Reasons to Homeschool, #2511453214589

[TitanTiger 21,068]

The seminars got into sexual advances as well. At that age, permission should be required when discussing sexual matters and how best to handle them. They were also introducing and explaining terms like "pansexual" and "genderqueer" to them. This wasn't just a "just say no" talk.

Well now you have a better point, why didn't you mention this in your original post?

Conservatism also generally means that you've determined that certain things in a culture that are worth conserving...not flitting from flower to flower trying out whatever the latest cultural fad is. Your vision of what conservatism is doesn't cover the entire notion.

The mainstay of conservatism is about limited government, free markets, personal liberty. There is a fringe that thinks it is about preserving religious cultural norms. However many cultural norms that they promote (such as banning gay marriage)are anti-liberty, thus it doesn't mesh with the rest of the agreed upon platform.

Sadly, it's no "fringe". The "Evangelical Right" now control the party and the traditional conservatism of the old GOP has been supplanted by their own version.

The coalition worked great (for a few years), but the "Devil's bill" has now come due.

Actually, if anyone controls the party its neocons and Ayn Rand economic types. If the evangelicals controlled it, you wouldn't have had Bob Dole, John McCain or Mitt Romney as 3 of the last 4 GOP nominees for President.

Yeah. And the Democrats are a model of centrism.

[Aufan59 168]

Sadly, it's no "fringe". The "Evangelical Right" now control the party and the traditional conservatism of the old GOP has been supplanted by their own version.

The coalition worked great (for a few years), but the "Devil's bill" has now come due.

If the Evangelical Right controlled the party, Santorum would have been nominated. They are a wing of the party, and their idiocy and narrow minded focus on social issues is making everyone else push them away.

[alexava 6,974]

Sadly, it's no "fringe". The "Evangelical Right" now control the party and the traditional conservatism of the old GOP has been supplanted by their own version.

The coalition worked great (for a few years), but the "Devil's bill" has now come due.

If the Evangelical Right controlled the party, Santorum would have been nominated. They are a wing of the party, and their idiocy and narrow minded focus on social issues is making everyone else push them away.

and who won this state(assuming we are in alabama)

[alexava 6,974]

I think ttitan has a valid point, for wanting a headsup from the school on this training. I think some homophobes or a**holes,as morgan freeman put it, don't like to admit that homosexuality exists and have a twisted unfounded thought that this exposure could trigger homosexual feelings and corrupt their child. Therefore they want to use head in the sand approach. On the flip side of all this, i would have never needed instructions on how to say no yo homosexual advances at any age. But there are girls i knew who could have learned how to reject hetero advances better. Im for the education but like titan said run it by me first.

[homersapien 12,172]

The seminars got into sexual advances as well. At that age, permission should be required when discussing sexual matters and how best to handle them. They were also introducing and explaining terms like "pansexual" and "genderqueer" to them. This wasn't just a "just say no" talk.

Well now you have a better point, why didn't you mention this in your original post?

Conservatism also generally means that you've determined that certain things in a culture that are worth conserving...not flitting from flower to flower trying out whatever the latest cultural fad is. Your vision of what conservatism is doesn't cover the entire notion.

The mainstay of conservatism is about limited government, free markets, personal liberty. There is a fringe that thinks it is about preserving religious cultural norms. However many cultural norms that they promote (such as banning gay marriage)are anti-liberty, thus it doesn't mesh with the rest of the agreed upon platform.

Sadly, it's no "fringe". The "Evangelical Right" now control the party and the traditional conservatism of the old GOP has been supplanted by their own version.

The coalition worked great (for a few years), but the "Devil's bill" has now come due.

Actually, if anyone controls the party its neocons and Ayn Rand economic types. If the evangelicals controlled it, you wouldn't have had Bob Dole, John McCain or Mitt Romney as 3 of the last 4 GOP nominees for President.

Yeah. And the Democrats are a model of centrism.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the GOP.

[homersapien 12,172]

Your Middle Schooler will never be told by the teacher, without your knowledge or permission, to ask somebody of the same sex to kiss them in an anti-bullying seminar.

Actually they claim it was to learn to say "no" to unwanted advances. Of course, to do that they needed to get a 14-year old girl to ask for a lesbian kiss.

And here I thought it was the right-wing social conservatives trying to cram morality down everyone's throats.

Sounds like a role-playing exercise to me. In fact, the whole point was to demonstrate how to reject such a request.

I think you are over reacting. No suggested they actually kiss.

Since when does "public education" consist of role-playing, and bullying seminars? I thought our kids were there to learn reading writing and arithmetic. Over-reaction my #$#$@!! Sounds like under-reaction. I would have been at the school demanding the COB be fired!

