timesjoke

lol, at best it was a very, very bad example Joe, even tori pointed out the weakness of that as an example before my post so we know that the merit of your example was flawed. There is no moral agreement in society that implants mean a woman is a whore, your just going out of your way to call my girlfriend a whore, and yes, it is a shot at me even if you can't admit it. But I really don't care if your taking shots at me Joe, it just shows the reality that your not willing to discuss any of the points I offer and have to change the subject away from the things you can't address. No Joe, I am not going to get shot in the face, I am not going to get cancer and die, and I am not going to stop being me and pointing out distraction tactics for those who seem willing to ask questions but never answer them. If you really feel banning should be part of your debating style as you just threatened me with yesterday, then you may as well do it because I don't do fear, I don't stop debating someone just because they have a ban button. You joind the discussion, you asked questions, and it is fair to ask you questions in return and to tell the truth when you refuse to answer those questions, I have done nothing wrong.

And that is your problem, you have a child's incomplete understanding of the Constitution and you narrowly only let yourself see 15% of the picture while completely ignoring the other 85%. Again, where is the amendment that governs executions? Answer, there is none, the Federal Government and the Constitution was designed for general structure while local States were designed for direct governing of the people. That is why stealing a horse was a death sentence in one American State while in another it was barely a crime. The Government puts speeders in prison, forces people to jump through hoops just to own a gun or drive a car without a single amendment to the Constitution, there was a system designed for creating new laws by the same people who helped to create this great experiment called America, how can you respect 15% of their work and at the same time disrespect the other 85% of their work? Taking shots Joe? Tori, just to let you know my girlfriend has implants, Joe is digging into the nasty bag and trying to be hurtful and insulting to someone I love in his need to strike out at me. "IF" the majority of Americans voiced a moral outrage similar to the way they have for things like murder and abortion Joe, sure, then it would be local laws fitting the morals of the community as all laws have always been made. You don't want to discuss laws and how they are made because then there must be an admission that our founding fathers created this system to do exactly what we see now, for communities to express their values and morals and have the Government "represent" those values and morals. Just like murder, communities have spoken out against something it sees as wrong, not a flash in the pan short term vision, but a long term core value expression. If the Government is not supposed to folow the beliefs and morals of Americans, then we don't have a represenative form of Government, we have the few Elite dictating to the masses what they feel we should have, not what we want. In your possition, your advocating the exact same kind of elitist governing as Obama just executed in ignoring the people to do as he pleased.

I am just saying that ideas are the first step to policies, talk about them and see how people react. I do believe he is being two faced where he used all of the things he now says is bad and the only reason I feel he has changed his mind is because he now feels the pressures instead of the benefits. Hopefully there will be enough "change" in the midterm elections to halt and even scale back a lot of the radical things he has already done but I still say that when someone as powerful as the President of the United States is trying to say certain things are bad, that usually means they want to do something about what they say is bad. We will see how things go, lol.

Gun ownership is not a privilige, but the Government still requires people to obtain permits and purchase safety devices like gun cabinets and trigger locks as part of the responsibility to owning a gun. You dodged that direct question, as usual, I ask you again, do you support these kiinds of laws and Government control over people who have not broken the law? There is nothing in the Constitution making abortion a "right", so they are the same under the constitution, if one can be regulated and severe limitations and forced purchases of products/services is reasonable for Government to mandate, why do you have an issue about requiring a ultrasound for abortions? An abortion is a voluntary medical procedure, it is not an accident or a function of Government but it is an attack on life and kills 1.4 million babies every year all by itself, if a voluntary procedure that kills 1.4 million children every year is not subject to Government guidelines then what is? I see you dodged all the other questions, I guess that is an answer of a kind as well that you do believe as hugo believs, your just not willing to put it to words.

Limits of free speach? Yep..........

