Dan wants me to act like a fortune teller an predict the effects that the SCOTUS ruling today will have based on his idiotic impression that I can speak for "conservatives" as a whole instead of myself as an individual.
Based on a quick perusal, it seems as though the case in question was about funding all private schools regardless of their worldview equally in areas of the state where public schools aren't available. My initial impression is that SCOTUS placed funding the education of children above everything else in this decision. I've seen nothing to indicate that children will be forced to go to these schools, or that children will be forced to adhere to any particular religious philosophy. If this is only applied to areas where public schools don't exist and the religious school meets the standards of accreditation then I don't see a huge problem with this.
As I've seen nothing in the decision that limits this funding to any particular religion, or excludes any particular religion, I'm not particularly worried at this point. If some madrassa wants to apply, then go for it. I'd just hope they don't teach how to build explosive vests there.
So far, all of the responses I've seen from conservatives regarding non Christian religious schools being started has been positive and encouraging.
44 comments:
I'm unfamiliar with the case referenced, but based on your post, there seems no problem about which anyone should have their panties in a bunch.
First of all, how bigoted you are against our Muslim brothers and sisters. Shame on you.
Secondly, again, you read but fail to understand.
Would you personally think it is a good thing to fund Satanist, Muslim or other schools if we're gonna fund religious schools?
It's a simple question. Then from there, do you think most conservatives would be glad to fund these other religions? It's just an opinion question. I'm not asking you to make a prediction. Do you think most conservative christians will be glad to fund Muslim, Satanist or other religious schools?
"First of all, how bigoted you are against our Muslim brothers and sisters. Shame on you."
Really? Pointing out the reality that madrassas in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Muslim countries are literally recruiting and training terrorists is "bigoted"? Maybe the problem is that you are unaware of the reality of much of what happens in the Muslim world.
"Would you personally think it is a good thing to fund Satanist, Muslim or other schools if we're gonna fund religious schools?"
Sure, why wouldn't I. I've been in favor (as are the majority of black parents) of expanding school choice for years. I think attaching funding to the students, not the school is an idea who's time has long since come. The fact that our education system is, in many ways, a relic of the past isn't necessarily a good thing. As long as this funding gives parents more options to choose from, I see no problem with it.
"It's a simple question. Then from there, do you think most conservatives would be glad to fund these other religions?"
I can't speak for all "conservatives" and wouldn't try. What I've seen so far indicates that most conservatives would have no problem allowing more choices of schools for parents to send their kids to.
"It's just an opinion question. I'm not asking you to make a prediction. Do you think most conservative christians will be glad to fund Muslim, Satanist or other religious schools?"
Do you really think that asking the same question twice in one comment helps anything? Especially given your increasingly large answer deficit?
I'm more curious as to why so many liberals are against allowing parents to have more freedom to choose when it comes to schools?
FYI, (again) most atheists are adamant that atheism in not a religion, and would probably not appreciate you characterizing it as one. Therefore it's unlikely that they'll start "religious" schools. Given the success they've had in driving any religious expression out of public schools, I'm not sure why they'd want to start a private school.
FYI, this is one area where my actions match my words. I have been publicly supportive of and advocated for a new charter schools here in town. Despite the fact that I disagree vehemently with the curriculum, and the methods of teaching, I firmly believe that these parents who want their children to have more liberal indoctrination that they'd get in the public schools should absolutely have the choice to start their own school.
It's interesting how you don't see how bigoted your assumptions about conservatives really are.
Also, from what I've read this decision is limits the circumstances under which a religious school, can receive funding under this program. It's also limited in that it doesn't seem to create new programs like the one in Maine, it just expands access to existing programs. It also seems like religious schools already had access to funding under this program. The issue was the state dictating elective curriculum options in religious schools.
It seems like maybe the problem could be that you have only read biased, slanted, commentary on the issue from people who's ideological bent you share. Maybe if you looked for yourself, you could find the answers you claim to seek, and more information about the decision. What I've seen is a lot of misinformation about the Constitution and religion.
I don't understand how seeking the expansion of school choice, particularly with any funding going to the students rather than to public schools, suggests a willingness to fund schools of any kind. Giving parents the choice of how their kids should be educated seems to be the kind of choosing any self-respecting (*snicker*) lefty would favor. The reality is the left opposes anything which limits their ability to indoctrinate.
Art,
I think I agree. The program that was litigated was very specific and very limited, so it seems like this isn't opening the door for wholesale federal funding of religious schools. Further, religious schools got funded in this program before the lawsuit, they just had to adhere to curriculum limits forced on them from the government. Essentially, this decision removes the arbitrary curriculum restrictions, and gives parents more choices in areas where there are no public schools, the public schools suck, or the distance is too great.
