MS management is smart enough not to (they are also smart enough to keep using the FUD to scare people, this is what I mean by unethical) and MS shareholders will never allow it as it will be an expensive and drawn out court case (al a SCO) which the chances of winning are dubious at best.
Something I've wondered is if it's possible, I don't know whether it is or not, why don't Linux backers file a lawsuit against MS. Say IBM wants to show businesses that they can safely use Linux, IBM then sues MS to reveal what patents Linux violates that MS holds.
I'm sorry for those tragic cases of innocent people being executed, but as a whole, the system works.
Yea the system works unless you're one of the innocents who are executed. Just as some of the USA's Founding Fathers believed, I believe it's better to let 10 guilty go free than falsely convict one innocent. Well, once you're executed there's no bring you back. At least if you're imprisoned you can be set free.
Anyhow, I'm not really interested in debating this topic
Okay, that's it.
Well, I've go ahead and get this too...
I'm not sure where the confusion is? Do you realize that the democratic party supports funding abortions?
Not all Democrats support abortion and not all Republicans oppose it. It seems you're the one confused about that. As for funding abortions, can you point out where abortion is funded in Obamacare?
Falcon
Oh, I hope you understand from my use of "Obamacare" I do not support whatever health bill the Democrats approve. I've said repeatedly here and elsewhere, I oppose almost any health care bill from congress. I ask, but no one has answered, where does the Constitution of the USA give the federal government the power to pass laws and regulate health care and medicine. I ask this about the FDA as well. The one power the Constitution specifically grants the federal government is the regulation of interstate commerce. If congress and the president really wanted to do something about health care and medicine then they could use the interstate commerce clause to tell states they have to allow people to buy health insurance across state lines. I should be allowed to buy insurance from another state if I want, say for instance because it's cheaper. Another thing congress and the president can do is give individual people the same tax breaks for buy insurance as employers get for offering insurance to employees. Employers getting tax breaks but not individuals goes back to FDR and WWII.
I actually support capital punishment for the statistical lives saved,
What saved lived? Where is your scientific evidence capital punishment saves lives. And where's your evidence all of those executed were guilty of murder? The Innocence Project has cases where people were convicted of murder but were later proven innocent. Unfortunately they aren't able to save every innocent.
That's not the only reason I oppose, nor why Christians should oppose, capital punishment. Myself I also oppose it because you don't tell people isn't wrong to kill people then kill them yourself. And Christians, along with Jews and Muslim, should oppose it because it's one of the ten commandments.
Falcon
Oh, BTW I separated myself from Christians above because I am not one, I do not believe in any religion. I am agnostic, "a", without and "gnosis" knowledge. Or believe. Well I believe one thing, that if there is a supreme deity and it requires faith to be save, otherwise the unbeliever burns in hell for eternity, it is sadistic and deserves to be despised not worshiped.
Firstly, it means they have half as long to actually consider the policies they're trying to get through, so they're more likely to look to others for advice.
The less tyme they have the less tyme they can cause problems and create new laws for their paymaster lobbyists.
And the groups who can afford to pay people to talk to politians are the ones who will be heard first and loudest.
No, At home they aren't concentrated and in easy reach of lobbyists. But the voters are close. With all of congress in Washington they are easy for lobbyists to meet, just walk down and across the hall or street. But when they are home it would be harder, and more expensive for the lobbyists and cheaper for voters.
Secondly, you're only going to get rich, well-connected people if they have to find a new job every other year (or have the power to take even unpaid leave whenever they need to sit).
My sister was, along with millions of other citizens, in the Army Reserve. Though she worked full-time, as a nurse in a hospital, and had a daughter she worked 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks a year in the Reserves. That was many years ago, now mothers get maternity leave from work. So your problem isn't one, the jobs are still there, and the pay can make up for the loss of pay from work.
Personally, I'd rather pay our politicians a lot of money.