You know hugo, if your not posting a fast attack on someone, your always copy/pasting the work of other people, you just did it again: http://www.usconstitution.net/constkids4.html The constitution is about "basic" rights, but there is nothing about the specific times when Government sets aside those rights "for cause". Time and time again your asked direct questions about other times the Government sets aside the rights of people and you never respond. The only reason you dodge these questions is becuase you know that if you answer them honestly, you have to admit your wrong. I agree in principle that the "basic" structure offered by the Constitution is to allow individual rights, where your going wrong is at the same time Government also has a responsibility to establish and support laws. The same creaters of the Constitution also created the system for the development and enforcement of new laws. Why would these men create a system of law creation if the Constitution was the beginning and ending of all laws? Why was punnishment for stealing a horse a capital offense in one place, while hardly even a crime in another place hugo? Your inconsistent in that you intentionally blind yourself from 85% of the system created by our founders and only let yourself see 15% because that is the only 15% you like. At the same time you say there should be constitutional amendments for one form of rights infringement, you don't want to admit things like taking executions do not have their own seperate constitutional amendments allowing it, so why do you suddenly want a completely set of rules than has ever been implimented before? Do we have a constitutional amendment requiring everyone to buy car insurance if they want to drive? In this case there is no real intrusion on any rights, everything starts in choices by the adults involved to conduct themselves in various irresponsible behaviors that end up with the woman being pregnant with a child she did not want. Any number of contraceptive choices are available for both adults to use and some of them are even free from places like health departments. A actual "choice" must be made by both individuals to "not" use any of the available protection methods. Almost all women who get abortions already have children and are not stupid, they know what causes pregnancy. There is even a "day after" pill that women can take so even if the sexual romp was a unplanned event, another "choice" is there for the woman. All sorts of choices and chances prior to the abortion trip, nobody forces the adults to have sex, nobody forces the sex to be without protection, nobody forces the woman to seek an abortion, up to that point all the "choices" are made by the adults involved. ONLY "after" all those other choices have been made is the system asking for the woman desiring to kill her baby actually see the child she wants to kill first. I would personally thing placing a camera on the hoover would be more accurate and allow the woman to "pull the trigger" with her baby in the sights just like any other person would do when killing another life. The ultrasound still allows a certain distance to be maintained by the mother but at the same time applies a reality of life into the decision of the mother.

Hugo said something about it should be found unconstitutional by the courts, but more than that he has said countless times it is unconstitutional and while your fast to jump on people and call them names when they say something you do not agree with, you never said one word against hugo's claim, so that leads a certain support from you to him. If you do not agree with hugo that laws that impose restrictions on fredom are unconstitutional then I am sure you would have spoken against that part too, but maybe not, maybe I am putting too much importance in your name calling of those who say this is not unconstitutional, maybe you didn't even clearly understand that was our possition so let's clear this up right now with a clear question and answer: Do you IWS agree with hugo that laws like this that limit or control freedoms are unconstitutional and should only be enforced if there is a constitutional amendment? To be honest I already asked you this question in a different way earlier but you refused to answer. I simply pointed out the Government restricts freedoms all the time "for cause" like putting a speeder in jail, but even more than that, driving a car is not illegal but the Government forces everyone to buy insurance. Insurance is not a requirement to drive in reality but society has said it is immoral to drive without having insurance so they have imposed laws to force people to buy insurance if they want to drive a car. Someone else pointed out that owning a gun is not illegal, but individual States require permits and background checks as well as gun cabinets and locks as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. Time and time again Government places controls over our actions even if we are not breaking any laws IWS. Your a cop, do you think gun permits and background checks are good things for the Government to impose? Do you think people who have not broken any law should be forced to buy car insurance?

To me cheating is a symptom of a bad marriage, not a cause. If either the woman or the man cheats, there already was huge problems in the marriage to begin with. That said I certainly do not think it is right for someone to target a married person for their advances, I have experienced this myself but even when I was single, I did not want to date people I worked with, the old saying "don't get your honey from the same place you get your money" is very good advise. As far as the woman getting revenge with this lawsuit, I guess it makes her feel better to blame the other woman so she does not have to take responsibility for her own failed relationship, but that will not really make anything better. The award will be tossed out on appeal and this will drag out even more time, the realtionship is over, wasting time on revenge seeking is not something I would call very healthy. This is just a very small sample, but in this limited view of the mindset of the ex-wife, maybe we see why the husband was willing to cheat? I have been in a similar situation where my ex-wife found someone new while we were married and took off, the guy got her pregnant and then died in a car accident, all of a sudden I didn't look so bad anymore and she wanted to come back home, but if you don't have trust, you don't have a marriage, there was no way I could ever trust her again after that. I do still care about her, I am not the type of guy to get married and make children with someone then hate them, I do not wish any harm or bad on her, I just can't trust her. Our relationship ended, I was part of that relationship and I must bear some of the responsibility for it failing even if I am not sure what I could have done differently, or if nothing I could have done would have changed the outcome. I can't see where trying to blame the third person would get me very far.

