thanks for the example. I took the parent the wrong way in thinking his complaint was that TX is doing things that aren't already being done. Instead, he wanted examples of what is being done.
Although I didn't quote the entire text, I didn't take everything out of context. The first amendment one, after reading everything about it, I did misread it. But for the other stuff, you're just pigeon-holing the quoted text to assume that the board of education won't do what I believe to be on their agenda.
So your saying that it's not what they have done, it's what you think they might do? I mean this thread branched because an affirmative statement was made that something was done in which it was unconstitutional.
And no pigeon holing is going on here at all. The text simply does not back up what you are saying. Now if it turns out that in practice, your fears become realized, then that's another story altogether. But so far, it's all in your head. The sky is not falling just yet.
Please explain to me in US law where God is supposed to come into play with politics. I don't care that neither of us know exactly what they're talking about. The problem is that they are bringing a christian God into a politics discussion. There is no room for that.
Stop imposing your made up beliefs into the situation. It is perfectly fine to study and discuss religious influences on event in a historical or philosophical context. That is exactly what that part is. It's the study of ideology, where we are at and how we got there. It would be criminal and revisionist to ignore the influence religion has had on political movements, political policies, and so on. The separation of church and state does not mean God or any religion is removed from anything the state touches, it means they can't promote it or refute it. Understanding history and the influences that caused events to happen does not require religion to disappear. In some of the political movements, removing all mentioned of religion would be as paramount as removing all references to race or skin color when studying the Klu Klux Klan, or removing all references to nationality and geographical borders when studying WWII. It's simply incomplete without it.
It doesn't just mention religious traditions. It explicitly says to reference biblical law. And where exactly in history does it say that biblical law influenced our constitution? I'd like to see a reference to this. Of course, it doesn't exist so its up to them to fabricate a religious link.
Read what the words say, not what you want them to say. It's as if you are missing the forest for all the trees.
It does not say religion influenced the constitution, it says how it influenced the founding pf the nation.
Lets repost that part and I will highlight the words you seem to be missing. I will also make some comments inline. I know you are upset that it simply doesn't say what you were led to believe it said. Being lied to hurts, but don't use that pain as an excuse to set up a wall of denial.
History. The student understands how constitutional government, as developed in the United States, America and expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution, has been influenced by people, ideas, people, and historical documents.
Ok, it said that they are supposed to teach how the founding of the nation was influenced by people, idea, and historical documents. If religion isn't real, it is certainly an idea as expresses. And yes, it certainly did have an influence on the people of the time, including the founding fathers.
The student is expected to: (A) explain major political ideas in history, including the laws of nature and nature's God, unalienable rights natural law, natural rights , divine right of kings, social contract theory, and the rights of resistance to illegitimate government;
(B) identify major intellectual, philosophical, political, and religious tr
I didn't say anything about the land of Israel. I said Israel as in the country that is recognized today by the UN and the rest of the free world.
Perhaps you could benefit from paying attention and not wondering aimlessly on knee jerk reactions. The spot known as Israel today was being settled by jews since the 1300's. I got the 1100's wrong but that a minor point.
My apologies, I took it as if you were simply picking on the aid and ignoring the rest of the problems. It appears that isn't the case at all.
Americans don't really think Africa is full of poor dirt farmers in the sense you seem to be grasping. Poor dirt farmers in the US are actually some of the more intuitive and innovative people around. So even if the conception is there, it's not as bleak of a picture as it would sound.
I remember a line from some mafia movie. It was actually supposed to be said by a high ranking member of the mob. They were complaining about someone causing problems and one guy said "they are just dirt farmers". The reply was- "that's what they said about us when we came from Sicily". I guess the moral was, don't underestimate the resolve of a dirt farmer.
These examples are perhaps not expressed as rights in a legal context, but the obligations to treat the knife wound or refrain from animal mistreatment would not have been codified unless we thought there were underlying ethical reasons for them. We could call these "rights" or we could call them something else; that is mostly a matter of semantics.
Yes, there is an underlying ethical reason for them, it's "when you assume the responsibility to care for or provide and supervise someone or something, you have an obligation to ensure it doesn't unduly deteriorate or be unnecessarily harmed". This doesn't mean they have any rights as you could simply terminate your care for it. This obligation goes to inanimate objects too. If I loaned you a computer, you would have to make sure it worked similar to the way it did when I gave it to you (minus normal wear and tear as would be depreciated) when you returned it or I would have the ability to sue and make it so. The computer doesn't have any rights, but you have obligations. If you spilled coffee on the CD drive and it stopped working, then you would need to replace the CD drive.
In this case, it really isn't semantics. A right is something that you have to chose to give up, an obligation is completely on the caretaker- the object has little or no say in the matter where if they had the rights, there would be more say in the matter.
With regard to treatment of animals, we could have an "obligation" not to kill an otherwise healthy animal if we thought it to be unethical. One could of course argue that slaughtering animals is necessary and that we need to eat them, but to be fair, we have to acknowledge that humans can survive and live healthy lives perfectly well without meat in their diet.
