leftist drones always maintain that socialism and anti-American sentiment is the epitome of being "civilized".

It's akin to their equally slavish devotion to the ass backwards concept that killing babies is actually good for babies.

project much?

its all the nazi wannabe can do.

 

[Moonglow]

Leftist drones always maintain that socialism and anti-American sentiment is the epitome of being "civilized".

It's akin to their equally slavish devotion to the ass backwards concept that killing babies is actually good for babies.

project much?

its all the nazi wannabe can do.

just think how they scour and leer at them in public.
I saw a bumper sticker on an old mini-van at Wal Mart while getting my tires fixed.
The van was driven by a man that weighed at least 300 pounds. On the bumper was an anti-liberal sticker, the usual how we keep people from producing and inhibit economic growth.
Then on the back windshield was a hand written sign it stated, Need help-Can you give.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I sort of do. Because humans who were enlightened, even when facing ills, would be able to separate misguidance from murder (especially of women and children).

To clarify:

If a fleet of men were killing my people: men, women and children, I wouldn't then find it justified to kill their women and children also (in any moral sense).

Since you don't read, you probably don't know that most of the "genocide of Indians" is a Liberal myth.

Or the truth being covered up by right wingers.

Have an example?

 

[Wry Catcher]

You know....I've seen that giggling thing in other syphilitic idiots, too.


There are medications that might help.....ask the doctor on your ward if they are right for you.

Are you smarter than me, though?

I have my doubts. Strong ones, like lesbian WWE wrestler strong.

Is the Pope Catholic???


First....let's separate intelligence from education.


Yup.....both.


And...worse news: better lookin.'

Have you noticed Pope Francis has called out the Callous Conservative Christians? Did it bother you, you worked so well with that German fellow?

 

[Moonglow]

Since you don't read, you probably don't know that most of the "genocide of Indians" is a Liberal myth.

Or the truth being covered up by right wingers.

Have an example?

Wounded Knee.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I sort of do. Because humans who were enlightened, even when facing ills, would be able to separate misguidance from murder (especially of women and children).

To clarify:

If a fleet of men were killing my people: men, women and children, I wouldn't then find it justified to kill their women and children also (in any moral sense).

Since you don't read, you probably don't know that most of the "genocide of Indians" is a Liberal myth.

You sound EXACTLY like a holocaust denier!

In that case....please make your argument as to American 'genocide of the Indians," and watch me shred it.

 

[Mustang]

Wanna take a 'shot' at this one:

"So do you feel that, by and large, the Zarqawi-world and the Bush-world are moral equivalents?"

You obviously do not. So perhaps you need to question your idea of what constitutes morality, especially if you consider yourself as someone who believes in moral absolutes. So, let me put essentially the same question to you about something that's both equivalent in terms of the example, but it's also less immediate because it happened a long time ago, and anyone who participated in the events or witnessed the events has long since died. Keep in mind that this is a historical fact.

Back in the 1800s, marauding Indians killed settlers and their families, members of wagon trains, farmers and their families etc.

Back in the 1800s, American cavalry rode into villages and killed innocent old men, women, and children even when the young men were away in hunting parties.

Do you consider those events to be morally equivalent?

I'm certainly not going to try to force you to answer the question.....but I have a sense that you don't find the two morally equivalent.


Perhaps you'd try this one: The essence of the OP is that the works of Howard Zinn are not compatible with the outcome we....I'd....wish for American children.

I was more explicit in post #30.
Would you find that one with that record should be the model for the public school curriculum?



I'll guess you won't want to answer that either...and for the same reasons.

Well, I'm not sure about what you meant exactly since you asked the following question:

So do you feel that, by and large, the Zarqawi-world and the Bush-world are moral equivalents?
​

Well, I don't know what Zarqawi's world is like, but my guess is that Bush's world is pretty nice and comfortable and far removed from the effects of his decisions which led both directly and indirectly to the agonizing deaths of 10s of 1,000s of human beings who didn't have a damn thing to do with 9-11.

As for me, I'm wholly wary of falling into the all too easy trap of defending someone who's responsible for heinous acts of war just because we're the same nationality since that's what historically always seems to happen when the countrymen of some leader seem to think it's okay to do X as long as their leader has given the order.