And the founding fathers created the system for creating new laws, why is it you always dodge that very important part? Why are you so scared of admitting that the same founders of the Constitution also made allowances to create new laws? A new law is not unconstitutional just because you say so, and it is most certainly not unconstitutional just because it infringes on rights "for cause". Murder as a crime was adopted by our original colonies and has had various punnishments from place to place long before we ever had a constitution. After we did have a Constitution, these moral based laws were all adopted by each local State Government and again, the penalties varied greatly. Even in those very young days for America policical views of crime varied but we did not see any attempt by our founding fathers to write a constitutional amendment to regulate punnishment for murder because those same founding fathers understood that each State had the right to regulate their own people and their own laws just like each person could choose to move if the laws and morals of that State were not what they wanted. This is why the early days of America had the stealing of a horse in one place be punnished with death, while in other places it was hardly even a crime. Hugly different penalties for the same exact crime, and the founding fathers were okay with that. You and Joe are a contradiction hugo, first you put down Obama for not listening to the people when he shoved his healthcare bill down our throats but at the same time you also say the people should not be allowed a voice in the shaping of their laws. The creation of laws is clear, our founding fathers set forth the system and made it possible for each State to create the moral based laws (and punnishments) they felt were right for them. The Federal Government should not be regulating the local laws of each State. You and Joe are asking for big Government when you say the Federal Government should strike down this law, you feel States should not be allowed to control their own destiny and need to be nannied by big Government's heavy hand. Should the Federal Government come into Texas and say you can no longer execute people hugo? There is no constitutional amendment allowing States to kill Americans so based on your own voiced standard, that means executions are illegal and unconstitutional. Executions are the State intruding on personal freedoms and removing the basic rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness guranteed in the Constitution. In 2009 Texas killed 24 people, the most by far out of all the States in America. Each of these executions represent the ultimate of infringing on the rights of an American all without direct permission to do so in the Constitution. But you see no problem with that intrusion do you hugo, or you IWS? But the real question is why? Why do you feel even speeders deserve to have massive intrusion into their lives by Government but at the same time a mother killing her own child is not a big enough moral issue to have a small requirement to show the mother her child before she kills it? Neither of you have any real problem with the Government enforcing the moral based laws or you would be against executions, no instead your really against "this" moral possition being given the support of Government. You personally do not mind abortions so you see no reason for the Government to enforce this moral possition. This is where I got someone else here one time, he complained about Government imposing their force on the people but at the same time he was willing to use the power of Government to protect him from a theif and get his stolen property back. Everyone likes to justify the power of Government from their own perspective including me but at least I allow for the "represenative" part. While we are not supposed to be governed by "mob rule" we at the same time are supposed to have a voice in the process, that is what our founding fathers intended. A direct control from the people is chaos, but a gradual adjustment based on consistent drive is not. There is one very consistent trend in all of America, almost all Americans want "small" controls placed on abortions to reinsert the human element in their decisions. Even the founding fathers knew this human element was vital to the survival of America. Why do you guys think we are required to have a jury of our peers in a trial against us? Because the founding fathers knew that humans needed to be part of the system, that pure Government could not allow for the most important thing, humanity. You guys can call me and other people names like " faux conservatives" if you like, but both of you have already admitted to either not voting in the last election or wasting your vote on someone who could not win so in the realm of "real" conservatives, neither of you fit the bill so when you say I am not a conservative in your minds, that means I really am a conservative because you most certainly are not conservatives when it was you guys and other liked minded people who put Obama into office. Comming from you two, " faux conservatives" is a compliment to all real conservatives.