Well, not really. Humans need a b12 vitamin that can only be achieved by eating meat or organisms that contain it. It's true that you can find this b12 if you don't wash your produce and consume soil, feces, and other things the bacteria that produces it thrives on, but that introduces a lot of other problems. This B12 vitamin is crucial to cell division and the creation of blood so it isn't some minor thing either. Most Vegans of today will get supplement sources added to different products they purchase but without that, they need to eat dirt, feces, or some sort of animal in order to find it. I guess there is a source of sea vegetation that has a high enough concentration of the cadmium that it would work, but the common thought is that it can't be used by humans.
So in essence, we breed and kill animals mainly for the purpose of our enjoyment. It is not totally unreasonable to make the argument that this is, in principle, similar to for example arranging dog fights which is illegal in most countries.
Well, no. we use animals (outside the fact that we need cadmium) to condense energy in our food source. Using animals as food allows up to plant crops that grow better then food crops for the purpose or feeding the animals in which they convert the energy and nutrition to something we can use. Some of these crops are natural vegetation and require little to no effort from humans to produce. Some of then are genetically mutated crops that aren't desirable for human consumption (think Dent Corn and silage or wastes from other food crops)
I used to have an energy density map that would group animals by what they needed to eat verses what they provided in food value to humans. I can't find it any more but raising one pig has the effect of planting 20 acres of corn yet they consume much less then that, especially if you consider giving them table scraps. In other words, you do not need the same amount of arable land to produce animals as you do to produce the equivalent amount of crops you would need to replace the animal. Another benefit of eating animals is that no preservation is needed while they are alive so they can grow in winter when food crops wouldn't.
Conservative does not equal republican. and conservative of 1964 does not equal conservative of today. Your argument is facetious at best, purposely and willfully ignorant otherwise.
I don't knowe and do not care. It doesn't mean what you are attempting to make it out to mean. If you read the entire line and not just what you need in order to impose your point, you would see that it's talking about political ideologies. Here is what you wrote and what you left out
History. The student understands how constitutional government, as developed in the United States, America and expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution, has been influenced by people, ideas, people, and historical documents. The student is expected to: (A) explain major political ideas in history, including the laws of nature and nature's God, unalienable rights natural law, natural rights , divine right of kings, social contract theory, and the rights of resistance to illegitimate government; (B) identify major intellectual, philosophical, political, and religious traditions that informed the American founding, including Judeo-Christian (especially biblical law), English common law and constitutionalism, Enlightenment, and republicanism, as they address issues of liberty, rights, and responsibilities of individuals.
Of course you did copy the part about political ideals, I'm surprise that in your feverish knee jerk reaction, that you didn't catch that. But hey, if your goal is one thing, lets not let the facts get in the road of it.
Didn't know that our constitution took roots from the ten commandments
Where does it say that it does? The requirement again is referring to ideology except here it expect the students to understand the traditions of the times that influenced the ideology. I find nothing wrong with that. I think the only way you can is if you take it out of context like you attempted to do.
I could have sworn there was an establishment clause in the First Amendment... but apparently, I have a misunderstanding of whats in the First Amendment.
Again, you are taking this completely out of context. Here is the original
Citizenship. The student understands the importance of the expression of different points of view in a constitutional democratic republic society. The student is expected to: (A) examine analyze different points of view of political parties and interest groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the National Rifle Association (NRA), and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) on important contemporary issues; and (B) analyze the importance of the First Amendment rights of petition, assembly, free speech, and press and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
As you can see, when in context, they are supposed to be studying the role of free speech, how different groups assembled, redressed their government, and exercise those rights and so on. This isn't the study of the first amendment, it's a study avenues to address the government both in the constitution and in real life.
You have provided nothing of value. At most, you have let your insecurities get the best of your imagination. And the worse part is that it appears you didn't even read the quotes you cited as if you are relying on them second hand or something. the least cursory glance at the PDF you cited showed how you took everything completely out of context. Perhaps you should do more critical thinking of your own and less parroting of other people's comments.
well moving out of state may not be something that is easy or easily achieved.
However, that's sort of besides the point in that the federal government is not empowered to take on health care or dictate education to the country. The federal government is supposed to be nothing more then a state figure head to deal with the complexities of state with foreign leaders. It also does some very specific things like build and maintain post roads and so on. All of this is power surrendered by the states when joining the union. That's why things like the 10th amendment reserves everything not surrendered to the federal government for the states of the people of the states.
The US constitution is a permissive document detailing what the US government is allowed to do and some things that it is expressly restricted from doing. It's not supposed to be some massive government in charge of everything like other countries have. This is why federal law can only be enforced when federal jurisdiction becomes relevant. Take murdering your wife, there is a federal law against murder but they can't prosecute you unless you go across state lines or do it on federal property or do something else that invokes their jurisdiction.
Yea, they probably would blab all about it. I mean tit for tat, that's what the Americans did. We blabbed all about the Canadian politicians coming to America for better medical treatment and avoiding the Canadian health system. we blabbed about all the Canadian citizens who purchased health wait insurance and get flow or driven to America for medical services when the wait is too long in Canada.