Oh, we do. Congressional pay. "Some critics feel members of Congress, who legislate their own salaries, are overpaid. In 2008, rank and file members of Congress earned $169,300 annually, compared with a median American income of $45,113 for men and $35,102 for women." After, I believe it's 10 years, serving in congress they also get a good pension. Former Sen Ted Steven gets more than $10,000 a month even though he was convicted of a crime.
Enough that firstly, we can attract the best, and more importantly, that they don't need to be tempted by anyone else's money.
Also, the capitalization of "creator" in the first sentence of the second section (the famous one) could constitute religious belief in a higher power... thus alienating atheist citizens
If only the scientific theory of Evolution had been proposed before the DOI was written instead of about 80 years later, it could also mean evolution.
So did the US. Don't believe me? The US protected the bombers of Cubana Flight 455, who included CIA operatives, in 1976. The year before, in 1975, the US supported Indonesia's invasion of East Timor, in which 200,000 East Timorese were massacred. In 1973 the US supported Gen Pinochet's overthrow of Chile's democratically elected government in a coup d'état Thousands of people disappeared afterwards. The US has a history of arming and supporting repressive regimes with large human rights violations.
Heck, at the same tyme the US was supporting Saddam, the US was also arming Iran, who he was fighting against. If the US had allowed democracy in Iran, instead of aiding the overthrow of Iran's elected government and installing the Shah in a dictatorship, there would not have been the revolution in Iran in 1980.
As far as Iraq goes, we had a treaty in place that allowed us to investigate them at will and they broke that treaty.
What treaty was broken and when? After Scott Ritter came out and stated Iraq had no significant WMDs the Neocons in Bush Jr's admin had to besmear him for not supporting their lies.
As for breaking treaties, the US has broken many treaties. I can think of 2 treaties Bush Jr broke or tried to break. With Starwars he was breaking the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. In trying to locate the permanent nuclear waste disposal site at Yucca Mount he would also have violated the Treay of Ruby Valley which granted the Western Shoshone Yucca Mount and the surrounding land. The US broke a number of treaties with the Sioux. When Andrew Jackson forced the Cherokee to march on the Trail of Tears he broke a treaty when the Cherokee.
The US also supports Israel who has consistently disregarded UN resolutions, there was an uproar when VP Biden went to Israel and they announced more settlements in occupied territory.
the point was to keep Iran's military in line.
Why then did Reagan administration officials sell weapons to Iran in the Iran-Contra Affair? Quite simply they were supporting a number of different sides who were repressive.
At that time there was also a threat by the Soviets against northern Yemen (after they invaded Afghanistan) and Iraq was prepping to fight with Saudi Arabia to defend against them.
Afghanistan was the Soviet's Vietnam. And the same Muslims going there to fight would have fought for the Saudis as well, heck a lot of Saudis went to Afghanistan. After Saddam's invasion of Kuwait al qaeda offered to protect Saudi Arabia against Saddam. They would have caused the Soviets trouble too.
By the way, the USA did NOT give Saddam chemical weapons. Did you just make that up?
Well, at least you're not hiding the fact that democrats typically do support abortion and that's enough more me as a Christian to not support democrats. That make sense to you? And sure, there's republicans who also support abortion, but as a political party we do not.
No it doesn't make sense, you paint Democrats with a broad brush but not Republicans.
Falcon
Oh BTW, do you also oppose capital punishment? More Republicans do than Democrats. But that's okay?
I don't see anything in the Bible condemning violent bahvior when it comes to protecting one's own society/nation.
What danger was either Afghanistan or Iraq to the US? How about Viet Nam? East Timor? Now if you want to talk about protecting people why did Reagan and Bush Sr arm Saddam, give him chemical weapons, and allow him the massacre civilians?
The more fun one is asking how you can be gay and be a christian. I mean, really, mon. The bible expressly tells all the people you are hanging out with that, ah, if you act on your natural impulses that they have to KILL YOU.
I ask Christians if they can point out in the Bible where Jesus taught homosexuality was bad.
Generally this is interpreted as meaning you are free to practice the religion of your choice, but the government cannot coerce you into practicing any specific religion. Have atheists taken this too far in arguing against prayer or any kind of religious symbols in school? Yes.