But why get angry? I have never gotten angry with you even when your tossing nasty names at me. We are sharing words, ideas, thoughts, nothing I say changes your life and nothing you say changes mine. I might lable you a liberal, but as long as you believe the things liberals believe (based on my local use of the word, I know it is different in different places) there is no insult in that. I don't use a lable like that as an insult, just to help me identify where people are comming from on a political track. And here is a great example, you say you do not like being called a liberal, but you toss insults like this in my direction without blinking an eye. I am also a human being, but you have no problem with treating me like something less than human. The only correct things you said there is I am religious and conservative, but I do not impose my religion on society, almost all of my possitions on a sociery level is about personal responsibility, not religion. I want people to take responsibility for their own actions, is that really so bad? Do you really believe it is the Government's responsibility to cover up and enable people to escape taking responsibility for their own actions? Do you really believe personal responsibility is only a religious concept? Emotional? I am not the person tossing nasty names at people just because they do not share the same beliefs, you are, I have never said your a bad person or attacked your character, but you have done that to me Anna. Parochial? You are way, way off base there Anna. Again, no need to toss insults just because we do not agree on things, I bet if you took the time to actually have a real open discussion with me you would see I am not the guy you have pictured in your mind. I do not agree with most of what you say because you filter everything with a very socialist mindset, but I do not dislike you for believing things I do not believe. Why is it I do not hate those who don't share my beliefs, but those who tend to hold very extreme beliefs as you and hugo, have to hate and call people nasty names? Well I have never dodged a single question on purpose, I am sure I can miss one now and again with several people posting but if I am asked a direct question I will answer it to the best of my ability because I take every question seriously Anna. As far as you and hugo getting along, your kindred spirits, each on the outside edge of political beliefs so you share a certain bond in that reguard, remewmber, hugo believe we should turn isolationist, it does not get much more radical than that. Your still missing the case, the ultrasound will still be performed by the abortion clinics, those people will not be trying to create a air of an unethical death to their prospective client, these people have to perform abortions to make money, if women suddenly stopped having abortions because the ultrasound operator was manipulating the client the management would not tolerate it for one second. There is nothing unethical about seeing what your about to kill. The choices of morals will be run inside the head of the mother, not externally. In your hunting example the hunter has to put the animal in his sights and pull the trigger, he will see a bloddy and thrashing animal in all probabilities when he gors to gather his prize, everything done by the hunter is out in the open for him to see. But you and other pro-abortion groups want to keep what women do shrouded in darkness, shield the woman from the reality of her decision, protect her from the truth that she is not removing a wart but instead she is killing a baby, a life she has made.

Good point IWS. Obama spent a lot of money getting his political advertisement you show there inserted into a popular game. Obama is the only canidate to use video games this way to the best of my knowledge, but at the same time he is at that graduation telling kids they should not pay attention to other sources of information? So do as I say, not as I do? I am curious Tori, why do you believe Obama would use all these alternative methods for his campaign but now he is saying they are bad? Hell Obama is still using twitter, Flickr, and facebook, he is famous for his admission of being addicted to his Blackberry, even the secrete service tried to get him to stop using it because it was a security concern and Obama refused to stop using it. Obama has no issue with all these alternative information sources himself so why would he tell other people these other sources are bad now?

This is true, but you can bet that if private schools became popular and public schools started shutting down because of low attendence, they would start letting some teachers go......how much do you want to bet the school will go of the best teachers first? Of course those will go to the private schoools so no real harm, other then to the kids still in the public system. It is no surprise to anyone I am sure that I don't love the public school system but at the same time kids can get some balance if the parents are strong examples at home, my kids go to public schools but I question pretty much everything they do, I spend time in the schools and the teachers all know me while I know them. I go to the school board meetings and I am active in the PTO, our schools are not as bad as some because we have a lot of very vocal parents who keep our eye on the ball. But, more and more communities are less and less involved, they let the schools and sities do whatever they want to do without complaint, and that is how we get stopries like the one above about the Texas school harshly punnishing a 8 year old because she had a jolly rancher..........