Hell, we even ran front page stories when the Canadian Supreme court overturned a Queerbeck law forbidding the wait insurance stating that it was a fundamental human right.
It would only make sense that we received repayment in kind. Of course we used those instances to promote or defeat crap in our own country so it's a little different then just stating something in order to politically damage someone from another country.
I did not say that the US innovates more because it's right leaning, I said that when European countries institute leftist policy they tend to be less innovative. In other words, I'm not saying one create the innovation, I'm saying one retards it.
I Also presented an example of that. Any inference outside of what I presented is simply in your mind not mine. Left leaning when implemented creates more centralized control which retards independent thought. All sorts of factors go into what makes some place innovative. Those factors can be defeated and in the example I presented, it was government control of health care.
How are they forcing anything on other states? Your state is perfectly free to purchase text books without their version on them. You being too cheap to purchase what you want does not make it someone else forcing you to do anything.
Choosing not to emphasize on one particular person is not writing them out of history, writing them out of history would be giving someone else credit for his deeds.
SO who is writing what out of history here? You demanded citations so I guess I will too. I keep hearing that term being thrown around and to date, no one has been able to elaborate on who is being written out of history.
I'm not the AC but I will briefly explain how this can change.
Simply change the constitution if there is enough support for it. Otherwise, it can't be a government deriving power form the consent of the governed if the basic principles the country was founded on aren't even followed. Luckily for us, there is a process to amend the constitution and only two amendments can be unconstitutional so if there is enough support, then changing the government to reflect the will of the people being governed shouldn't be hard at all.
what brings us to an impasse is the mental wrangling that goes on and the tricks being employed to make governmental changes without changing the constitution. Things like miraculously expanding the interstate commerce clause's intention and power in order to create policy that FDR himself acknowledged not 2 years before, was unconstitutional. Now we have the federal government involved in health care in which they have no constitutional authority to do so yet it could with a simple amendment.
I mean really, if it's a good idea and not just a minority of people attempting to force something down other people's lives, then an amendment could be easily made. Hell, 15 of them were made within the first 50 or so years of the country, 27 amendments in total. It's something that is really that simple.
Is education that bad in America when you do not know the difference between statement by a person and a law is?
I mean shit, Someone states an opinion and you think it is a law that violates something in the constitution that specifically allows the statement of opinion and forbids it from being a law. And you think the parent is trolling to boot?
Congress and the supreme court has opened with a prayer or invocation if you will, since the very beginning of this great nation. It's important to note that not only was the constitution present, so were the founders who wrote the damn thing, the people who approved and adopted it, and all the people who took their cues from it in the beginning of the country. No one has declared their words to be law. Perhaps revisiting this crap is something that is needed all across the country.
They never took anyone's rights away after 9/11. You must be confused with the expansion of powers that effect only a small amount of people engaged in a small amount of activities after 9/11.
Anyways, here is a link to it http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/51610 one of them, I'm sure your google finger can find links to the tricks they used to get it passed and how debate was stifled.
When Israel was founded, there weren't any countries surrounding it. It was all part of the Ottoman empire which was destroyed in the first world war. However, the concept of Israel and the place had been decided long before that and the ottoman empire actually catered to it by selling land to the jews for settlements in the holey land as early as the 1100's.
The Balfour proclamation originally had Israel as a territory of Palestine once it became a country of it's own with the requirement of it being religiously neutral so both religious could share the site. Palestine couldn't get it's act together and never became a country. The community that became Israel separated from Palestine and declared themselves as an independent country which the UN acknowledged back in 64 or 68.
It really wasn't someone simply picking a site or Muslim countries surrounding them.
Perhaps you could benefit from this Texas school curriculum.
The problem runs a lot deeper then cheap food stuffs. It's more on the line of resources, security, initiative, and infrastructure. All of which seem to be substantially lacking which causes the requirement for the aid in the first place. Corruption also plays a pretty strong role in some of it too.
You need to look a little deeper into the problem. Superficial appearances may be true, but stopping it won't cause the problems to fix themselves.
You do realize that a larger percentage of the republican members of congress voted for the civil rights act of 64 then the percentage of democrats in congress at the time right?
I mean reality isn't really backed up by your assertion. The civil war wasn't even about slavery, it was over economic which included slavery within it. You can however take the actions of one or two people and attempt to impose them on the beliefs of many people, but I fear you are a victim of someone's bias when doing so.
Maybe you need to be exposed to this new Texas school book more then others.
Beats me, I was making a joke on the 72 virgins thing... I had to put something in there so I made it up because this is slashdot and someone would have undoubtedly corrected me if I named some actual language and writing style.
"whoosh" BTW, that 72 virgins thing was a joke and you shouldn't take it seriously "/whoosh" (the Woosh tags don't display properly..)
I don't want to see anyone being beheaded or getting their families killed for offending mohemed or mohomed or whoever that was they had to hide in a bear suit on southpark when they tell some crazy person their belief system is fucked.
It's not spin at all. There are more people without health care coverage by choice in the US then there are because of resources. The US doesn't abandon most of it's poor population, they get handouts like free medical coverage and so on. Between the welfare role and medicare, the US was already paying for roughly 60% of the non-elective medical treatments i the US.