What we see from the left when it comes to school choice is an interesting dynamic. If you listen to black voices, especially in crappy urban districts, they overwhelmingly favor school choice. But if you listen to the white, liberal, elites (who get millions from public sector unions), giving parents more choice will be disastrous. More disastrous than kids being below grade level on core subjects, but ahead of grade level in drag queen or transexuality? Or more disastrous that the raising of thousands of kid's grades in Baltimore so they'd graduate? This notion that maybe being exposed to "religion" along with a superior education is a bad thing doesn't make sense. It's almost like the white, liberal, elites want to keep urban kids trapped in a system that benefits the white, liberal, elites rather than the students.
Craig...
"Really? Pointing out the reality that madrassas in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Muslim countries are literally recruiting and training terrorists is "bigoted"?"
Yes. Really. You just made a sweeping bigoted suggestion that if we start having Muslim schools they'll be teaching terrorism. That's literally bigotry. Shame on you. How do you not know this? Don't you want to be a better person than this?
Frankly, I don't know if there's a legit argument that funding, say, a Catholic or Lutheran school means the government must also fund a satanic or muslim school. Neither of those played any role whatsoever in the founding of this country nor in making it great. We can indeed point to the Judeo-Christian tradition of having positive influence. But aside from that, I doubt there'd be much call for satanic training...though these days, given Dan's ideology, anything's possible. But the main thing is the non-religious education provided by any of these schools. Public schools are failing in way too many areas of the country (to say nothing of molesting too many kids).
I went to a Catholic school in another town. I know of one kid who was a Lutheran. He was not required to sit in our Catechism classes, and was allowed to leave the room for that period. He was enrolled for all the rest of the stuff his parents felt were important and unavailable at public schools. Otherwise, he was one of the guys. Once, his mother was invited to come in and point out differences and similarities between the denominations. It was all good. In the meantime, my mother was paying for two schools. The one to which she sent us, and the one we no longer attended. She had the choice on the former, but not on the latter.
"Yes. Really."
No, really.
"You just made a sweeping bigoted suggestion that if we start having Muslim schools they'll be teaching terrorism."
No, I literally didn't.
"That's literally bigotry. Shame on you."
No, it's pointing out the reality that there is a significant problem in the Muslim world of using madrassas to recruit, train, and groom terrorists.
"How do you not know this? Don't you want to be a better person than this?"
Because I don't automatically gravitate to inaccurate name calling. I'm always trying to become more Christlike, although I'm not perfect by any means. I'm not sure that avoiding the Truth makes me a better person.
What's interesting is that your more obsessed with calling me a bigot, than you are with answering the questions you've been asked, or dealing with the response to your demands. But that's clearly been you M.O. over the last month or so.
Art,
I don't know either. I'm simply responding to Dan's overreaction to the decision. He's the one you should have an issue with. I'd also agree that since there aren't a plethora of Atheist/Satanist schools around currently, I doubt that this will bring them out in droves to start schools now. The problem is that Dan has to jump to an extreme in his attempts to prove how horrible "conservatives" are, then when the responses don't confirm his stereotypes and biases, he focuses on name calling and ignores everything else.
Obviously, religious schools can accommodate those of other faiths. Personally, I don;t see how a non Catholic sitting through a class or two is harmful. Isn't exposure to different things as good, healthy thing?
Between Dan, and the hysteria I've seen elsewhere, this is more about jumping to conclusions and predicting disaster with no actual basis than anything else.
It's clear that Dan isn't willing to acknowledge that his biased hunches based on his prejudices were wrong, and to admit that just isn't going to happen. Instead he'll prattle on and on about "bigot this" and "Bigot that" until he gets tired of me pointing out the fact that he's not answering questions or engaging in substance.
My responses are as much for all as for whomever I might be addressing directly.
I agree about being open to other ideas, but acknowledge it's much easier to say when speaking of kids sitting through our classes than ours being made to sit through theirs. I like the option to option out being available.
Marshal...
"But aside from that, I doubt there'd be much call for satanic training...though these days, given Dan's ideology, anything's possible"
Oh, you know that if this goes through, some people will start schools JUST to make the point. Heck, I'm giving serious thought to starting a Pastafarian school, myself.
And no, Marshal. If they give money to SOME faith schools, they have to give money to them all. They can't pick and choose like that. That's sort of the point.
The Constitution. Read it sometime.
I'm going to paraphrase a couple of other people's takes on the J6 situation.
1. Trump is a narcissistic, amoral jackass, and was simply behaving as one would expect from that personality.
2. Despite Trumps best efforts, he was thwarted at virtually every turn.
3. Some of his efforts might have been appropriate (a general investigation of the integrity of the vote).
4. This actually an indication that our FOG works. Various different governmental entities prevented Trump from exceeding his authority, and did so in the manner they should have.