Oh, I agree, but the transition will be difficult, and the last few kids still stuck in the public schools will be truly miserable creatures as the government tit entitlement crowd start imploding. It would be easier if entire school districts would just be given to private companies and not waste the buildings, of course most of the school board buildings/people that account for 25% of each County's budgets can be closed because most of them do absolutely nothing but gobble up tax money so there would be a huge savings without any change in education at all.

I like vouchers in some ways, but it does not fix all the problems, there are only so many private schools for example....... I would really like to see all public schools put out of business sometime in the future, we pour more money down the drain just maintaining the various buracracy for schools than we do teaching basic skills like reading and math. Imagine a school system more concerned with teaching kids skills than politics.....now that would be a great dream to see become reality.

SLAM!!! Another point where his anology is way, way off base is guns are not "exclusively" for committing suicide, in fact most legal guns never get used against a human target. An abortion on the other hand is "ALWAYS" killing a human target, there is no other use or reason and the purpose of the ultrasound is to let the mother see the child their killing. A person who uses a gun on another person "WILL" see the person in their sights just before pulling the trigger, lol. All gun use has us with the ability to see our target, all this ultrasound will do is give mother's the same ability, in fact, being as these ultrasounds will be performed by abortion clinics, I bet they can even place a set of cross hairs on the screen..............

Ten-year-old Leighann Adair came home in tears, terrified to tell her parents she'd been slapped with a week's worth of detention for possessing a contraband substance: The forbidden fruit: a piece of Jolly Rancher candy. A teacher at Brazos Elementary School in Wallis, Texas, took the unopened piece of candy away from the third-grader two weeks ago after a friend handed it to her. Both Leighann and her friend were ordered to serve detention during lunch and recess, and they had to write an essay about what they did and why it was wrong. "She came home crying," said her mother, Amber Brazda, explaining that Leighann "has never been in trouble before." "It’s an extreme punishment for something so small,� said Leighann’s stepfather Michael Brazda. "What are they going to do, have candy sniffing dogs next?" her mother said. But school officials are standing by the punishment. They say they have to be strict in order to enforce their no-gum, no-candy policy. Candy and gum, they say, can cause a mess. Jack Ellis , superintendent for the Brazos Independent School District, says it's also a matter of following state guidelines to limit the amount of junk food in schools. "Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules," Ellis told KHOU-TV in Houston. A piece of Jolly Ranchers candy has 23 calories and provides 2 percent of the daily value of carbohydrates. But there's nothing in the rules that compels a school to punish a student for possessing junk food, says Texas Department of Agriculture spokesman Bryan Black. The department sent a letter to the school reminding staff that state policy doesn’t outline such punishments. "Our policy does not prohibit from sharing a Jolly Rancher with a friend," Black told FOXNews.com. "If a parent wants to pack candy, it's their decision, not against school policy. A parent needs to decide what a student eats." Though the state has dietary rules for schools -- mandating, for example, that food be baked, not fried -- disciplinary action is a local decision, Black told FOXNews.com. And Leighann's parents say the local decision routinely goes too far. "The school has a history of harsh punishments," Michael Brazda told FoxNews.com. "It's about time someone called them out on it." He said students at the school are required to wear a belt, and a few months ago Leighann's brother was given in-house suspension for failing to wear one – even though the father said he called the school secretary to explain that their new puppy chewed up the boy's only belt that morning. He said his son had to "sit in a room all day and stare at a wall." Leighann’s family and members of the community plan to attend the next school board meeting to contest the school's stringent candy policy. Though the family is trying to change the district's patterns, the parents say they plan to take their children out of the school district at the end of the year. "I will put her in a private school if I have to," Amber Brazda said.

So because you do not agree with my assessment, I deserve to be called names? Could you just say you do not agree? If I do not agree with you do I call you names? I really have been working hard to be nicer to people and yet nobody else seems to be meeting me part way, why is that em? Can't you figure out a way to not agree with me that does not include ripping me apart and calling me names? I don't want to bite you, I want to discuss things and if we do not agree on something, do so in a reasonable way that does not include either side tossing out insults and nasty accusations. In the past I would have joined you in the insult game and struck back in kind, today I am trying to learn from mistakes of the past and not create huge problems that everyone else has to endure.