It doesn't really matter who can afford coverage or not or if you purchase insurance or not because you still have the choice of who pays for what. Also, in the US, it's illegal for a hospital to deny life saving treatment on the grounds of someone's ability to pay. So no, it's not the insurance company taking on the role of the death panel unless you specifically allow them to. Talk about spin.....
Take that into contrast with the system in the UK for instance. Suppose there is some miracle drug that cures 50% of people with a specific condition during trials. Now gov' health won't cover the drug or treatment because it isn't established, it's expensive, and the results are 50/50. If you as a citizen of that country, secure funding for the drug and seek treatment outside their health system in hopes of being cured, they will refuse to ever treat you or pay for your treatment for that illness again. SO potentially, here is Johny, a 30 year old Cancer patient who gets his care from the government, he heard about a break through drug and has the opportunity to try it because a rich uncle died and left him with just enough money to pay for the treatment, and if it doesn't work, he will be broke and without coverage because the gob'ment got their feelings hurt when someone attempted to better their life without them.
But hey, I guess that's better then then the free systems where the patient still has some choices.
Actually, that 72 virgins number is a common misunderstanding. It says you get to paradise with 72 perpetual virgins. The problem is that they will always be virgins so you can't screw them and it will be like spending eternity with 72 twelve year old sisters.
And another thing, old sand-script gets mistranslated all the time. The word for paradise is one letter from hell so it should be more like 'if you kill enough people, you will go to hell and be bothered by 72 twelve year old Prima donnas that annoy the fuck out of you forever.'.
You sort of missed the point and got the problem without realizing it altogether.
The US is right learning compared to the rest of the civilized world- however, when you look at the strengths of the US, you will find that position is mostly why we have so much to offer the rest of the world. Take Europe for instance, the more left they run, the less productive the seem to be. By productive, I mean in areas like innovation and such. They socialized medical care and have largely been playing catchup in innovation and technology ever since. Now don't get me wrong, they still innovate, they still come up with great accomplishments, but it's not as much as in more free areas where profit is a stronger motivator.
Then you have issues like defense. If the US hadn't paid for most of Europe's defense in the last century or so, they wouldn't have had the social programs they see today. In the last election in the UK, the expected new prime ministers were asked questions about relations with the US and something that illustrates this point is a response (I forget which one said it) that boils down to "close ties with the US allows the UK to overextend it's weight around the world which allows a great benefit to the UK". But more importantly, without the US's military investment in Europe, you would have large armies instead of large social programs and history has showed us more then once what happens when Europe has large armies controlled by separate entities sitting around.
In my own experience, many Americans seem to blackout when the word "social" is mentioned, immediately jumping to the conclusion that it means "oppressive communist dictatorship" instead of merely "less anti-social". When the USA and it's citizens do so many things right and have so much to offer the rest of the world, I just find it sad to know most Americans simply don't care about anybody but themselves.
Most Americans are raise with the concept that you take care of yourself and your family. This is one reason why Gangs are such problems, they recruit in the style of extending the family (thereby extending the strength and stability of the family) which attracts very loyal people bordering on zealotry. The concept of social dependency is taboo when people have grown up always having to provide for themselves and make things happen on their own. This is changing as schools have made it more common to expect dependency on others with school lunch programs and so on.
There is also a sort of separation seen by some/most of the American people where they see the community as there people they know and live with, not the governments imposing restrictions on them. Combine this with traditional christian values of taking care of the people around you in need, and it seems to be sort of an insult to take from one to give to another when people are supposed to pull together and do it themselves. The Amish communities in America get out of paying social security taxes and unemployment/workers compensation taxes because of this religious interpretation. they also will never collect from any of those sources as they see relying on insurance as a failing of the church and community. I'm not even sure the Amish could live and practice in other countries because of that core belief.
The "Americans protested (and continue to protest) against a medical health care system", if I may add some insight to why they protest it, is multi based. Part of it is the providing for yourself, even if that means purchasing insurance from some company, part of it is the loss of freedoms where healthy individuals in their prime don't really need more then catastrophic coverage and now they will be forced to purchase a more comprehensive package, and then there are some who simply can't stand the retarded closed system of government that rammed the health care bill through without the slightest bit of what most would consider to be due diligence.
I'm sure many foreigners might jump on in disagreement i
Well, I was simply attempting to address the concept of lobbying groups not always attempting to make others act a certain way. Sometimes it can simply be preservation or expansion of liberties. For this reason, I see no need to respond with the drug legalization as you are right and there may be some drugs in which you might not be. I simply don't advocate them one way or another so it's sort of meaningless to me.
However, harming animals unnecessarily is what I would consider something that shouldn't be done. Two things that really get me boiled up is mistreatment of animals and kids. But I draw the line to the extremes of the accepted sciences. What I am trying to say is that there are acceptable practices both within the treatment of animals and humans in which harm may be necessary. Take giving a kid a shot, no one would say that giving an infant their vaccines or medication intravenously would be cruelty as the goal is to help them. On that note, repeatedly pricking them with a needle for someone's enjoyment would easily be considered inhumane or cruel.
But don't get me wrong, some animals, even humans, are or could be considered pests and killing them or harming them does seem to be acceptable. The bigger issue isn't really an ethical one, it's one of the accepted practices in which the health and condition of the being, animal or human, doesn't deteriorate or pose a substantial rick of deterioration while in your care unless such time has occurred when it's beneficial to some degree. That might be slaughtering animals for food, or eradicating pests, or locking criminals away-even capitol punishment.
But don't take that as a right of the animal, it's more of an obligation of the owner/caretaker. It's like prisoners on death row, if someone attacks one of them and knifes them, they are obligated to heal the knife wound even though he will be executed right after the wound is healed. It's not that he has any rights, it's that they have an obligation to maintain the health of the animals they keep.
It's the same thing as slaves and Indians being 1/5th human. Sapience makes us Human but sapience also creates our ability to protect certain things more then others. Think of that as independent thought or free will. As the parent already said, mentally retarded people get less freedoms and protections than what we consider normal people. But in the end, human is both a taxonomy and a recognized state of being. Neither of the two need to match up in ideology or practicality as one is defined more by individual thought and the other is just an arbitrary classification. As such, laws can be just as arbitrary and the same goes with expected rights. Hell, slavery still exists today and some cultures make killing less of a crime or no crime at all when simple things like religion or skin color or national origin is considered. That doesn't make anyone who had two human parents any less human does it?
Now having human parents does somewhat ensure you will be human, but it doesn't define what human is or the character traits assigned to being human. It also doesn't define the protections different societies assign to you.
Slashdot Mirror
thanks for the example. I took the parent the wrong way in thinking his complaint was that TX is doing things that aren't already being done. Instead, he wanted examples of what is being done.
So your saying that it's not what they have done, it's what you think they might do? I mean this thread branched because an affirmative statement was made that something was done in which it was unconstitutional.
And no pigeon holing is going on here at all. The text simply does not back up what you are saying. Now if it turns out that in practice, your fears become realized, then that's another story altogether. But so far, it's all in your head. The sky is not falling just yet.
Stop imposing your made up beliefs into the situation. It is perfectly fine to study and discuss religious influences on event in a historical or philosophical context. That is exactly what that part is. It's the study of ideology, where we are at and how we got there. It would be criminal and revisionist to ignore the influence religion has had on political movements, political policies, and so on. The separation of church and state does not mean God or any religion is removed from anything the state touches, it means they can't promote it or refute it. Understanding history and the influences that caused events to happen does not require religion to disappear. In some of the political movements, removing all mentioned of religion would be as paramount as removing all references to race or skin color when studying the Klu Klux Klan, or removing all references to nationality and geographical borders when studying WWII. It's simply incomplete without it.
Read what the words say, not what you want them to say. It's as if you are missing the forest for all the trees.
It does not say religion influenced the constitution, it says how it influenced the founding pf the nation.
Lets repost that part and I will highlight the words you seem to be missing. I will also make some comments inline. I know you are upset that it simply doesn't say what you were led to believe it said. Being lied to hurts, but don't use that pain as an excuse to set up a wall of denial.
I didn't say anything about the land of Israel. I said Israel as in the country that is recognized today by the UN and the rest of the free world.
Perhaps you could benefit from paying attention and not wondering aimlessly on knee jerk reactions. The spot known as Israel today was being settled by jews since the 1300's. I got the 1100's wrong but that a minor point.
My apologies, I took it as if you were simply picking on the aid and ignoring the rest of the problems. It appears that isn't the case at all.
Americans don't really think Africa is full of poor dirt farmers in the sense you seem to be grasping. Poor dirt farmers in the US are actually some of the more intuitive and innovative people around. So even if the conception is there, it's not as bleak of a picture as it would sound.
I remember a line from some mafia movie. It was actually supposed to be said by a high ranking member of the mob. They were complaining about someone causing problems and one guy said "they are just dirt farmers". The reply was- "that's what they said about us when we came from Sicily". I guess the moral was, don't underestimate the resolve of a dirt farmer.
Yes, there is an underlying ethical reason for them, it's "when you assume the responsibility to care for or provide and supervise someone or something, you have an obligation to ensure it doesn't unduly deteriorate or be unnecessarily harmed". This doesn't mean they have any rights as you could simply terminate your care for it. This obligation goes to inanimate objects too. If I loaned you a computer, you would have to make sure it worked similar to the way it did when I gave it to you (minus normal wear and tear as would be depreciated) when you returned it or I would have the ability to sue and make it so. The computer doesn't have any rights, but you have obligations. If you spilled coffee on the CD drive and it stopped working, then you would need to replace the CD drive.
In this case, it really isn't semantics. A right is something that you have to chose to give up, an obligation is completely on the caretaker- the object has little or no say in the matter where if they had the rights, there would be more say in the matter.