Personally I don't think this take is controversial. I do believe that there was some level of voting irregularity (ballot harvesting/third parties filling out mail in ballots/etc), but I do not think that those efforts affected the election as much as Trump himself did in alienating a large % of his potential voter base. I still think that we need to examine our voting system and make some significant changes to help tighten up election security.
I've never seen the part in the constitution where it says "If they give money to SOME faith schools, they have to give money to them all.", maybe I missed that part.
I haven't (likely neither have you) actually read the entirety of the SCOTUS decision that you're so worked up about, but I'd be willing to bet that the words "If they give money to SOME faith schools, they have to give money to them all." appear in the decision either.
Based on what I've seen, I do suspect that this will indeed open the door to religious schools of multiple stripes, but so what?
I guess I should be relieved, as the expectation that questions will be answered is clearly off the table over the last few weeks. If Dan won't answer, why should anyone else?
Although I likely will because that's pretty much what I do.
You keep bringing up the suggestion that I'm not answering questions. While you ask many that are so inanely inept and irrational that I'm tired of addressing such questions, but it's just not like you're answering mine.
These questions, for instance...
"Really? Pointing out the reality that madrassas in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Muslim countries are literally recruiting and training terrorists is "bigoted"? Maybe the problem is that you are unaware of the reality of much of what happens in the Muslim world."
Those questions were in response to me calling your comment bigoted. HERE is that comment (Note: There is NO mention of any madrasas in the US or what madrasas you were speaking of...)
"As I've seen nothing in the decision that limits this funding to any particular religion, or excludes any particular religion, I'm not particularly worried at this point. If some madrassa wants to apply, then go for it. I'd just hope they don't teach how to build explosive vests there."
The fact is, while there are many white extremists schools and camps and training facilities in the US, there are few reports (if any) of any Muslim schools in the US training people to be terrorists. What you did, in this literally bigoted comment, is try to cast an aspersion on all US Muslims and Muslims in general by making the bigoted as hell suggestion that MAYBE if we have more Muslim schools here, they might be teaching terrorism.
You made NO such aspersion against conservative Christian schools, in spite of the fact that we have a real presence of terrorist conservative white supremacist types in the US. That you singled out Muslims for such an aspersion while ignoring the actual threat of white conservatives, you made a bigoted comment. In THAT context, you ask:
"Really? Pointing out the reality that madrassas in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Muslim countries are literally recruiting and training terrorists is "bigoted"?"
1. YOU DID NOT POINT OUT any such "reality." That was NOT what you said nor why I noted the reality of the bigotry of your comment.
2. IF you had said in some conversation, "You know, there are some madrasas in the Middle East who encourage terrorism..." I would not have commented or called that claim bigoted. THAT claim is not bigoted.
3. That is literally NOT the aspersion that you made. Instead, you opted for a bigoted slur of Muslim Americans while remaining silent on the actual threat of white conservative terrorism and religious bigotry.
There, I answered THAT question. Do you understand now where you were wrong and bigoted in your comment?
Look, I can't believe that you're stupid or ignorant enough NOT to recognize the bait and switch you just did or that it would be clear to anyone reading your words that you were suggesting/implying that maybe Muslim schools here would teach (are teaching?) terrorism. But maybe you truly are that stupid and inept in deciding to use bigoted words/claims.
So here's the thing: If we are talking about funding schools and you say something like, "Well, it's okay with me if we fund schools specifically for black people, but we better hope that they don't start anti-white black militancy training in them, nor classes in [insert racist trope] at these schools..." if you say something like that, it WILL be considered racist.
If you say, "It's okay with me if they start a school for LGBTQ+ folk, but we better hope they don't start grooming the children for pedophiles..." or something like that, it WILL be recognized as a homophobic attack.
You may be too stupid and ignorant to understand that your words have an impact and will be taken a certain way if you engage in racist, bigoted, homophobic or sexist language, so I'm doing you the public service of letting you know.
If you're truly ignorant of why it's a bigoted claim and can't understand why, in the real world, it truly is bigoted, then perhaps you'd be better of just not writing in public any more.
"And no, Marshal. If they give money to SOME faith schools, they have to give money to them all. They can't pick and choose like that. That's sort of the point."
I understand equal application of the law better than Dan does, being one who believes it applies to the unborn, whereas Dan thinks not. As Craig implied, there are some faith-based schools which are a hazard to our way of life. There's no equal application obligation for them as far as thoughtful people could ever see. Indeed, I think there would be no Constitutional basis for preventing communities from prohibiting them or closing existing schools down.