The best part of all that rant you try to pin on me is that you obviously know you are wrong, otherwise that attack would not have been needed by you, lol. I have said over and over again I do not mix my own personal faith driven beliefs with what I want for society, you must know this as many times as I have said this so your reason to misrepresent my possition is clear, you are just pissed off. For everyone else who may have believed that set of intentional untrue words let me say again, my possition for society is not based in religion, almost every possition I take on a society level is based on responsibility. I personally find any killing of any child at any point to be horrible, but I do not mix my personal views with my wider public opinions. This is why I allow for abortions under cases of incest and rape, the woman/girl had no choice, no option to say no to the creation of a baby inside her and that means she has no responsibility to carry the baby to term.....I would love to see her give life a chance, the life was not evil but in many cases the baby inside them is like being raped again, over and over without stop. Now, back to the question hugo dodged twice now. Hugo, why is it you refuse to answer a direct question about how laws are created? Why do you refuse to admit that we are supposed to have new laws based on the morals of communities? As I said before, if we had every law we could ever need on the books, why would our founding fathers create a system for creating new laws? You seem to only want to see a very narrow segment of American history and you completely ignore the rest. Our founding fathers knew that times would change, they knew that their view on the world would not fit an eternity, that was why they set forth ways to adjust things as we go, to allow for new possibilities and needs they could not plan for. They knew time would bring change. Now, I offered you some great examples showing how everything from speeding to murder can put you in handcuffs and even have the Government take your life. None of these specific punnishments are included in the Constitution, in reality the Federal Government was never supposed to make laws that directly control citizens, that was supposed to be the job of each State and even Row v Wade said that this was a States issue. If you don't like the laws of that State, don't live there. All laws are based in morals, this law is the same. If we can kill a person for moral reasons, I don't believe an ultrasound performed by people who think killing babies is a good thing is something to be even considered an intrusion. If the hoover shoved up there is not an intrusion on the person, then the ultrasound is nothing in comparison. Remember, the woman made a "choice" to have unprotected sex and create an unwanted child. The same woman has a "choice" to kill her child, all that is being asked is that part of the "RESPONSIBILITY" of killing your child is to see it first. I have no problem with that.

I understand your point, and if the majority of Americans had said this I would not really care but when the President of the United States goes out of his way to say some forms of communication are "bad" and should be avoided I feel a chill go down my back wondering what is comming. New policies start with ideas, first those ideas are just thoughts, then people start to talk about them. Suddenly there is a campaign to pressure change. Right now Obama being the most powerful politician in America is in the talking about it stage and what is he talking about? He specifically mentioned bloggers and such in his speach, he talks about certain ideas gaining traction and cannot be controlled. When the President of the United States is saying certain kinds of information should not be listened to......what is the next step? I agree that to a certain degree, there is a lot of useless crap out there, but there is just as much crap on ABC, CBS, and NBC, but they are "okay" because they preach the party line, the only things Obama is speaking out against are the things he does not control and when people in power start talking about how bad a specific thing is, I know, maybe not today, but there will be movements to "deal with the problem" at some point in the future. Let's get real for a second, Obama set records using these 'alternative information' methods to get elected. He uses tweeter, the whitehouse website, Flickr, and even facebook almost every day. Obama has no real problem with these alternative information sources, he just has a problem with not being able to control what he does not like. New pressure? Bush was blasted almost every day on these alternative sources, we certainly did not see Obama or a single Liberal come out against these bloggers and such then, because they liked it when \bush was the victim, but now that the "new pressure" is on Obama's back, suddenly it is a bad thing, and people should not be listening to them. My concern is freedom of speach Tori, when we have powerful political figures talking about how one kind of free speach is bad, one kind of groups free speach is bad, what is the logical next step? I don't believe it is the place of any political figure to tell people what they should listen to, what is next? Controlling what people listen to.

When teachers are going out of their way to put down the American flag. (hating America) When teachers go out of their way to put down our rights to assemble and question establishment like attacking the tea parties.(hating America) When teachers celebrate Multiculturalism and have special parties and assignments for every culture......except whites (hating whites) When the teachers talk all about the evils of white people (Rodney King) and never mention anything they have done that is good. (hating whites) When teachers even admit they are willing to break the law to sabotage political groups that tells children that only certain groups have the right to a voice, others (the liberals paint the tea parties as white racist movements). When female teachers are given a slap on the wrist for molesting children and men are slammed, that teaches a double standard in America, not much to be proud of there. (hating America) I am not all over the map, I am just able to see the bigger picture. There are more examples in my post but I will settle for these couple, this is enough to get the point made, you either will see it or not, but stop trying to put me down with comments like "your all over the place", if you wanted me to clarify you can just ask without the negative commentary, I don't do that to you.

Extreme? All bad things happen over time, a gradual thing, not an overnight thing em. One step at a time, first we allow one thing without comment, then another, then another because each one seems like a small thing but when we combine all the small things together we see a much larger harm on the horizon. Look at the Colorado school teacher who admits to infiltrating the tea party movement to try and rip it apart from the inside out, trying to steal social securtity numbers of members so he can use that information to mess with specific members. Did the school take steps to remove such a radical who is teaching students to even break the law (stealing and misusing social security numbers) and abusing his teaching possition to brainwashing students to his political beliefs? Nope, they are very proud of their radical teacher. Every day we see more and more stories of how teachers are getting more and more crazy, the women teachers molesting the boys is a pretty new big trend and they also get no or little punnishment for doing it. Do you think the school sending a child to get an abortion without telling the parents....actually encouraging the child to "NOT" tell her parents is a little extreme? I would call that extreme. How about this one: http://www.news4jax.com/news/20603386/detail.html Yes, the parent was making a point against the new policies of the school taking hours to release the kids from classes but the school decided to punnish the mother and child because nobody is allowed to question school policies. So they 'claimed' riding a horse was too dangerious and instead took the 8 year old to her home and left her all alone, what if something bad happened to this unsupervised child? Would the school take responsibility for it? No. While we are not all the way to the point I mentioned "yet" there is no doubt in my mind that we will get there if steps are not taken to stop the current trends.

Recent reports show that Fannie Mae has lost $13 billion in the first quarter, that is a improvement from the $16 billion lost in the 4th quarter last year. Both Fannie and Freddie are asking for more money to continue, Fannie is asking for $8 billion and Freddie is asking for $10 billion just to keep going and both have admitted that there is no end to their money problems in sight anytime soon. In my opinion we need to cut our losses and get away from Fannie and Freddie, what say you guys?

No, that is why I posted the link, he was offering it as a warning to a graduating class to not take these other forms of information sources too seriously, that these alternative platforms offer some people the chance to blog or comment and gain popularity outside of the established news sources. What he means is he can't control those other sources so they should not be paid attention to by the masses. Obama has already taken direct shots at FOX news for daring not to "toe-the-line" and even tried to bully FOX away from certain announcements while only inviting ABC, NBC, and CBS. To give those other three credit, they did stand up to Obama and refused to let them get away with it but the real point is Obama "WANTED" to exclude FOX only because FOX refuses to kiss Obama's behind. Everyone can say what they want about Bush and every other Republican President but not one of them have demonstrated the kind of spoiled brat mentality Obama has shown to those who do not agree with him. Bush got hammered every day by the main Networks and he may have had fewer interviews, but he never refused to do interviews or tried to block certain Networks from the news pool just because they said things he did not agree with. If Obama was any more thin skinned, he would be transparent.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/ipad_is_ibad_for_democracy_obama_FrUMkdTNGHlfZ5JOKSgMVO "With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said at Hampton University in Virginia. So now information is a distraction? So what is the alternative there Mr. Obama? Don't be informed? Don't question? Don't be concerned with the details and simply trust you to do what is needed? I didn't see you and your liberal gang blindly trusting in Bush while he was President, during the Bush Presidency it was considered good to be informed, good to question, good to complain about the establishment, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly the sharing of information to large groups is bad? Here is the "REAL" problem, Obama and the liberals/socialists control ABC, CBS, and NBC, they do not control all of these other information sources so that lack of control is what makes them bad in their eyes.