Allowing prayer in school is forcing religion on students in one way or another. In elementary school I went to a public, not private church rule, school and I had a wooden ruler forcibly applied to my hands when I refused to pray in school. The same for "under God". Heck I even knew Christians who refused to say it, to them it was taking God's name in vain. I also saw others who could not handle the peer pressure of others to pray in school. If you want to allow a moment of silence that's fine with me but no led prayers.
Have atheists taken this too far in arguing against prayer or any kind of religious symbols in school? Yes.
Would those same Christians who want to take religious symbols to school and have prayer allow Muslims their prayer? Or a Wiccan take their pentagram and pray?
I do think the Christian right is probably closer to matching the views of most of the founding fathers than those advocating for a complete divorce from all concepts of religion by governments.
Many of those Founding Fathers were Deists not Christians.
What the founding fathers overtly intended was to prevent having a national church or religion, which was essential in what at the time was a society with many fundamentally different religious ideas and institutions (including Quakers and Unitarians).
Here I agree.
Objectively, it is a bit hard to see a difference between someone who sues the school district because they teach evolution and someone who sues the school district because a teacher leads a prayer.
There are big differences between them, one is science and can be tested and possibly falsified whereas the other relies on faith.
I would also argue that this clause should make the government religion-blind; churches should have no special tax status certainly
If only for one reason churches should not be taxed, if you're taxed then you have a seat in politics. Some, though not all, church leaders have gotten into trouble because they've spoken out on political issues as the church's leader. I have no problem with them speaking out as a private citizen, even Rabbis, Priests, and Mullahs pay taxes. But as soon as they start telling church goers in sermons who to vote for, they've gone to far. The problem with this is what defines "too far", where is the line?
Country music is much better than the modern clap-trap that people listen to (e.g. Hip-hop, rap, etc)
That is a matter of opinion not fact.
It also had a significant social impact.
And according to those who want to ban rap et al. it leads people to become criminals, treat women as dirt, and so on.
What amazes me about Americans is that they like leaders who start wars
Utter Bullshit!
There is little doubt that Christianity had a large influence on the American politics. The founding fathers wanted a country where there is freedom of religion - not freedom from religion (as the far left portrays it).
Yes Christianity had an influence but the USA was not founded on Judeo-Christian values. Thomas Jefferson both wrote the Declaration of Independence, which does not contain any reference to a supreme deity, and coined the term "separation of church and state". Actually many of the Founding Fathers were Deists not Christians. TJ was one in the sense that he believed Jesus was a great teacher, but not in the sense that Jesus was the:Son Of God". As a Deist himself he believed religion "can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Deists tend to, but do not necessarily, reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations." That is probably why the school board dropped Thomas Jefferson from the list of people who's writings will not be studied. They can't have it be taught that a Founding Father thought religion was a private matter and not something that should dictate public policy.
Wow, so you mean they'll actually start teaching facts again? Who gives a rats ass about the evolution or religion crap as long as kids will actually understand what happens when you give the government infinite power. It doesn't matter what people are taught about evolution or religion if they're not free to run their own lives.
Wow. It doesn't matter much how much money you have if you live in a fantasy-land. I applaud them for including Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, but that's 1 positive to a bunch of negatives. They also want to teach myths and right out lies.
"The policies that are implemented are not strongly liberal."
Really, how are you coming to this conclusion? California has their own blends of gasoline because of the state government. The state government is, by far, the largest employer in the state.
You as much as admitted California isn't liberal. Liberals are "committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, and free markets." That is the opposite of the state government as the biggest employer.
I live here, and it is nowhere as conservative as you make it sound. We just had a CANNABIS CUP held here, for crying out loud! Cypress Hill, vape bags flying around, the works!
Except Conservatives support the fake War on Drugs. Nixon got to pick all of the members for a presidential commission to study whether hemp, marijuana, should be legalized or not. Before the commission ever made it's decision Nixon came flat out and said he'd never agree to allow it to be legalized, which is exactly what his commission recommended. Although almost all members were drug warriors "they started talking about legalization". Two more conservatives opposed to legal drugs were Ronald and Nancy Reagan. President Reagan increased the size of the war on drugs and Nancy started the "Just Say No" campaign.
The War on Drugs isn't a Conservative or a Socialist (I won't say liberal because most of those who call then that are not liberal) issue, they both support it.
Revenue can't be the problem because if it were, then we might have to admit we need to raise taxes or fees.
Revenue is part of the problem but so is spending. During the booming '90s, with the state rolling in tax revenue, spending was increased a lot. However now that revenue has shrunken while spending hasn't the budget is in trouble. If the state had invested some of the money coming in when tymes were good, and was allowed to run a deficit when money was tight, it probably wouldn't be as bad as it is now.
Conservatives really are under attack based on comments from people like you.
When they do stuff like this school board does, they should be corrected. Of course that applies to those on the US left as well, such as those pushing for Obamacare.
I will applaud the board for including Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek though. Now if only more states will include them too.
Not my nation, just the one I live in has been driven bankrupt by neoconservatives, neoliberals, and socialists. Unfortunately they took over my nation.
Oh, and I certainly like the smoking ban. Smoking is not only gross, the smoke affects me strongly enough that my eyes water so hard it is hard to see. Keep that poison in your own home.
Vehicles kill, let's ban vehicles. And they smoke, so they should be banned for that too. Exhaust from then have nearly blinded me and made it hard to breath while riding my bike, so they should be banned. Keep that poisonous death traps in your own home, and don't let the pollution escape.
Slashdot Mirror
MS management is smart enough not to (they are also smart enough to keep using the FUD to scare people, this is what I mean by unethical) and MS shareholders will never allow it as it will be an expensive and drawn out court case (al a SCO) which the chances of winning are dubious at best.
Something I've wondered is if it's possible, I don't know whether it is or not, why don't Linux backers file a lawsuit against MS. Say IBM wants to show businesses that they can safely use Linux, IBM then sues MS to reveal what patents Linux violates that MS holds.
Falcon
Anyone knows any options?
I don't have an account with Google but if you do check out Orkut. From what other slashdotters have posted it has some tech forums.
Falcon
I'm sorry for those tragic cases of innocent people being executed, but as a whole, the system works.
Yea the system works unless you're one of the innocents who are executed. Just as some of the USA's Founding Fathers believed, I believe it's better to let 10 guilty go free than falsely convict one innocent. Well, once you're executed there's no bring you back. At least if you're imprisoned you can be set free.
Anyhow, I'm not really interested in debating this topic
Okay, that's it.
Well, I've go ahead and get this too...
I'm not sure where the confusion is? Do you realize that the democratic party supports funding abortions?
Not all Democrats support abortion and not all Republicans oppose it. It seems you're the one confused about that. As for funding abortions, can you point out where abortion is funded in Obamacare?
Falcon
Oh, I hope you understand from my use of "Obamacare" I do not support whatever health bill the Democrats approve. I've said repeatedly here and elsewhere, I oppose almost any health care bill from congress. I ask, but no one has answered, where does the Constitution of the USA give the federal government the power to pass laws and regulate health care and medicine. I ask this about the FDA as well. The one power the Constitution specifically grants the federal government is the regulation of interstate commerce. If congress and the president really wanted to do something about health care and medicine then they could use the interstate commerce clause to tell states they have to allow people to buy health insurance across state lines. I should be allowed to buy insurance from another state if I want, say for instance because it's cheaper. Another thing congress and the president can do is give individual people the same tax breaks for buy insurance as employers get for offering insurance to employees. Employers getting tax breaks but not individuals goes back to FDR and WWII.
It is your brush, you are the one saying it.
I actually support capital punishment for the statistical lives saved,
What saved lived? Where is your scientific evidence capital punishment saves lives. And where's your evidence all of those executed were guilty of murder? The Innocence Project has cases where people were convicted of murder but were later proven innocent. Unfortunately they aren't able to save every innocent.
That's not the only reason I oppose, nor why Christians should oppose, capital punishment. Myself I also oppose it because you don't tell people isn't wrong to kill people then kill them yourself. And Christians, along with Jews and Muslim, should oppose it because it's one of the ten commandments.
Falcon
Oh, BTW I separated myself from Christians above because I am not one, I do not believe in any religion. I am agnostic, "a", without and "gnosis" knowledge. Or believe. Well I believe one thing, that if there is a supreme deity and it requires faith to be save, otherwise the unbeliever burns in hell for eternity, it is sadistic and deserves to be despised not worshiped.
Firstly, it means they have half as long to actually consider the policies they're trying to get through, so they're more likely to look to others for advice.
The less tyme they have the less tyme they can cause problems and create new laws for their paymaster lobbyists.
And the groups who can afford to pay people to talk to politians are the ones who will be heard first and loudest.
No, At home they aren't concentrated and in easy reach of lobbyists. But the voters are close. With all of congress in Washington they are easy for lobbyists to meet, just walk down and across the hall or street. But when they are home it would be harder, and more expensive for the lobbyists and cheaper for voters.
Secondly, you're only going to get rich, well-connected people if they have to find a new job every other year (or have the power to take even unpaid leave whenever they need to sit).
My sister was, along with millions of other citizens, in the Army Reserve. Though she worked full-time, as a nurse in a hospital, and had a daughter she worked 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks a year in the Reserves. That was many years ago, now mothers get maternity leave from work. So your problem isn't one, the jobs are still there, and the pay can make up for the loss of pay from work.
Personally, I'd rather pay our politicians a lot of money.
Oh, we do. Congressional pay. "Some critics feel members of Congress, who legislate their own salaries, are overpaid. In 2008, rank and file members of Congress earned $169,300 annually, compared with a median American income of $45,113 for men and $35,102 for women." After, I believe it's 10 years, serving in congress they also get a good pension. Former Sen Ted Steven gets more than $10,000 a month even though he was convicted of a crime.
Enough that firstly, we can attract the best, and more importantly, that they don't need to be tempted by anyone else's money.
See above.
Falcon
Well, no not Jesus. But the Old Testament makes it clear
But didn't Jesus supposedly teach a different way?
Falcon
Also, the capitalization of "creator" in the first sentence of the second section (the famous one) could constitute religious belief in a higher power... thus alienating atheist citizens
If only the scientific theory of Evolution had been proposed before the DOI was written instead of about 80 years later, it could also mean evolution.
Falcon
So did the US. Don't believe me? The US protected the bombers of Cubana Flight 455, who included CIA operatives, in 1976. The year before, in 1975, the US supported Indonesia's invasion of East Timor, in which 200,000 East Timorese were massacred. In 1973 the US supported Gen Pinochet's overthrow of Chile's democratically elected government in a coup d'état Thousands of people disappeared afterwards. The US has a history of arming and supporting repressive regimes with large human rights violations.
Heck, at the same tyme the US was supporting Saddam, the US was also arming Iran, who he was fighting against. If the US had allowed democracy in Iran, instead of aiding the overthrow of Iran's elected government and installing the Shah in a dictatorship, there would not have been the revolution in Iran in 1980.
As far as Iraq goes, we had a treaty in place that allowed us to investigate them at will and they broke that treaty.
What treaty was broken and when? After Scott Ritter came out and stated Iraq had no significant WMDs the Neocons in Bush Jr's admin had to besmear him for not supporting their lies.
As for breaking treaties, the US has broken many treaties. I can think of 2 treaties Bush Jr broke or tried to break. With Starwars he was breaking the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. In trying to locate the permanent nuclear waste disposal site at Yucca Mount he would also have violated the Treay of Ruby Valley which granted the Western Shoshone Yucca Mount and the surrounding land. The US broke a number of treaties with the Sioux. When Andrew Jackson forced the Cherokee to march on the Trail of Tears he broke a treaty when the Cherokee.
The US also supports Israel who has consistently disregarded UN resolutions, there was an uproar when VP Biden went to Israel and they announced more settlements in occupied territory.
the point was to keep Iran's military in line.