"You keep bringing up the suggestion that I'm not answering questions. While you ask many that are so inanely inept and irrational that I'm tired of addressing such questions,..."
merely pointing out the very reality that you just acknowledged.
You just wrote a whole comment about a question of yours that I literally answered. The fact that you want to bitvh about the answer, act like your unproven hunches are correct, and otherwise nitpick, doesn't mean I didn't answer the question, nor mitigate the multitude you've left unanswered.
1. I do appreciate your using that "Well you do X, therefore I'm justified in not answering your questions." tactic. It's an oldie but a goodie.
2. The reason that there are too "many" questions for you is that things usually go as follows.
I ask a question or series of questions. You respond to those without actually answering any or all of them. As deal with your response/answer your questions, your response/partial answer generates additional questions. I ask these additional questions, and you dodge them. This cycle repeats until you pull out the "There are too many questions." excuse and run away. The problem isn't the amount of questions, it's that you don't answer them when they're asked.
My practice for quite some time is to copy/paste entire comments or paragraphs, then go through and answer your questions in a format where the answer immediately follows the question. Or I respond to your comments, or to questions where I need clarification, again immediately following a quote of your question/statement. It allows me to feel confident that I actually answer or respond to virtually all of your questions in a manner that is linear and sensible. I suspect this is why you're rarely able to actually find an example of a question I haven't answered or responded to.
Occasionally I do choose not to respond to questions when the same question is repeated multiple times.
"The fact is, while there are many white extremists schools and camps and training facilities in the US, there are few reports (if any) of any Muslim schools in the US training people to be terrorists."
Interesting. You come right up to the edge of claiming that there are "christian" schools training children to be terrorists, you certainly imply it, but you don't have the courage to actually say what you seem to mean.
"What you did, in this literally bigoted comment, is try to cast an aspersion on all US Muslims and Muslims in general by making the bigoted as hell suggestion that MAYBE if we have more Muslim schools here, they might be teaching terrorism."
No. I literally did not do any such thing. You can tell this by the fact that I didn't actually use the words you claim I used. As most, I was referring to the particular Muslims, who might want to start a madrassa where they would train kids to be terrorists. Which is a subset of all Muslims.
"You made NO such aspersion against conservative Christian schools, in spite of the fact that we have a real presence of terrorist conservative white supremacist types in the US."
"That you singled out Muslims for such an aspersion while ignoring the actual threat of white conservatives, you made a bigoted comment."
Actually I singled out madrassas where children are taught to be terrorists. Surely you don't approve of Muslim clerics training children to be terrorists, do you?
"In THAT context, you ask:"
""Really? Pointing out the reality that madrassas in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Muslim countries are literally recruiting and training terrorists is "bigoted"?"
Yes, I did ask that, and I don't recall that you gave an answer. Are you denying the existence of madrassas throughout the world where children are groomed to be terrorists?
1. You may be right that I didn't so much specifically point out the reality, as assume that the existence of madrassas where Muslim clerics groom and train children to be terrorists was a well enough known fact that it was safe to acknowledged that fact. I had no idea that you would dispute this reality.
2. Again, since my comment referred specifically to madrassas that are grooming children to be terrorists no matter where they are, while at the same time encouraging Muslim schools in general, I'm not sure why I should take your overreaction seriously. You do understand that madrassas that groom terrorists and all Muslims in the entire world are not the same thing, don't you?
3. No, I didn't. Your inferences, colored by your biases and prejudices, aren't my problem. I was specifically referring to the use of government funding for one specific type of madrassa, your choice to use this as an excuse to not answer questions isn't my problem.
"Do you understand now where you were wrong and bigoted in your comment?"
No, because the comment you've constructed in your imagination and attributed to me, is not the comment I actually made.
Craig...
"You respond to those without actually answering any or all of them."
Because, TIME AFTER TIME, you make a claim about what I think that is NOT what I think and often quite literally the OPPOSITE of what I've written. And I correct that, time after time. And you rarely if ever acknowledge it or apologize for your mistake, you just double down on the false claims.
And then ask other questions that are built off those false premises. I only have so much time in the day. it would be one thing if, after each correction, you own up to your mistake, apologize like an adult and move on, but you keep going after the same stupidly false claims, over and over again, in spite of answers, in spite of corrections.
I hope you can understand the reality that I'm a finite man with finite time.
You come right up to the edge of claiming that there are "christian" schools training children to be terrorists, you certainly imply it, but you don't have the courage to actually say what you seem to mean.
NO. You damned liar. I said what was factual and no more. We DO have a problem with violent white conservative extremists. They DO meet to train each other and make plans and plots. This is a known reality and I'm acknowledging that reality while you continually dismiss it or ignore it.
