Bigbrog

My overall point was this...instead of inferring I mean something based on what I wrote, more people should say "Did you mean xyz when you posted that?" I am guilty of not asking that question, but I try really hard to ask that question. But it is also hard to have a conversation with someone who constantly does that. I am a person who loves to have a conversation about everything, especially when I believe differently than someone else, but I can't stand people that get overly emotional about things (including using one off over-emotional examples to try and make a point), are completely closed minded, or aren't willing to truly understand the other person's opinion. Some of my best friends and I have the best conversations when we disagree, but in the end, we always still love each other. Heck there are people on these boards who I disagree with a lot but would love to hang out with and would probably get along with great (ex. Bob, Plasi, etc.). But of course, there are people on here who are complete wackadoodles that I am not sure I would, but man it would be cool to meet them to see if their internet persononna matches the real person...lol You seem decent enough dude as you are good at not jumping to the name calling. Just hoping you'd ask me if I meant something before just assuming I do. I am self admittedly not the best writer in the world.

Post of the week!!

What I mean is that a parent should have knowledge of what their child is learning...there are things that the education institutions do have expertise in in terms of the core subjects and what and when in regard to those; however, I also believe parents, through the proper channels should have a say/opinion in what those core subjects are...in terms of generalities. As for sexual education and gender topics, this is something I believe parents should have a lot of say in. Do I say that because of religious beliefs...no. Do I say that because I don't believe in alternative lifestyles and those who want to identify as something other than their assigned sex at birth...no. I say that in it is an extremely important topic and I want to know what my kid is being taught and I also should have a say in what I think is "graphic" in nature in terms of those topics. I am not sure how this somehow gets twisted into this "isn't my lane" and "leave it to the experts" b.s.?? That is the point I was trying to make. The sentence about having an opinion about kids is only allowed when you have kids as a sarcastic response to dumb dumb ban's post about not being able to have an opinion about education if you aren't a teacher. I'm done responding directly to the idiot.

LOL...well let's let Ban decide since he thinks he is the one that determines who get's an opinion on topics. In all seriousness...nice!! Bet your family gatherings are amazing?? And I believe if you have kids then you are MORE than qualified to have an opinion about how and what they are taught in schools. Juat because someone is educated in education and is a teacher doesn't mean they are the all knower's of everything kid. They know how to teach the core subjects to students, not that they are experts in every aspect of kids and every subject matter a kid should learn about as they grow up.

Anyone know about this Dean Phillips that is going to run against Biden for the D nomination?

Those of you on here that do not have kids do not get to have an opinion on things that impact kids.

More than happy to have a conversation about this when you can realize you are not all knowing, and when you stop inferring things about me and what my believes are so I fit a narrative you are making up in your head. If you disagree with what I specifically said in a post, without extrapolating that to mean something other than what it says, then please do so, otherwise don't waste your time responding.

Again...is the government way of distributing money to those in need the only way to do it, because that is today's society, and I should go live in the woods because I disagree? But then turn around and say it isn't working...so which is it??

So the government system is or isn't working??? But overall I agree with what you are saying. Because I am the way I am, and it has NOTHING to do with not wanting to help those in need, I'd love to dig into more of the data that indicates 1 out of 10 Americans is either hungry or malnourished.

Because you live in our society. You drink our water, eat our food, use our roads, etc... If you don't want to chip in, go live in the woods by yourself.

Again I agree with the second half...and my personal choice would be to give money to organizations that align with what my ideas of a person of need is (more than likely what my ideas are would not be too far off from the vast majority of people)...I also would NOT take into consideration any of the things you say, but along those lines who are you or anyone else in the place to choose for me?

Who said anyone's feelings are hurt?? Boy some of you sure like to play psychics on here. I think you are missing a major point, I am not advocating for ANY bureaucratic hurdles...I am advocating for individual choice on how and how much money is spent. And I'll throw out this caveat...I am NOT talking about disaster relief...that is a WHOLE other topic. I am talking about individual people who need help. There are plenty of PRIVATE charity organizations that do it 10 times better than the government. And those who donate get to see how the money is spent and to whom. And if you choose to give to people no matter what...FINE...than you give to organizations that do that...problem solved!

You were doing so well with this paragraph until the parentheses. That is the problem right there...blaming one side or the other. Bottom line is both sides do need to work together but the attitude of "If they would just do it my way" never works...then division is caused. And both sides blame the other for starting it first.

BS...that is an emotional talking point based on political ideology and you know it.

My opinion for that statement is because most of the personal charity requires more than just a hand reaching out. The government doesn't require anything but the hand; thus, it is easy to make that assertation.