Why then did Reagan administration officials sell weapons to Iran in the Iran-Contra Affair? Quite simply they were supporting a number of different sides who were repressive.
At that time there was also a threat by the Soviets against northern Yemen (after they invaded Afghanistan) and Iraq was prepping to fight with Saudi Arabia to defend against them.
Afghanistan was the Soviet's Vietnam. And the same Muslims going there to fight would have fought for the Saudis as well, heck a lot of Saudis went to Afghanistan. After Saddam's invasion of Kuwait al qaeda offered to protect Saudi Arabia against Saddam. They would have caused the Soviets trouble too.
By the way, the USA did NOT give Saddam chemical weapons. Did you just make that up?
Well, at least you're not hiding the fact that democrats typically do support abortion and that's enough more me as a Christian to not support democrats. That make sense to you? And sure, there's republicans who also support abortion, but as a political party we do not.
No it doesn't make sense, you paint Democrats with a broad brush but not Republicans.
Falcon
Oh BTW, do you also oppose capital punishment? More Republicans do than Democrats. But that's okay?
I don't see anything in the Bible condemning violent bahvior when it comes to protecting one's own society/nation.
What danger was either Afghanistan or Iraq to the US? How about Viet Nam? East Timor? Now if you want to talk about protecting people why did Reagan and Bush Sr arm Saddam, give him chemical weapons, and allow him the massacre civilians?
Falcon
(democrats)
Oh, all Democrats support abortion and no Republicans do? Funny, sad really, that's one of the issues holding up the passage of the health care bill.
Falcon
The more fun one is asking how you can be gay and be a christian. I mean, really, mon. The bible expressly tells all the people you are hanging out with that, ah, if you act on your natural impulses that they have to KILL YOU.
I ask Christians if they can point out in the Bible where Jesus taught homosexuality was bad.
Falcon
Generally this is interpreted as meaning you are free to practice the religion of your choice, but the government cannot coerce you into practicing any specific religion. Have atheists taken this too far in arguing against prayer or any kind of religious symbols in school? Yes.
Allowing prayer in school is forcing religion on students in one way or another. In elementary school I went to a public, not private church rule, school and I had a wooden ruler forcibly applied to my hands when I refused to pray in school. The same for "under God". Heck I even knew Christians who refused to say it, to them it was taking God's name in vain. I also saw others who could not handle the peer pressure of others to pray in school. If you want to allow a moment of silence that's fine with me but no led prayers.
Have atheists taken this too far in arguing against prayer or any kind of religious symbols in school? Yes.
Would those same Christians who want to take religious symbols to school and have prayer allow Muslims their prayer? Or a Wiccan take their pentagram and pray?
Falcon
There is already an establishment of a particular branch of religions in including God though...
And where in the Constitution is "God" found? I'll increase your odds of finding by saying you can use the Declaration of Independence too.
Falcon
I do think the Christian right is probably closer to matching the views of most of the founding fathers than those advocating for a complete divorce from all concepts of religion by governments.
Many of those Founding Fathers were Deists not Christians.
What the founding fathers overtly intended was to prevent having a national church or religion, which was essential in what at the time was a society with many fundamentally different religious ideas and institutions (including Quakers and Unitarians).
Here I agree.
Objectively, it is a bit hard to see a difference between someone who sues the school district because they teach evolution and someone who sues the school district because a teacher leads a prayer.
There are big differences between them, one is science and can be tested and possibly falsified whereas the other relies on faith.
Falcon
I would also argue that this clause should make the government religion-blind; churches should have no special tax status certainly
If only for one reason churches should not be taxed, if you're taxed then you have a seat in politics. Some, though not all, church leaders have gotten into trouble because they've spoken out on political issues as the church's leader. I have no problem with them speaking out as a private citizen, even Rabbis, Priests, and Mullahs pay taxes. But as soon as they start telling church goers in sermons who to vote for, they've gone to far. The problem with this is what defines "too far", where is the line?