Do you recognize the reality that LEO point to violent conservative white supremacists as one of if not THE major threats of violence in our nation?
If so, say so. Recognize reality. Save your credibility.
Then, once you recognize that reality (IF you ever do), act on it. IF conservative white extremists are the largest threat of violence in the US, start doing some posts and calling on your fellow rational conservatives to denounce them and make NO room for them in your circles. STOP blaming or implying that non-existent Muslim terrorist schools MIGHT be a threat and recognize the actual known threat.
Craig...
" I did ask that, and I don't recall that you gave an answer. Are you denying the existence of madrassas throughout the world where children are groomed to be terrorists?"
I literally answered that question TWICE in the few comments here. THIS is why I don't have time to answer all your questions is because you continually miss the obvious answers and re-ask questions that have been answered and continually ask questions based on false premises.
I'm telling you, you have a reading comprehension problem. Get help. Go back to school. Something.
I suspect it's a problem rooted in your conservatism, as we see it so very often in conservative circles. Your partisanship has blinded you to simple word understanding.
One of the answers that I've already given to your question was:
"2. IF you had said in some conversation, "You know, there are some madrasas in the Middle East who encourage terrorism..." I would not have commented or called that claim bigoted. THAT claim is not bigoted."
And I guess you could recognize WHY it's not bigoted. It's a statement of fact. Perhaps I need to spell everything out for you. But that one statement of fact has ZERO to do with Muslim schools in the US, as in the US, that isn't happening. It's just something bigoted fear mongers say to play on the fears of simple-minded bigoted conservatives.
"Look, I can't believe that you're stupid or ignorant enough NOT to recognize the bait and switch you just did or that it would be clear to anyone reading your words that you were suggesting/implying that maybe Muslim schools here would teach (are teaching?) terrorism. But maybe you truly are that stupid and inept in deciding to use bigoted words/claims."
This is absurd. It's filtered through your biases, prejudices, and completely of your imagination. I said that I SUPPORT Muslim schools being eligible for this program, as long as they aren't grooming terrorists. I'm sorry that my endorsement for all Muslim schools EXCEPT s minority of them, being eligible for this program was too complex for your biased, prejudiced brain to grasp.
"So here's the thing: If we are talking about funding schools and you say something like, "Well, it's okay with me if we fund schools specifically for black people, but we better hope that they don't start anti-white black militancy training in them, nor classes in [insert racist trope] at these schools..." if you say something like that, it WILL be considered racist."
Except I didn't. The factual, undeniable, reality is that there are madrassas throughout the world where Muslim clerics groom children to become terrorists. My pointing out that providing government funding for this one type of Muslim school, while supporting every other type of Muslim school, bears no relationship to what your imagination has conjured up at all. Speaking of "bait and switch" you've moved the goalposts from "bigoted" to "racist", because we all know that "racist" is the ultimate verbal cudgel. Unless you fail to understand that Muslim isn't a race.
Of curse I just wasted a bunch of time on an idiotic, bullshit, made up scenario that say "If" I do X, then I will be a "racist". Ignoring the fact that I haven't done what your biased, prejudiced mind has conjured up out of thin air.
"If you say, "It's okay with me if they start a school for LGBTQ+ folk, but we better hope they don't start grooming the children for pedophiles..." or something like that, it WILL be recognized as a homophobic attack."
Again with your bullshit, imaginary, bias driven, prejudice influenced fantasy.
"You may be too stupid and ignorant to understand that your words have an impact and will be taken a certain way if you engage in racist, bigoted, homophobic or sexist language, so I'm doing you the public service of letting you know."
Interesting that you completely remove the responsibility for the subjective, biased, prejudices way YOU CHOOSE to interpret my words, from yourself and attempt to place responsibility for your behavior on me. Your denying your won agency and responsibility for your actions is hilarious.
"If you're truly ignorant of why it's a bigoted claim and can't understand why, in the real world, it truly is bigoted, then perhaps you'd be better of just not writing in public any more."
Anything to avoid answering questions, even presenting your prejudiced, biased, imaginary scenarios as if they are reality.
Note:
You'll see what I did here. I literally answered every question, and addressed every point (no matter how idiotic and divorced from reality), in a linear, direct, and understandable way. Maybe if you'd do this you wouldn't have to put up with my pointing out your failure to answer questions, and use excuses to try to avoid responsibility.
Dan,
If it makes you feel better, I would oppose any christian school receiving government funding if it was grooming children to be terrorists. Especially if it was a worldwide practice.
Finally, I don't, in theory, object to a madrassa in the US that taught children about the glory of jihad, and the blessings of martyrdom (although the 72 female virgin thing seems sexist) in a general sense. However, I don;t think that allowing the existence of a madrassa such as this justifies providing government funding for this sort of madrassa.