Well, not really. Humans need a b12 vitamin that can only be achieved by eating meat or organisms that contain it. It's true that you can find this b12 if you don't wash your produce and consume soil, feces, and other things the bacteria that produces it thrives on, but that introduces a lot of other problems. This B12 vitamin is crucial to cell division and the creation of blood so it isn't some minor thing either. Most Vegans of today will get supplement sources added to different products they purchase but without that, they need to eat dirt, feces, or some sort of animal in order to find it. I guess there is a source of sea vegetation that has a high enough concentration of the cadmium that it would work, but the common thought is that it can't be used by humans.
Well, no. we use animals (outside the fact that we need cadmium) to condense energy in our food source. Using animals as food allows up to plant crops that grow better then food crops for the purpose or feeding the animals in which they convert the energy and nutrition to something we can use. Some of these crops are natural vegetation and require little to no effort from humans to produce. Some of then are genetically mutated crops that aren't desirable for human consumption (think Dent Corn and silage or wastes from other food crops)
I used to have an energy density map that would group animals by what they needed to eat verses what they provided in food value to humans. I can't find it any more but raising one pig has the effect of planting 20 acres of corn yet they consume much less then that, especially if you consider giving them table scraps. In other words, you do not need the same amount of arable land to produce animals as you do to produce the equivalent amount of crops you would need to replace the animal. Another benefit of eating animals is that no preservation is needed while they are alive so they can grow in winter when food crops wouldn't.
Conservative does not equal republican. and conservative of 1964 does not equal conservative of today. Your argument is facetious at best, purposely and willfully ignorant otherwise.
I don't knowe and do not care. It doesn't mean what you are attempting to make it out to mean. If you read the entire line and not just what you need in order to impose your point, you would see that it's talking about political ideologies. Here is what you wrote and what you left out
Of course you did copy the part about political ideals, I'm surprise that in your feverish knee jerk reaction, that you didn't catch that. But hey, if your goal is one thing, lets not let the facts get in the road of it.
Where does it say that it does? The requirement again is referring to ideology except here it expect the students to understand the traditions of the times that influenced the ideology. I find nothing wrong with that. I think the only way you can is if you take it out of context like you attempted to do.
Again, you are taking this completely out of context. Here is the original
As you can see, when in context, they are supposed to be studying the role of free speech, how different groups assembled, redressed their government, and exercise those rights and so on. This isn't the study of the first amendment, it's a study avenues to address the government both in the constitution and in real life.
You have provided nothing of value. At most, you have let your insecurities get the best of your imagination. And the worse part is that it appears you didn't even read the quotes you cited as if you are relying on them second hand or something. the least cursory glance at the PDF you cited showed how you took everything completely out of context. Perhaps you should do more critical thinking of your own and less parroting of other people's comments.
well moving out of state may not be something that is easy or easily achieved.
However, that's sort of besides the point in that the federal government is not empowered to take on health care or dictate education to the country. The federal government is supposed to be nothing more then a state figure head to deal with the complexities of state with foreign leaders. It also does some very specific things like build and maintain post roads and so on. All of this is power surrendered by the states when joining the union. That's why things like the 10th amendment reserves everything not surrendered to the federal government for the states of the people of the states.
The US constitution is a permissive document detailing what the US government is allowed to do and some things that it is expressly restricted from doing. It's not supposed to be some massive government in charge of everything like other countries have. This is why federal law can only be enforced when federal jurisdiction becomes relevant. Take murdering your wife, there is a federal law against murder but they can't prosecute you unless you go across state lines or do it on federal property or do something else that invokes their jurisdiction.
Yea, they probably would blab all about it. I mean tit for tat, that's what the Americans did. We blabbed all about the Canadian politicians coming to America for better medical treatment and avoiding the Canadian health system. we blabbed about all the Canadian citizens who purchased health wait insurance and get flow or driven to America for medical services when the wait is too long in Canada.
Hell, we even ran front page stories when the Canadian Supreme court overturned a Queerbeck law forbidding the wait insurance stating that it was a fundamental human right.
It would only make sense that we received repayment in kind. Of course we used those instances to promote or defeat crap in our own country so it's a little different then just stating something in order to politically damage someone from another country.
Please explain exactly what they are doing that achieves this.
I haven't seen anything that actually crosses the line you just laid out. One of us is either getting the wrong information or not enough information.
I did not say that the US innovates more because it's right leaning, I said that when European countries institute leftist policy they tend to be less innovative. In other words, I'm not saying one create the innovation, I'm saying one retards it.
I Also presented an example of that. Any inference outside of what I presented is simply in your mind not mine. Left leaning when implemented creates more centralized control which retards independent thought. All sorts of factors go into what makes some place innovative. Those factors can be defeated and in the example I presented, it was government control of health care.
How are they forcing anything on other states? Your state is perfectly free to purchase text books without their version on them. You being too cheap to purchase what you want does not make it someone else forcing you to do anything.
WHO is writing anything out of history?
Choosing not to emphasize on one particular person is not writing them out of history, writing them out of history would be giving someone else credit for his deeds.
SO who is writing what out of history here? You demanded citations so I guess I will too. I keep hearing that term being thrown around and to date, no one has been able to elaborate on who is being written out of history.
I'm not the AC but I will briefly explain how this can change.