Also, I'm not a fan of Dennis Prager ever since I heard him describe the time he met Bush and how impressed he was because Bush was such a 'moral man'. Well, I already wasn't a fan of Prager because I knew he was someone who made his living equating conservatism with morality and liberalism with a lack of morals, and that's a nonsensical oversimplification of any and all political issues. I also felt that way because of the fact that he hawks any product whose marketers are willing to pay him to sing their praises, AND the fact that I've caught him in at least ONE huge lie on his radio program. But when he praised Bush as being a moral man, I figured that Prager had willingly sold out his ideas on morality (as well as selling his soul) in order to stay in the good graces of the Republican Party because Bush is probably the least moral man who has sat in the Oval Office in the last 100 years if not longer.

And before you even ask the question, I don't consider a sexual dalliance (or even a thousand sexual dalliances) outside of marriage to be even a close runner up to starting an unnecessary war for BS reasons which ends up leading to the horrible death and maiming of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children as well as soldiers from our own country who depend on our leaders to make wise decisions and not risk their lives unnecessarily.

 

[Stephanie]

I just posted this in a new thread but I think it's fitting in this one too
another example of what they are teaching your children...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...ey-the-government-s-commands.html#post8079239

 

[PoliticalChic]

Or the truth being covered up by right wingers.

Have an example?

Wounded Knee.

1. Where is the cover-up?


2. And....I'd be happy to eviscerate any argument you can muster about Wounded Knee.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You obviously do not. So perhaps you need to question your idea of what constitutes morality, especially if you consider yourself as someone who believes in moral absolutes. So, let me put essentially the same question to you about something that's both equivalent in terms of the example, but it's also less immediate because it happened a long time ago, and anyone who participated in the events or witnessed the events has long since died. Keep in mind that this is a historical fact.

Back in the 1800s, marauding Indians killed settlers and their families, members of wagon trains, farmers and their families etc.

Back in the 1800s, American cavalry rode into villages and killed innocent old men, women, and children even when the young men were away in hunting parties.

Do you consider those events to be morally equivalent?

I'm certainly not going to try to force you to answer the question.....but I have a sense that you don't find the two morally equivalent.


Perhaps you'd try this one: The essence of the OP is that the works of Howard Zinn are not compatible with the outcome we....I'd....wish for American children.

I was more explicit in post #30.
Would you find that one with that record should be the model for the public school curriculum?



I'll guess you won't want to answer that either...and for the same reasons.

Well, I'm not sure about what you meant exactly since you asked the following question:

So do you feel that, by and large, the Zarqawi-world and the Bush-world are moral equivalents?
​

Well, I don't know what Zarqawi's world is like, but my guess is that Bush's world is pretty nice and comfortable and far removed from the effects of his decisions which led both directly and indirectly to the agonizing deaths of 10s of 1,000s of human beings who didn't have a damn thing to do with 9-11.

As for me, I'm wholly wary of falling into the all too easy trap of defending someone who's responsible for heinous acts of war just because we're the same nationality since that's what historically always seems to happen when the countrymen of some leader seems to think it's okay to do X as long as their leader has given the order.

Also, I'm not a fan of Dennis Prager ever since I heard him describe the time he met Bush and how impressed he was because Bush was such a 'moral man'. Well, I already wasn't a fan of Prager because I knew he was someone who made his living equating conservatism with morality and liberalism with a lack of morals, and that's a nonsensical oversimplification of any and all political issues. I also felt that way because of the fact that he hawks any product who's marketers are willing to pay him to sing their praises, AND the fact that I've caught him in at least ONE huge lie on his radio program. But when he praised Bush as being a moral man, I figured that Prager had willingly sold out his ideas on morality (as well as selling his soul) in order to stay in the good graces of the Republican Party because Bush is probably the least moral man who has sat in the Oval Office in the last 100 years if not longer.

And before you even ask the question, I don't consider a sexual dalliance (or even a thousand sexual dalliances) outside of marriage to be even a close runner up to starting an unnecessary war for BS reasons which ends up leading to the horrible death and maiming of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children as well as soldiers from our own country who depend on our leaders to make wise decisions and not risk their lives unnecessarily.