I know this'll shock you but I tend to draw the line at the government actually funding activities that break the law, or lead to breaking the law. I know that drawing a line at government funding illegal activities is a radical concept, but I'm OK with it.
"Because, TIME AFTER TIME, you make a claim about what I think that is NOT what I think and often quite literally the OPPOSITE of what I've written. And I correct that, time after time. And you rarely if ever acknowledge it or apologize for your mistake, you just double down on the false claims."
Then you appear confused by the difference between a question and a claim. If you're not motivated to correct my errors, that's on you, so stop blaming me for your failures.
"And then ask other questions that are built off those false premises. I only have so much time in the day. it would be one thing if, after each correction, you own up to your mistake, apologize like an adult and move on, but you keep going after the same stupidly false claims, over and over again, in spite of answers, in spite of corrections."
It's absolutely hilarious that you impute to me that which you do constantly. But hey, if you want to offer excuses, not answers, that's fine with me.
"I hope you can understand the reality that I'm a finite man with finite time."
Strangely enough, I'd think that you'd see this as a two way street. Instead you continually spew made up, fantasy scenarios about all sorts of crap, then bitch when I don't answer every single thing immediately. Hell, you frequently ask the same question 3-4 times in a single comment as if I should have answered it before I finished reading the comment.
"NO. You damned liar. I said what was factual and no more. We DO have a problem with violent white conservative extremists. They DO meet to train each other and make plans and plots. This is a known reality and I'm acknowledging that reality while you continually dismiss it or ignore it."
I literally acknowledged that you came right up the the edge, but didn't actually say what you seemed to be implying. Do I acknowledge that these fringe groups should have their fist amendment rights, absolutely. Am I advocating for them to receive government funding to break the law, no.
"Do you recognize the reality that LEO point to violent conservative white supremacists as one of if not THE major threats of violence in our nation?"
Yes, I do realize that there are some reports that indicate that. I'm also aware that LEO claimed that the Whitmer kidnapping attempt was a bunch of "white supremacist" folks, and we now know that was total bullshit. The difference is that I'm not defending, excusing, or rationalizing a bunch of tiny fringe groups who mostly just want to live alone in the wilderness, and who are pretty much all being monitored anyway.
My problem isn't the existence of these fringe groups, it with folks like you who deny the existence of what's currently happening in front of our eyes. You can't seriously think that SCOTUS is surrounded by barricades, barbed wire, and armed security because a bunch of "right wing" zealots are angry about Roe being overturned. You can't seriously deny that virtually every riot since 2016 (except J6) was not engaged in by "right wing" folks. Over 2 billion dollars in damage and multiple lives lost during the riots of 2020 and you're more worried about some nuts out in Idaho who live like it's 1890 in the middle of nowhere. A literal call for a "night of rage" by left wing radicals, and you spew platitudes and talking points.
"I literally answered that question TWICE in the few comments here. THIS is why I don't have time to answer all your questions is because you continually miss the obvious answers and re-ask questions that have been answered and continually ask questions based on false premises."
1. Just following your example.
2. Because I sometimes have to ask again because your first answer is equivocal.
"I'm telling you, you have a reading comprehension problem. Get help. Go back to school. Something."
then your either stupid, obtuse, or simply bereft of reality.
"I suspect it's a problem rooted in your conservatism, as we see it so very often in conservative circles. Your partisanship has blinded you to simple word understanding."
Once again, suspect equals wrong. Just stop it. What you "suspect" is never right, so just stop wasting my time.
One of the answers that I've already given to your question was:
"2. IF you had said in some conversation, "You know, there are some madrasas in the Middle East who encourage terrorism..." I would not have commented or called that claim bigoted. THAT claim is not bigoted."
And I guess you could recognize WHY it's not bigoted. It's a statement of fact. Perhaps I need to spell everything out for you. But that one statement of fact has ZERO to do with Muslim schools in the US, as in the US, that isn't happening. It's just something bigoted fear mongers say to play on the fears of simple-minded bigoted conservatives.
yes, that's an incredibly rare answer, or sorts.
I've already addressed the rest of the comment, and see no reason to indulge you by wasting my time.
1. All sorts of excuses, claims, and reasons why you choose not to answer questions. Absolutely zero actual specific, quoted and linked, examples of your claims.
2. Instead of justifying all the bullshit reasons why you can't do something, why not just go through and answer questions, point out my alleged misconceptions, correct my errors and prove yourself right.
I've never known anyone who had the ability to prove themselves right by simply living up to the same standard they demand of others, proving one's claims, and providing the quotes and links. Yet you invest much more time in bitching, and blaming others.