Simply change the constitution if there is enough support for it. Otherwise, it can't be a government deriving power form the consent of the governed if the basic principles the country was founded on aren't even followed. Luckily for us, there is a process to amend the constitution and only two amendments can be unconstitutional so if there is enough support, then changing the government to reflect the will of the people being governed shouldn't be hard at all.
what brings us to an impasse is the mental wrangling that goes on and the tricks being employed to make governmental changes without changing the constitution. Things like miraculously expanding the interstate commerce clause's intention and power in order to create policy that FDR himself acknowledged not 2 years before, was unconstitutional. Now we have the federal government involved in health care in which they have no constitutional authority to do so yet it could with a simple amendment.
I mean really, if it's a good idea and not just a minority of people attempting to force something down other people's lives, then an amendment could be easily made. Hell, 15 of them were made within the first 50 or so years of the country, 27 amendments in total. It's something that is really that simple.
Is education that bad in America when you do not know the difference between statement by a person and a law is?
I mean shit, Someone states an opinion and you think it is a law that violates something in the constitution that specifically allows the statement of opinion and forbids it from being a law. And you think the parent is trolling to boot?
Congress and the supreme court has opened with a prayer or invocation if you will, since the very beginning of this great nation. It's important to note that not only was the constitution present, so were the founders who wrote the damn thing, the people who approved and adopted it, and all the people who took their cues from it in the beginning of the country. No one has declared their words to be law. Perhaps revisiting this crap is something that is needed all across the country.
They never took anyone's rights away after 9/11. You must be confused with the expansion of powers that effect only a small amount of people engaged in a small amount of activities after 9/11.
Anyways, here is a link to it
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/51610 one of them, I'm sure your google finger can find links to the tricks they used to get it passed and how debate was stifled.
When Israel was founded, there weren't any countries surrounding it. It was all part of the Ottoman empire which was destroyed in the first world war. However, the concept of Israel and the place had been decided long before that and the ottoman empire actually catered to it by selling land to the jews for settlements in the holey land as early as the 1100's.
The Balfour proclamation originally had Israel as a territory of Palestine once it became a country of it's own with the requirement of it being religiously neutral so both religious could share the site. Palestine couldn't get it's act together and never became a country. The community that became Israel separated from Palestine and declared themselves as an independent country which the UN acknowledged back in 64 or 68.
It really wasn't someone simply picking a site or Muslim countries surrounding them.
Perhaps you could benefit from this Texas school curriculum.
The problem runs a lot deeper then cheap food stuffs. It's more on the line of resources, security, initiative, and infrastructure. All of which seem to be substantially lacking which causes the requirement for the aid in the first place. Corruption also plays a pretty strong role in some of it too.
You need to look a little deeper into the problem. Superficial appearances may be true, but stopping it won't cause the problems to fix themselves.
You do realize that a larger percentage of the republican members of congress voted for the civil rights act of 64 then the percentage of democrats in congress at the time right?
I mean reality isn't really backed up by your assertion. The civil war wasn't even about slavery, it was over economic which included slavery within it. You can however take the actions of one or two people and attempt to impose them on the beliefs of many people, but I fear you are a victim of someone's bias when doing so.
Maybe you need to be exposed to this new Texas school book more then others.
Beats me, I was making a joke on the 72 virgins thing... I had to put something in there so I made it up because this is slashdot and someone would have undoubtedly corrected me if I named some actual language and writing style.
"whoosh" BTW, that 72 virgins thing was a joke and you shouldn't take it seriously "/whoosh" (the Woosh tags don't display properly..)
I don't want to see anyone being beheaded or getting their families killed for offending mohemed or mohomed or whoever that was they had to hide in a bear suit on southpark when they tell some crazy person their belief system is fucked.
It's not spin at all. There are more people without health care coverage by choice in the US then there are because of resources. The US doesn't abandon most of it's poor population, they get handouts like free medical coverage and so on. Between the welfare role and medicare, the US was already paying for roughly 60% of the non-elective medical treatments i the US.
It doesn't really matter who can afford coverage or not or if you purchase insurance or not because you still have the choice of who pays for what. Also, in the US, it's illegal for a hospital to deny life saving treatment on the grounds of someone's ability to pay. So no, it's not the insurance company taking on the role of the death panel unless you specifically allow them to. Talk about spin.....
Take that into contrast with the system in the UK for instance. Suppose there is some miracle drug that cures 50% of people with a specific condition during trials. Now gov' health won't cover the drug or treatment because it isn't established, it's expensive, and the results are 50/50. If you as a citizen of that country, secure funding for the drug and seek treatment outside their health system in hopes of being cured, they will refuse to ever treat you or pay for your treatment for that illness again. SO potentially, here is Johny, a 30 year old Cancer patient who gets his care from the government, he heard about a break through drug and has the opportunity to try it because a rich uncle died and left him with just enough money to pay for the treatment, and if it doesn't work, he will be broke and without coverage because the gob'ment got their feelings hurt when someone attempted to better their life without them.
But hey, I guess that's better then then the free systems where the patient still has some choices.
Actually, that 72 virgins number is a common misunderstanding. It says you get to paradise with 72 perpetual virgins. The problem is that they will always be virgins so you can't screw them and it will be like spending eternity with 72 twelve year old sisters.