Role-playing is a common way of teaching things like courtesy, manners and respect for others. Some kids don't learn this at home and need to be exposed to those concepts to operate effectively in society. And without a civil classroom based on those principles of respect, you won't get much reading, writing and arithmetic done.

I don't know about any "bullying" seminars, but I agree with you in principle. Kids certainly don't need to be exposed to bullying, by anyone.

Sounds like you may be another candidate for home schooling to me.

[homersapien 12,172]

I think ttitan has a valid point, for wanting a headsup from the school on this training. I think some homophobes or a**holes,as morgan freeman put it, don't like to admit that homosexuality exists and have a twisted unfounded thought that this exposure could trigger homosexual feelings and corrupt their child. Therefore they want to use head in the sand approach. On the flip side of all this, i would have never needed instructions on how to say no yo homosexual advances at any age. But there are girls i knew who could have learned how to reject hetero advances better. Im for the education but like titan said run it by me first.

LOL!

[TitanTiger 21,068]

The seminars got into sexual advances as well. At that age, permission should be required when discussing sexual matters and how best to handle them. They were also introducing and explaining terms like "pansexual" and "genderqueer" to them. This wasn't just a "just say no" talk.

Well now you have a better point, why didn't you mention this in your original post?

Conservatism also generally means that you've determined that certain things in a culture that are worth conserving...not flitting from flower to flower trying out whatever the latest cultural fad is. Your vision of what conservatism is doesn't cover the entire notion.

The mainstay of conservatism is about limited government, free markets, personal liberty. There is a fringe that thinks it is about preserving religious cultural norms. However many cultural norms that they promote (such as banning gay marriage)are anti-liberty, thus it doesn't mesh with the rest of the agreed upon platform.

Sadly, it's no "fringe". The "Evangelical Right" now control the party and the traditional conservatism of the old GOP has been supplanted by their own version.

The coalition worked great (for a few years), but the "Devil's bill" has now come due.

Actually, if anyone controls the party its neocons and Ayn Rand economic types. If the evangelicals controlled it, you wouldn't have had Bob Dole, John McCain or Mitt Romney as 3 of the last 4 GOP nominees for President.

Yeah. And the Democrats are a model of centrism. :rolleyes:/>

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the GOP.

If you're going to stand in the glass house of the Democrats and throw rocks, don't be surprised when someone mentions the broken glass.

[homersapien 12,172]

The seminars got into sexual advances as well. At that age, permission should be required when discussing sexual matters and how best to handle them. They were also introducing and explaining terms like "pansexual" and "genderqueer" to them. This wasn't just a "just say no" talk.

Well now you have a better point, why didn't you mention this in your original post?

Conservatism also generally means that you've determined that certain things in a culture that are worth conserving...not flitting from flower to flower trying out whatever the latest cultural fad is. Your vision of what conservatism is doesn't cover the entire notion.

The mainstay of conservatism is about limited government, free markets, personal liberty. There is a fringe that thinks it is about preserving religious cultural norms. However many cultural norms that they promote (such as banning gay marriage)are anti-liberty, thus it doesn't mesh with the rest of the agreed upon platform.

Sadly, it's no "fringe". The "Evangelical Right" now control the party and the traditional conservatism of the old GOP has been supplanted by their own version.

The coalition worked great (for a few years), but the "Devil's bill" has now come due.

Actually, if anyone controls the party its neocons and Ayn Rand economic types. If the evangelicals controlled it, you wouldn't have had Bob Dole, John McCain or Mitt Romney as 3 of the last 4 GOP nominees for President.

Yeah. And the Democrats are a model of centrism. :rolleyes:/>

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the GOP.

If you're going to stand in the glass house of the Democrats and throw rocks, don't be surprised when someone mentions the broken glass.

We were discussing the GOP. We can't do that without taking heat for not including the Dems in the same damn post?

More to the point, I am not a Democrat and I am not coming from their perspective ("standing in their house").

And how about pointing out the "rocks" I have thrown.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

We were discussing the GOP. We can't do that without taking heat for not including the Dems in the same damn post?

You made a comment about the GOP. I simply pointed out it cuts both ways.

Not to mention, you were wrong even in your assessment about the GOP, as I and others pointed out.

More to the point, I am not a Democrat and I am not coming from their perspective ("standing in their house").

I bet you're not a Democrat in the same way I'm not a Republican. You tend to vote for Democratic candidates far more often than GOP ones because you believe the other side gives you even less to work with.

[homersapien 12,172]

We were discussing the GOP. We can't do that without taking heat for not including the Dems in the same damn post?

You made a comment about the GOP. I simply pointed out it cuts both ways.

Well not exactly. You said: If you're going to stand in the glass house of the Democrats and throw rocks, don't be surprised when someone mentions the broken glass.