As a token of the esteem in which I hold you, I'm done here so I can go get my dog's claws trimmed. You've just dropped below canine claw maintenance in my hierarchy of how I spend my valuable and limited time.
The real object of the [First Amendment] was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833, para.1871.
Ergo, the taxes to a Christian school has nothing to do with the lie of "separation of Church and State."
As a point of fact, there have been radical islamist training camps in the US. One in Alabama was discovered recently and was connected to one discovered in 2018 in New Mexico. Whether or not this means there exists grooming of muslim kids is another story, but it suggests it must happen to one degree or another, either in mosques, muslim dominant schools (should they even exist) or in families. Given how radicals have taken advantage of our systems to implement radical behaviors, CAIR is a known problem, it would be suicidal to suppose we shouldn't scrutinize more closely any muslim organization or school. Asshats won't like it, but who cares? I prefer to profile in order to protect the most people, including member of the community where profiling will likely do the most good.
The "problem" of white supremacy is overstated. Dan loves to pretend the FBI can be trusted on this issue, as it serves the current administration to use that pretense to deflect from real problem plaguing our nation.
The notion of withholding funding for any school who is found to be radicalizing students does not in the least depend upon the ethnicity or political leanings of those doing the radicalizing. They are none of them worthy of any government funding...assuming we should be funding any schools of any kind at all, which is questionable.
Glenn,
I agree that the government not EXCLUDING certain private schools from this program is not a violation of the establishment clause. Further, given the current state of public education, it's likely that a better education is available at any private school. This "atheist/Muslim" straw man is just ridiculous. Of course now the APL stopped giving a rat's hind end for this school thing, and is screeching about abortion.
Art,
I haven't had time to verify that, but assumed it was true. I suspect that there are plenty of training camps through out the SW and the NW where separatist groups of all stripes congregate. We just need to ignore those that aren't "right wing". The reality is that in a place like the American west with it's combination of huge empty spaces, mountains, and the fact that the US still (mostly) values freedom and private property it's not surprising that there are all sorts of "training camps". We just need to ignore those that don't fit the narrative.
Absolutely, my point wasn't about all Muslims or even about all Muslim schools, but about using tax dollars to subsidize schools that radicalize students. Madrassas where radical Muslim clerics radicalize and groom students were just one example.
From "Trumpsaturd" on Twitter.
"C Thomas is the real definition of the word NIGGER; not negro or 'nigga' he defines nigger!"
Obviously all of the racism is on the "right".
Hmmm...."Dansaturd". A Twitter page on Dan, except factual reasons which justify the term. That could exist for years!
It certainly could.
Why do you all drop to the grade school level style of insults. I mean, it doesn't bother me, but I'm embarrassed for you all.
Of course, I'm assuming you two are, along with me, decent people who live hard-working good lives every day. I've never felt the need to try to insult you as a person, especially with such grade school commentary.
We need to be more mature than this.
I guess we've watched you and your constant stream of childishness and occasionally succumb to the cheap and easy joke.
Given the level of insulting things you've said about me, I guess I'm grateful that you've never felt the "need" to insult me. If you had, I'm sure t would have been much worse.
But really, excellent job of answering the growing number of questions you've chosen to dodge. Maybe when I get time, I'll do another post with questions you've not answered, claims you've not proved, and other assorted bullshit.
"Why do you all drop to the grade school level style of insults. I mean, it doesn't bother me, but I'm embarrassed for you all."
This is the guy who constantly settles on "stupidly false and deadly claims" ("deadly" being a new one he launched at my blog), and "perverse" in describing better people and policies.
From Craig: "Given the level of insulting things you've said about me, I guess I'm grateful that you've never felt the "need" to insult me. If you had, I'm sure t would have been much worse." NAILED IT!!! I was about to say something quite similar. This guy insults us constantly. Referring to him as a "liar" is never meant to insult. It's a statement of fact and it's clear he's intentionally done it yet again here. After all, "Dansaturd". I just find it more amusing than "Dansaliar".
Interesting that he doesn't seem bothered by the left wing racists going after Justice Thomas, and adding him to the list of Justices with death threats.
"Interesting that he doesn't seem bothered by the left wing racists..."
To the degree that it's happening, who says I'm not bothered about it? Because I haven't commented on it? Here's a little hint to keep in mind:
I don't comment on every possible story out there.
I just don't.
Finite and all.
How many times did you comment on the threats to Christine Blasey Ford?
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/08/665407589/kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-ford-continues-receiving-threats-lawyers-say
How many times have you commented on the threats to countless other liberals (or even conservatives who have opposed Trump) that routinely happen on places like Twitter?