"Well, I don't know what Zarqawi's world is like,...."


AMERICAN ‘Leftist’ NICK BERG’S BEHEADING (WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES) | BARE NAKED ISLAM

 

[Mustang]

I just posted this in a new thread but I think it's fitting in this one too
another example of what they are teaching your children...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...ey-the-government-s-commands.html#post8079239

Were you aware that the promotion of common core standards in schools is being promoted by the States, and not the federal gov't?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Back to the point of the OP?

If Zinn's standing as a doctrinaire communist is too vague, consider this example of how he treats history.


" Some starry-eyed collegian told me Christopher Columbus shouldn’t be celebrated because of his treatment of Indians, armed with nothing more than her University professor’s insistence. If Mark Twain was right that a lie can travel halfway around the world before truth has a chance to put on its shoes, imagine the damage a lie can do over 500 years.

Nor was Columbus involved in the slave trade, as America haters like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky have asserted.

One of his boats crashed in Haiti. He had no room for 39 men, so he started a colony there. Columbus came back a year later to find the Taino Indians killed all of them and left them where they fell.

Columbus went to war with the Tainos and took 500 POWs, not slaves. They were released after the war. Big difference."
Debunking Lies About Columbus: The Story Of Francisco de Bobadilla - Ricochet.com

 

[BlindBoo]

Hahaha, good for Philadelphia.

http://www.lifeaftercapitalism.info...nn-A Peoples-History-Of-The-United States.pdf

....did you agree with Zinn in post #2?

Not enough context.

I like what I saw in the text book however.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Back to the point of the OP?

If Zinn's standing as a doctrinaire communist is too vague, consider this example of how he treats history.


" Some starry-eyed collegian told me Christopher Columbus shouldn’t be celebrated because of his treatment of Indians, armed with nothing more than her University professor’s insistence. If Mark Twain was right that a lie can travel halfway around the world before truth has a chance to put on its shoes, imagine the damage a lie can do over 500 years.

Nor was Columbus involved in the slave trade, as America haters like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky have asserted.

One of his boats crashed in Haiti. He had no room for 39 men, so he started a colony there. Columbus came back a year later to find the Taino Indians killed all of them and left them where they fell.

Columbus went to war with the Tainos and took 500 POWs, not slaves. They were released after the war. Big difference."
Debunking Lies About Columbus: The Story Of Francisco de Bobadilla - Ricochet.com

I followed the link, a 'fascinating' story is that of Francisco de Bobadilla, too bad I could find nothing to verify the 'story' posted by you. No less a source than the Encyclopedia Britannica noted only this:

"Francisco de Bobadilla, (died June 1502, at sea near Hispaniola), Spanish soldier who arrested Christopher Columbus on Santo Domingo (the island of Hispaniola) after dissensions had arisen between Columbus and several of the Spanish adventurers who served under him.

"Bobadilla was a noble who served the Spanish crown in the wars of reconquest against the Moors. He was thought to have been the knight commander of the Calatrava, a Spanish religious-military order of crusaders. In 1500 he was sent to Santo Domingo by Ferdinand and Isabella with the full powers of a royal commissioner and chief justice.

"When Bobadilla landed and discovered that Columbus had hanged five Spaniards, he became so furious that he immediately ordered the arrest of Columbus’ brother, Diego (in charge of the Spanish settlement in Columbus’ absence), impounded Columbus’ papers, and took possession of the town of Santo Domingo. Shortly thereafter, Columbus voluntarily gave himself up and was immediately placed in irons and sent back to Spain by Bobadilla.

Failing to restore order in Santo Domingo, Bobadilla was ordered back to Spain by the monarchs, while Columbus was given back all the honours and titles taken from him after his arrest. On the return voyage to Spain, a hurricane destroyed Bobadilla’s fleet off the coast of Hispaniola, and all were lost."

Which source is most credible? I'll leave that to others to decide for themselves. For me, my investigation was more evidence of what an unabashed troll you are.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh the irony.