Agreed...except the divide happens when the government uses a broad stroke in terms of who needs what and how much...i.e., some people and the current administration support those who are in need no matter WHY they are in need. I don't agree with that. Again, I am all for helping the community and my fellow man/person/human, but I'd prefer to have control over that help. I live by the saying, before you get help, you have to do something to help yourself first. And no I won't entertain the discussion of the one off extreme-emotional examples some of you are going to inevitably throw out there.

I agree with this...there are people who feel it is the governments job to determine how people's money is spent to help those in need, and there are people, like me, who want to be able to choose how and where my money is spent in helping out those in need. To me the "why" people get mad over these types of differences is because one is mandated and the other is based on choice. I am all for helping others less fortunate, but it should be my choice who and when and how much, not the government, and definitely not some of you on these forums.

Despite the stupid first sentence I see what you are saying. But the last sentence could be used in the opposite direction as well. I do feel that the majority of teachers are in a terrible position in regards to their role in today's society...they are damned if the do and they are damned if they don't. No matter what, they get "attacked" by "one side or the other". My opinion of what the root cause of this problem is is that most of their administrations are terrible (at least in my little circle and based on what I hear from friends and family across the country and read about)! And I think they get that way because they are "political" roles in that they are voted on. Thus, like all politicians, their motivation may differ than what is the motivation of parents and teachers and teaching our kids core subjects. Not to mention teachers get abused by kids and are not able to discipline in any sort of way these days.

VERY rarely do I feel threads should be locked or deleted, but actually agree...please @BobDole

Actually agree with this...and it's why we ask. But wish this held true for all topics...but it doesn't. Ex. There is a school board in New Jersey who canceled Halloween activities in the schools in their district due to DEI "things"...many many examples of things getting "banned" because a very small few feel "offended"....flags, signs, etc. If it is wrong for the books it should be wrong for a lot of other things. And I'd say we "ban" things that have WAY LESS impact on kids then explicit books describing sexual acts and/or gender identity issues.

I agree @WrestlingRasta with that part of the post other then the part of "become less conservative". Again why insert any sort of "politics" into that statement...it should hold water regardless of political affiliation. By engaging in the activity the post suggests does not make you not a conservative and not doing it doesn't make you a conservative. It's just a good thing to do. This isn't directed at you rasta...but back on the book "banning" and the dissertation the take down dude wrote, It is so full of generalities as assumption it starts to lose any sort of objectivity or logical meaning. I also find it completely ridiculous to keep using the word "expert" when talking about what is appropriate for kids and what isn't. I am sorry, I AM the expert when it comes to my kid and what is appropriate in terms of when he should learn about sexuality and gender related issues. I am a very "liberal" parent in terms of those issues as I feel it is important for my kid to feel comfortable talking about those things in order for him to make the best decisions and I can help guide him as appropriate. However, it is 100% within my prevue to decide if he should be exposed to gender identity topics and related acts in k-3! And to try and disregard someone as a parent by continually using the term "expert" and "fear" is actually laughable...I never understood how someone else can claim to know what someone truly feels in their heart without ever meeting them...but hey...it's the internet and people can say whatever they want and claim to be an "expert" on every topic. But no one will ever try and pretend to be the "expert" in terms of what is best for my kid. I'll ask this of @ThreePointTakedown...if two or three kids parents, or the kids themselves would be offended by the type of books in questions should the books be removed from access in school??

All those trying to "define" conservatism better never once complain when someone explains liberal with totally overexaggerated generalities and use extreme examples from a small percentage of people as way to describe a large portion of peoples believes. And my favorite example, if people want to make sure logic and reason is brought into the conversation about which books k-3 graders have access equates them to they love "banning books" and "don't say gay" laws. You all are freaking laughable!

Care to explain more? How do you view conservatives as protecting fragility as their hallmark? And how do conservatives not embrace differences?

Awww...man...I would have so traveled to Pennsylvania to see this!! I would have put a grand on Husker...easy money. But I'd settle for not having to read his crap....

Ugh...so hard to have conversations when people are so narrow minded and can't think past their nose...anyway, on to the original question, I am not sure she needs to be arrested. I am all for free speech, but as been discussed ad nauseum on here, free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want in the workplace. Unfortunately, the majority of RT's employment rest in the hands of voters. I do not agree with what she spews...on a lot of topics...but bashing and saying antisemitic things about a very close ally of the US, the very country she works for, is...well...terrible. I can't believe even some of her supporters aren't turning against her, but maybe they are. Sad really...sitting members of our government shouldn't be allowed to stand behind known terrorist organizations. And please spare me the stupid rhetoric of "The US is the biggest terrorist organization in the world". If you truly think that you are clearly a complete moron. Anyway, I hope her and people like AOC eventually are voted out of office...they have terrible views and shouldn't be allowed to have say in legislation for the US.