And another thing, old sand-script gets mistranslated all the time. The word for paradise is one letter from hell so it should be more like 'if you kill enough people, you will go to hell and be bothered by 72 twelve year old Prima donnas that annoy the fuck out of you forever.'.
You sort of missed the point and got the problem without realizing it altogether.
The US is right learning compared to the rest of the civilized world- however, when you look at the strengths of the US, you will find that position is mostly why we have so much to offer the rest of the world. Take Europe for instance, the more left they run, the less productive the seem to be. By productive, I mean in areas like innovation and such. They socialized medical care and have largely been playing catchup in innovation and technology ever since. Now don't get me wrong, they still innovate, they still come up with great accomplishments, but it's not as much as in more free areas where profit is a stronger motivator.
Then you have issues like defense. If the US hadn't paid for most of Europe's defense in the last century or so, they wouldn't have had the social programs they see today. In the last election in the UK, the expected new prime ministers were asked questions about relations with the US and something that illustrates this point is a response (I forget which one said it) that boils down to "close ties with the US allows the UK to overextend it's weight around the world which allows a great benefit to the UK". But more importantly, without the US's military investment in Europe, you would have large armies instead of large social programs and history has showed us more then once what happens when Europe has large armies controlled by separate entities sitting around.
Most Americans are raise with the concept that you take care of yourself and your family. This is one reason why Gangs are such problems, they recruit in the style of extending the family (thereby extending the strength and stability of the family) which attracts very loyal people bordering on zealotry. The concept of social dependency is taboo when people have grown up always having to provide for themselves and make things happen on their own. This is changing as schools have made it more common to expect dependency on others with school lunch programs and so on.
There is also a sort of separation seen by some/most of the American people where they see the community as there people they know and live with, not the governments imposing restrictions on them. Combine this with traditional christian values of taking care of the people around you in need, and it seems to be sort of an insult to take from one to give to another when people are supposed to pull together and do it themselves. The Amish communities in America get out of paying social security taxes and unemployment/workers compensation taxes because of this religious interpretation. they also will never collect from any of those sources as they see relying on insurance as a failing of the church and community. I'm not even sure the Amish could live and practice in other countries because of that core belief.
The "Americans protested (and continue to protest) against a medical health care system", if I may add some insight to why they protest it, is multi based. Part of it is the providing for yourself, even if that means purchasing insurance from some company, part of it is the loss of freedoms where healthy individuals in their prime don't really need more then catastrophic coverage and now they will be forced to purchase a more comprehensive package, and then there are some who simply can't stand the retarded closed system of government that rammed the health care bill through without the slightest bit of what most would consider to be due diligence.
I'm sure many foreigners might jump on in disagreement i
Well, I was simply attempting to address the concept of lobbying groups not always attempting to make others act a certain way. Sometimes it can simply be preservation or expansion of liberties. For this reason, I see no need to respond with the drug legalization as you are right and there may be some drugs in which you might not be. I simply don't advocate them one way or another so it's sort of meaningless to me.
However, harming animals unnecessarily is what I would consider something that shouldn't be done. Two things that really get me boiled up is mistreatment of animals and kids. But I draw the line to the extremes of the accepted sciences. What I am trying to say is that there are acceptable practices both within the treatment of animals and humans in which harm may be necessary. Take giving a kid a shot, no one would say that giving an infant their vaccines or medication intravenously would be cruelty as the goal is to help them. On that note, repeatedly pricking them with a needle for someone's enjoyment would easily be considered inhumane or cruel.
But don't get me wrong, some animals, even humans, are or could be considered pests and killing them or harming them does seem to be acceptable. The bigger issue isn't really an ethical one, it's one of the accepted practices in which the health and condition of the being, animal or human, doesn't deteriorate or pose a substantial rick of deterioration while in your care unless such time has occurred when it's beneficial to some degree. That might be slaughtering animals for food, or eradicating pests, or locking criminals away-even capitol punishment.
But don't take that as a right of the animal, it's more of an obligation of the owner/caretaker. It's like prisoners on death row, if someone attacks one of them and knifes them, they are obligated to heal the knife wound even though he will be executed right after the wound is healed. It's not that he has any rights, it's that they have an obligation to maintain the health of the animals they keep.
Lol..
It's the same thing as slaves and Indians being 1/5th human. Sapience makes us Human but sapience also creates our ability to protect certain things more then others. Think of that as independent thought or free will. As the parent already said, mentally retarded people get less freedoms and protections than what we consider normal people. But in the end, human is both a taxonomy and a recognized state of being. Neither of the two need to match up in ideology or practicality as one is defined more by individual thought and the other is just an arbitrary classification. As such, laws can be just as arbitrary and the same goes with expected rights. Hell, slavery still exists today and some cultures make killing less of a crime or no crime at all when simple things like religion or skin color or national origin is considered. That doesn't make anyone who had two human parents any less human does it?
Now having human parents does somewhat ensure you will be human, but it doesn't define what human is or the character traits assigned to being human. It also doesn't define the protections different societies assign to you.