(Still waiting for an example of those "rocks" btw)

Not to mention, you were wrong even in your assessment about the GOP, as I and others pointed out.

Well that's a matter of opinion I suppose.

But there are lots of folks who agree with me. I didn't just make this up. If you don't believe it, just search GOP or Republican x religious right wing, evangelical or some such.

More to the point, I am not a Democrat and I am not coming from their perspective ("standing in their house").

I bet you're not a Democrat in the same way I'm not a Republican. You tend to vote for Democratic candidates far more often than GOP ones because you believe the other side gives you even less to work with.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

The "rock" was the accusation that the GOP was beholden to some vocal minority of Christian radicals and that they are no longer just "fringe" but in control. The glass house is that if this was true the only other major party has the same issue with other fringe groups on the left.

And I'm sure a lot of people agree with you. The Evangelical right is an easy bogeyman. Doesn't make it anymore true. As it was pointed out by me and others, if they had anywhere near as much power as you seem to think, the GOP would have had MUCH different presidential candidates the last few elections.

[homersapien 12,172]

The "rock" was the accusation that the GOP was beholden to some vocal minority of Christian radicals and that they are no longer just "fringe" but in control. The glass house is that if this was true the only other major party has the same issue with other fringe groups on the left.

Pointing out something that is pretty much common knowledge hardly seems like a "rock" to me. Like I said, I didn't just make it up.

And I'm sure a lot of people agree with you. The Evangelical right is an easy bogeyman. Doesn't make it anymore true. As it was pointed out by me and others, if they had anywhere near as much power as you seem to think, the GOP would have had MUCH different presidential candidates the last few elections.

Well I didn't say they had absolute control, but they have enough to keep the GOP from winning an election. If they had just a little more power than they do, then you are correct. The GOP would have run someone like Rick Santorum, in which case they would have lost even worse than they did.

So that bottom line, they have enough "control" to keep the GOP from the Presidency.

And I suppose that to a real (traditional) conservative, they do seem like a "boogeyman".

[TitanTiger 21,068]

The "rock" was the accusation that the GOP was beholden to some vocal minority of Christian radicals and that they are no longer just "fringe" but in control. The glass house is that if this was true the only other major party has the same issue with other fringe groups on the left.

Pointing out something that is pretty much common knowledge hardly seems like a "rock" to me. Like I said, I didn't just make it up.

And I'm sure a lot of people agree with you. The Evangelical right is an easy bogeyman. Doesn't make it anymore true. As it was pointed out by me and others, if they had anywhere near as much power as you seem to think, the GOP would have had MUCH different presidential candidates the last few elections.

Well I didn't say they had absolute control, but they have enough to keep the GOP from winning an election. If they had just a little more power than they do, then you are correct. The GOP would have run someone like Rick Santorum, in which case they would have lost even worse than they did.

So that bottom line, they have enough "control" to keep the GOP from the Presidency.

And I suppose that to a real (traditional) conservative, they do seem like a "boogeyman".

Still doesn't hold water. "Control" is not the same as "influence." What you are defining is the latter.

If the Evangelical right has nearly as much influence as you insinuate, Romney, McCain and Dole would have never made it out of the primaries in play.

[homersapien 12,172]

The "rock" was the accusation that the GOP was beholden to some vocal minority of Christian radicals and that they are no longer just "fringe" but in control. The glass house is that if this was true the only other major party has the same issue with other fringe groups on the left.

Pointing out something that is pretty much common knowledge hardly seems like a "rock" to me. Like I said, I didn't just make it up.

And I'm sure a lot of people agree with you. The Evangelical right is an easy bogeyman. Doesn't make it anymore true. As it was pointed out by me and others, if they had anywhere near as much power as you seem to think, the GOP would have had MUCH different presidential candidates the last few elections.

Well I didn't say they had absolute control, but they have enough to keep the GOP from winning an election. If they had just a little more power than they do, then you are correct. The GOP would have run someone like Rick Santorum, in which case they would have lost even worse than they did.

So that bottom line, they have enough "control" to keep the GOP from the Presidency.

And I suppose that to a real (traditional) conservative, they do seem like a "boogeyman".

Still doesn't hold water. "Control" is not the same as "influence." What you are defining is the latter.

If the Evangelical right has nearly as much influence as you insinuate, Romney, McCain and Dole would have never made it out of the primaries in play.

OK fine. Have it your way. :-\

Right wing evangelicals don't have "control" they just have "influence" on the modern GOP.

And the more influence they have, the better off the GOP will do in national elections. And if they ever do get complete "control" the GOP will dominate the Dems because all those independent voters just absolutely flock to their message.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

I detect some snark.

[homersapien 12,172]

I detect some snark.

Then your "snark detector" is fully functional.