• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas board adopts new social studies curriculum

hazlnut said:
Will FactCheck.org and PolitiFact be reviewing the new textbooks?
Click to expand...
How is it that only these companies can be trusted to review books?
 
American said:
How is it that only these companies can be trusted to review books?
Click to expand...

I think he was just giving 2 examples rather then every site/group that should review these books...
 
texmaster said:
You're kidding right?

A national campaign was launched today to get public schools that have shown Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" to give equal time to the opposing view of global warming.
Click to expand...

One big problem.

Most of the 'opposing views' on global warming and climate change have no basis in actually science... so, showing them in a science classroom would be counter-productive and only confuse the students.
 
hazlnut said:
One big problem.

Most of the 'opposing views' on global warming and climate change have no basis in actually science... so, showing them in a science classroom would be counter-productive and only confuse the students.
Click to expand...
Fine then, we'll present those opposing views that are backed by science.
 
hazlnut said:
One big problem.

Most of the 'opposing views' on global warming and climate change have no basis in actually science... so, showing them in a science classroom would be counter-productive and only confuse the students.
Click to expand...

LOL Yeah right. We have open fraud in England, every one of Gore's predictions that have hit a date have failed. We have studies written by college students being submitted as evidence by the UN. Temperature stations next to airports or over air conditioners to be considered accurate. The hockey stick fraud admitted a fraud by the very scientist who proposed it.

Wake up and read something other than Media matters.
 
texmaster said:
LOL Yeah right. We have open fraud in England, every one of Gore's predictions that have hit a date have failed. We have studies written by college students being submitted as evidence by the UN. Temperature stations next to airports or over air conditioners to be considered accurate. The hockey stick fraud admitted a fraud by the very scientist who proposed it.

Wake up and read something other than Media matters.
Click to expand...
You forgot to mention all those scientist that the IPCC and the UN said agreed with them, and were cited by them, who ahem *disagree* with them. Just the tip of the supposedly doomed ice berg. Well except in hazelnut-land, which has been demonstrated to have a lot to do with the kind of real estate Fred Rodgers sold.
 
j-mac said:
Ward Churchill wasn't really slanted as a teacher, just really, really PO'd!
:rofl


j-mac
Click to expand...

Well, you're talking about a different level. College professors and k-12 teachers are different. In college, hearing different views should be a desired goal. Everyone should challenge their assumptions in college. I went to a Catholic college and those radical nuns taught me this was true.

For someone who loves slant as much as you do, I'm amazed how often you complain about it. :mrgreen::lol:;)
 
texmaster said:
LOL Yeah right. We have open fraud in England, every one of Gore's predictions that have hit a date have failed. We have studies written by college students being submitted as evidence by the UN. Temperature stations next to airports or over air conditioners to be considered accurate. The hockey stick fraud admitted a fraud by the very scientist who proposed it.
Click to expand...

Let us know when you have some actual links to back up all that drivel...
 
In final edits leading up to the vote, conservatives rejected language to modernize the classification of historic periods to B.C.E. and C.E. from the traditional B.C. and A.D.
Click to expand...

I don't really get the purpose behind changing the abbreviations in the first place. I mean, it's still the same calendar, still counting from the same year 0-point. Do people have similar misgivings about using the days of the week (Norse mythology) or names of planets (Roman mythology)?
 
hazlnut said:
Let us know when you have some actual links to back up all that drivel...
Click to expand...

I'll be happy to as long as when I back them up with links you admit you were wrong.

Considering your track record of running away when proven wrong, I'll need your word on it before tracking down and citing well known facts.
 
tryreading said:
I was called a liar earlier. It must have been texmaster. Sorry, if it wasn't you.
Click to expand...

I don't know, don't remember. Not a big deal either way.

tryreading said:
But, again, for maybe the eighth time on this thread, I posted two original documents, and one explains the purpose of the other. Read them if you want to, or not.
Click to expand...

No. It gives HIS explanation to the Baptist church he was righting to. He was not around when it was penned and voted on. He was in France.

11 people put together the Constitution. You are trying to take one or two founders opinion which disagrees with the wording and treat it as law.

This is the biggest problem with the whole "separation of church and state." It is not and never was part of our laws.

tryreading said:
If you do read them, then why not give your own interpretation of the author's intent? If you don't read them, then there was no reason for you to argue with me anyway.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing the intent of any author. I am arguing the truth behind the history and the false parts that have been used as an excuse to wipe religion, or at least try to from everyday life.
 
Blackdog;1058771871 This is the biggest problem with the whole "separation of church and state." It is not and never was part of our laws. I am not arguing the intent of any author. I am arguing the truth behind the history and the false parts that have been used as an excuse to wipe religion said:
Yes it is. It's not only in the first amendment, its been backed up by many Supreme Court cases.

Religion doesn't need to be wiped away from everyday life, but the government has no place in providing anyone with any kind of religion. If you want religion, you have the means to seek it out yourself. No need for the government to support one religion or another.
Click to expand...
 
texmaster said:
Yep. And Texas still won its independence from Mexico.
Click to expand...
That reminds me of a funny situation. I've a friend who can fairly be described as a "rabid" La Rasa type. Give Texas and all other lands "stolen" from Mexico back to Mexico type of guy. He used to frequently go on a harangue about it, until one day when I'd had a few cocktails. He finished his lil speech, I turned to him and asked him a simple question. Based upon his logic, could we safely assume that he was all for giving Mexico back to Spain?

He does not go on his lil harangue around me anymore.;)
 
Your Star said:
Religion doesn't need to be wiped away from everyday life, but the government has no place in providing anyone with any kind of religion. If you want religion, you have the means to seek it out yourself. No need for the government to support one religion or another.
Click to expand...

An elective high school Bible class is not breaking any law and is not unconstitutional in any way.

The government is also giving money to faith based groups. Again no challenge from anyone in the court as far as I know.

So where is this wall?
 
Blackdog said:
No. It gives HIS explanation to the Baptist church he was righting to. He was not around when it was penned and voted on. He was in France.
Click to expand...


He wrote the letter in 1802 when he was President, and the explanation of the letter was written to his attorney general, not to the church.



Blackdog said:
I am not arguing the intent of any author. I am arguing the truth behind the history and the false parts that have been used as an excuse to wipe religion, or at least try to from everyday life.
Click to expand...

Religion hasn't been wiped from anything. There are plenty of religious people in government, and their individual religious beliefs are not interfered with.

But government shouldn't be used to promote any of the symbols, rites, or dogma of religion with taxpayer money.
 
Blackdog said:
An elective high school Bible class is not breaking any law and is not unconstitutional in any way.

The government is also giving money to faith based groups. Again no challenge from anyone in the court as far as I know.

So where is this wall?
Click to expand...

I think the class should be "world religions" instead of just the Bible.

Also the government giving money to faith based groups is BS. I don't want my tax dollars going into tax exempt institutions.
 
Sir Loin said:
That reminds me of a funny situation. I've a friend who can fairly be described as a "rabid" La Rasa type. Give Texas and all other lands "stolen" from Mexico back to Mexico type of guy. He used to frequently go on a harangue about it, until one day when I'd had a few cocktails. He finished his lil speech, I turned to him and asked him a simple question. Based upon his logic, could we safely assume that he was all for giving Mexico back to Spain?

He does not go on his lil harangue around me anymore.;)
Click to expand...

LOL Logic at a bar. How dare you :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom