Not to go off on a tangent, but that's a damn good reason to get the state out of the education business. You don't like what your school teaches? Go somewhere else.
Ain't it funny how the ideology that preaches tolerance and acceptance can be so bigoted and intolerant towards those who do not agree with them?
Glad to see your supporting the Theocratic State of Kansas teaching science and using it to support the Pauligan view on education.
Ain't it funny how the ideology that preaches tolerance and acceptance can be so bigoted and intolerant towards those who do not agree with them?
Another thing you probably ought to learn is the difference between clarification and advocacy.Glad to see your supporting the Theocratic State of Kansas teaching religious science and using it to support the Pauligan view on education.
Another thing you probably ought to learn is the difference between clarification and advocacy.
Actually, that is not Ron Paul's view on education. He position is a Constitutional one. Education is not the Federal government's business, unless the Constitution is violated. Otherwise, if a state wants an idiotic science program, then they can have an idiotic science program. People can move elsewhere if they don't like being taught that Jesus rode a dinosaur. Unfortunately for Kansas, that doesn't leave much of a gene pool for them. LOL.
The only bull**** being peddled here is that from your corner. I'm sorry the facts don't suit your preconceived notions.Still trying to escape your bull**** attempt to paint your state for what it isn't? Glad to know. :2wave: .
I think you would like Kansas. There's a naturally occurring plant there called "ditchweed." Google it.When Kansas isn't teaching that there is supernatural explanations for scientific occurrences, give me a call. Until then :
The only bull**** being peddled here is that from your corner.
It allows the individual USD's to teach whatever they want in that regard. In other words, it allows for more local control in curriculum.So Kansas does not allow supernatural explanations for things which can be proven scientifically? It doesn't allow people to teach creationism? Yeah. Mkay. You're arguing just to argue now.
It allows the individual USD's to teach whatever they want in that regard. In other words, it allows for more local control in curriculum.
Each school district has it's own standard. Is this too hard for you to understand, or do you feel more comfortable with the stereotypes you've been fed by your television?And that shows the backwardness of the state. No standards of education. It is 'whatever they want'. This silly cop-out of local control over education is a smoke screen for the true intent of the religious fringe that lives in Kansas. To teach kids religion and paint it as science. If you do not like it that is fine. I have no problem with my home state(California) being painted as a godless state where kids are taught science instead of religion. I am fine with that. Hippies who love trees? Fine with that. People who love money and are in love with plastic surgery? I'm fine with that. Why you are not fine with your state being painted as a backwards state where people are more interested in preaching than teaching is beyond me.
Each school district has it's own standard. Is this too hard for you to understand, or do you feel more comfortable with the stereotypes you've been fed by your television?
Any more unfounded assumptions you care to make about me? The night is still young.And I support all kids being taught that there is no such thing as competing supernatural explanations for events which can be explained through science. Specially not in science class. If you think that is irrational then you are nothing more than a supporter of religious indoctrination.
SO by logic any murderer and gang banger should be charged as terrorist.
Do most murderers and gangbangers kill people to advance a political cause and/or intimidate their political opponents? No.
Since I applaud the man for taking out a baby serial killer I hope he gets the most lenient sentence possible assuming that is why he performed a late term abortion on a late term abortion provider.
The act of killing one person is not a act of terrorism. Heck if he went around just killing abortion doctors he still would not be a terrorist, he would be just a serial killer ironically taking out serial killers. If he blew up abortion clinics then yeah that would be a terrorist act.
I am sure many abortionist and closet abortionist will harp on me for making my comments but **** them. If this guy killer someone they viewed to be no different than Jeffery Dhamer or Charles Manson they would not be condemning Scott Roeder. Nor would the cowards who consider themselves to be anti-abortion(not the phonies who say they think abortion is morally wrong but not morally wrong enough to want it illegal, but those are actually opposed to abortion) but are worried about the abortionist (yes the same people who have no problem with babies being killed) painting anti-abortionist as loons.
I wanna have your baby. :mrgreen:
So we should base court rulings on fear?
Not in my America.
Did you read the article?
The article seems to be pushing the idea that somehow we should make rulings out of fear instead the facts of the case. I do think it is idiotic that they need more than 250 witnesses to convict a man who already says he killed Tiller the baby killer. I would live the idea if Scott Roeder got off due to justifiable homicide. But I know that has the same chance of Tom Tancredo or Sheriff Joe Arpaio being president of the United states or media matters blowing a liberal talk show host's words out of proportion.
I didn't see it like that. I thought it pointed out several slippery slope arguments from the opposition that one could intrepret as desperate and hyper-paranoid, for sure. But I don't think it worked.
We all know the guy's gonna fry.
And, none of us here think he should walk the streets again.
But I do think he should be allowed to present his defense from the aspect that, in his mind, he was merely performing a pre-emotive strike that would save countless babies from being sucked out of their mother's womb in tiny pieces.
I don't think guy should be "martyred" in societie's eye's though. As much as I love the babies, what he did ain't right either.
Ain't it funny how the ideology that preaches tolerance and acceptance can be so bigoted and intolerant towards those who do not agree with them?
A possible description of terrorism:
"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."
The murder of Dr. Tiller was the final of several criminal acts against him and his clinic.
"In 1993, an abortion opponent shot Dr. Tiller in both arms. His clinic was bombed and repeatedly vandalized."
It would be no surprise if the court found his murder was also linked to his stance on late-term abortions.
Knowing this, his murder was obviously meant to send a political message to the pro-abortion, or at least those who support late-term abortions. This key observation is what could allow it to be called an act of terrorism.
"Mr. Roeder has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder. But in phone calls from jail, he has told news organizations that he killed Dr. Tiller -- an act he said was justified to protect unborn children."
The fact that the accused Scott Roeder is willing to justify the murder as an act of self-defense towards an unborn child only further concretes his alleged actions as an act of terrorism under the presented definition.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?