1. I've not read any stories about alleged "left wing racists" "going after" Thomas.
2. To the degree that they're happening, I have seen zero data that says it's from "left wing racists."
3. I regularly don't comment on stories that I've never heard about.
4. I just did a google search for variations of "justice thomas death threats" and didn't see anything beyond the normal "twitter" type mouthing off threats and I don't get my news from twitter or social media.
5. Our nation has for a long time had people who regularly espouse violence against their perceived political enemies (you're familiar with the Civil Rights movement, I suppose?). This is awful, wherever it comes from.
6. I simply don't comment on every potential story in the world because I am a finite person. Nor do you and for the same reason. Your crap accusation ("not bothered") could be leveled at all of us by that graceless and irrational measure. It is a stupidly false insinuation.
Feel free to walk that back or even better, to apologize for THAT attack.
"To the degree that it's happening, who says I'm not bothered about it? Because I haven't commented on it?"
Because you have a strange habit if commenting quickly, loudly, and with vitriol every time someone you perceive to be "right" does anything you don't like. Yet when leftists do the same things, you strangely enough get very quiet.
"I don't comment on every possible story out there."
I never suggested otherwise. I just pointed out that your silent acquiescence to racist, violent, threats against SCOTUS judges and their children encouraged by Schumer, don't merit a peep from you. Just like left wing terrorists causing and threatening violence and destruction.
"How many times did you comment on the threats to Christine Blasey Ford?"
Not sure, I don't keep score. But hey, if you want to use the "The other guys do or don't do X." as you excuse to silently accept racism and violent threats on your side, that's fine. Just own you silent acceptance.
"How many times have you commented on the threats to countless other liberals (or even conservatives who have opposed Trump) that routinely happen on places like Twitter?"
Again, not sure how using "The other guy.." gambit helps. But I don't do politics on social media.
1. Well, then they must not exist.
2. Because "right wing" people are going to be dropping racist comments and threatening Thomas for his opinion.
2a. Then they must not exist.
3. Your ignorance isn't my problem. But now that you've heard about it, what's your excuse for not researching it?
4. Excellent. I had no idea it was "normal" and acceptable to engage in threats and racism on Twitter. Glad to hear you just accept leftist racism as "normal".
5. Finally, the bland, generic, blame both sides, milquetoast, minimal "condemnation" we expected.
6. Because repeating yourself helps.
By all means, feel free to specifically criticize the left wing racists that regularly attack black conservatives.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/rioters-portland-graffiti-supreme-court-abortion-crime
https://twitter.com/_barringtonii/status/1401890501154979843
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/27/justice-clarence-thomas-singled-out-racist-slurs-a/
https://twitter.com/IdahoTribune/status/1540406567140331520?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Ford lied about Kavanaugh. I'm sure she's being totally honest about being threatened. But if it's true, I oppose it strongly.
Craig...
"you have a strange habit if commenting quickly, loudly, and with vitriol every time someone you perceive to be "right" does anything you don't like."
This is, of course and as always, stupidly false.
There are SO many conservatives doing SO MANY bad things that I couldn't commenting on each of them if I wanted to. Have I ever made any comments about Jim Jordan? About Dick Cheney (maybe I have, but I doubt it)? About Tucker Carlson? Limbaugh? I could go on and on, but I certainly don't comment (with vitriol, much less) "every time" I perceive someone on the right doing something bad.
And I NEVER comment on anyone for doing something I merely don't like. Another stupidly false claim.
Al Gore or Trump or others flying in planes all the time and being chauffeured around in gas guzzling cars? NEVER have I mentioned it, merely because I don't like all that gas consumption. Them eating broccoli? Don't like it. Never mentioned it.
On the other hand, when Trump says "I grab them by the crotch because I can..." I don't like THAT because it's an atrocity. NO ONE should like that. It's a great evil and something that this pervert is LAUGHING about? It's sick and SHOULD be called out.
Finding out that B Clinton had a consensual affair with a 20 year old intern?? That's awful, an abuse of power and that should be denounced.
Here's the thing: We have an obligation to speak up for the poor and oppressed, the foreigners and children, the marginalized and abused. When people in power actively cause harm - and especially if they do so with no repentence - we should speak out and I do, because of course I do. Hopefully, all good people, including you, would agree.
But no, your false claim is just empty and false and I'm pointing that out for clarity's sake.
"Ford lied about Kavanaugh..."
Marshal lies about Ford and has no proof to support his stupidly false claim.
And to be clear: It's a lie precisely because Marshal makes this as a fact claim when he literally does not know she lied. Is it possible she lied, rather than Kavanaugh? Possible, not likely, but possible.
But it's definitely a lie that Marshal is making. Another stupidly false claim.
Post a Comment