Falcon
You're the arrogant prick.
Falcon
Country music is much better than the modern clap-trap that people listen to (e.g. Hip-hop, rap, etc)
That is a matter of opinion not fact.
It also had a significant social impact.
And according to those who want to ban rap et al. it leads people to become criminals, treat women as dirt, and so on.
What amazes me about Americans is that they like leaders who start wars
Utter Bullshit!
There is little doubt that Christianity had a large influence on the American politics. The founding fathers wanted a country where there is freedom of religion - not freedom from religion (as the far left portrays it).
Yes Christianity had an influence but the USA was not founded on Judeo-Christian values. Thomas Jefferson both wrote the Declaration of Independence, which does not contain any reference to a supreme deity, and coined the term "separation of church and state". Actually many of the Founding Fathers were Deists not Christians. TJ was one in the sense that he believed Jesus was a great teacher, but not in the sense that Jesus was the :Son Of God". As a Deist himself he believed religion "can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Deists tend to, but do not necessarily, reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations." That is probably why the school board dropped Thomas Jefferson from the list of people who's writings will not be studied. They can't have it be taught that a Founding Father thought religion was a private matter and not something that should dictate public policy.
Falcon
Wow, so you mean they'll actually start teaching facts again? Who gives a rats ass about the evolution or religion crap as long as kids will actually understand what happens when you give the government infinite power. It doesn't matter what people are taught about evolution or religion if they're not free to run their own lives.
Wow. It doesn't matter much how much money you have if you live in a fantasy-land. I applaud them for including Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, but that's 1 positive to a bunch of negatives. They also want to teach myths and right out lies.
Falcon
"The policies that are implemented are not strongly liberal."
Really, how are you coming to this conclusion? California has their own blends of gasoline because of the state government. The state government is, by far, the largest employer in the state.
You as much as admitted California isn't liberal. Liberals are "committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, and free markets." That is the opposite of the state government as the biggest employer.
Falcon
I live here, and it is nowhere as conservative as you make it sound. We just had a CANNABIS CUP held here, for crying out loud! Cypress Hill, vape bags flying around, the works!
Except Conservatives support the fake War on Drugs. Nixon got to pick all of the members for a presidential commission to study whether hemp, marijuana, should be legalized or not. Before the commission ever made it's decision Nixon came flat out and said he'd never agree to allow it to be legalized, which is exactly what his commission recommended. Although almost all members were drug warriors "they started talking about legalization". Two more conservatives opposed to legal drugs were Ronald and Nancy Reagan. President Reagan increased the size of the war on drugs and Nancy started the "Just Say No" campaign.
The War on Drugs isn't a Conservative or a Socialist (I won't say liberal because most of those who call then that are not liberal) issue, they both support it.
Falcon
Revenue can't be the problem because if it were, then we might have to admit we need to raise taxes or fees.
Revenue is part of the problem but so is spending. During the booming '90s, with the state rolling in tax revenue, spending was increased a lot. However now that revenue has shrunken while spending hasn't the budget is in trouble. If the state had invested some of the money coming in when tymes were good, and was allowed to run a deficit when money was tight, it probably wouldn't be as bad as it is now.
Falcon
Some are and some aren't. Just like socialists.
Conservatives really are under attack based on comments from people like you.
When they do stuff like this school board does, they should be corrected. Of course that applies to those on the US left as well, such as those pushing for Obamacare.
I will applaud the board for including Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek though. Now if only more states will include them too.
Falcon
Not my nation, just the one I live in has been driven bankrupt by neoconservatives, neoliberals, and socialists. Unfortunately they took over my nation.
Falcon
Oh, and I certainly like the smoking ban. Smoking is not only gross, the smoke affects me strongly enough that my eyes water so hard it is hard to see. Keep that poison in your own home.
Vehicles kill, let's ban vehicles. And they smoke, so they should be banned for that too. Exhaust from then have nearly blinded me and made it hard to breath while riding my bike, so they should be banned. Keep that poisonous death traps in your own home, and don't let the pollution escape.
Falcon