http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/06/...a.ap/index.html

Stunning.

Alex

I don't see what the problem is. He pays taxes to support public schools, so he'd like to see his values taken into consideration. Maybe he doesn't think that having an unwed pregnant woman teaching his 3rd grade daughters sets a good example for them. Why is his opinion any less important than anyone else's?

geez, I wish the schools would use MY moral compass
that's it, I'm running for office!

I wonder what his opinion is on people from the mud races teaching impressionable white children?

All the chicks would have their BJ techniques perfected by age 15. ;)

All the chicks would have their BJ techniques perfected by age 15. ;) [/b][/quote]
They already do.....

And don't say it like it is a bad thing.

They already do.....

And don't say it like it is a bad thing. [/b][/quote]
On the Daily Show the other day, they had someone quoting about the "epedemic of oral sex in our high schools" and Jon Stewart said something to the effect of "eee, epidemic has such a negative conotation ... I think a more accurate description of lots and lots of oral sex would be ... more like ... mmm, well .... a god-send." :agrin:

On the Daily Show the other day, they had someone quoting about the "epedemic of oral sex in our high schools" and Jon Stewart said something to the effect of "eee, epidemic has such a negative conotation ... I think a more accurate description of lots and lots of oral sex would be ... more like ... mmm, well .... a god-send." :agrin: [/b][/quote]
hahah, I was just going to mention it ;-)

Actually, I'm no chatroom romeo, but I am on the board of my kids' school's PTA
I'm amazed at some of the things I have to bite my tongue on (no pun intended)

No one knows I'm a wicked, evil, corrupt purveyor of porn....they just know me as "the computer guy" (which is funny, because that's the last way I'd describe myself, since that usually means a troubleshooter/tech type which I'm not even close to being) and some of the stuff these "fine, upstanding" parents say at meetings behind closed doors...puts a scare into me...

I wonder how many single pregnant teachers there were in the 1950s?

im all for it, if im taking two semester course, and shes gotta drop out to pop one out after nine months, i should get a refund, or im not taking the course

<_<

Probably only a few more than there were people from the mud races teaching impressionable white children.

Probably only a few more than there were people from the mud races teaching impressionable white children. [/b][/quote]
Ok, PD, I'll play.

Racism is stupid because no one had a choice over his or her race, except for Michael Jackson.

Judging behavior is different, because people do have choices about what behaviors to engage in.

Ahhhh ... nobody is saying you aren't entitled to your opinion on the behavior of others. You are even entitled to teach those judgements to your children.

I can understand why we deny teaching positions to sex offenders, child molesters and other felons, and the mentally unstable.

But get real here. Having a homosexual teacher, or an unwed pregnant heterosexual teacher, isn't going to endanger children in any way, shape, or form.

I agree with you, Buff ... racism is stupid. Having been around when things like "should children of different races swim in the same swimming pools" was the stuff of talk radio, I am inherently suspicious of arguments that depend upon the same logic as those used to defend racism.

Well I'm not even saying this guy is right or wrong -- I'm just saying that if he pays taxes to support public schools, his opinion ought to at least be considered. Maybe he has a point, or maybe he's a wingnut.

And maybe his point is that she's setting a bad example. I know teachers at my school were not allowed to smoke anywhere but in the teacher's lounge for just that reason -- they were told it sets the wrong example for the students.

Whereas being black doesn't set any kind of example -- it's just a trait, like being tall or being smart.

Not that I care one way or the other, because my kids will be going to your house for homeschooling so I don't have to tell them what's wrong with Republicans. At my house they'll learn what's wrong with Democrats and moderates. That way, we'll make sure they're libertarians.

Actually, if I were homeschooling your kid, I would be Rush Limbaugh if he/she were liberal, or Tom Hayden if she/he were conservative. I have three kids - a Bush Republican, a "don't talk to me about politics", and one farther to the left than I am.

As I said ... he is entitled to his opinion of the behavior of anyone. If he believes the conduct of an individual is inappropriate, it is HIS FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY TO TEACH HIS KID THAT. I don't think his opinion about the lifestyle of the teachers involved should carry any more weight in this day and age than his opinion on the matter of the teacher's race.

Buff, to me the issue isn't about his right to have an opinion, it is that he is using his postion of public office as a bully pulpit (literally) to try to keep someone from having a job because they don't conform to his PERSONAL views.

It is as if the teacher doesn't have the right to get pregnant because she isn't married. Honestly, is it anyone's business?

Alex

I completely disagree with the Congressman but like Buff (what's new?) and unlike Alex (what's new?) I think a congressman trying to influence the law to align with his personal views is exactly what public officials should be doing. Then if we, the public, really disagree with these views we can vote for someone else. Welcome to representative government.

I guess you could take the view popular but not practiced in 18th century Britain that public officials should be voting with the majority of the constituents but then you just arrive at the supposed problem of politicians going with the majority "just to get their votes".

That has always been the question with politics. Do they listen to their consituants and vote what majority want all the time, or does he vote what he feels is best.

Unfortunately, today politician vote for who will give them most power, and $$$ for their elections. Because at the end of the day $$$ is the deciding factor in most political raises.

That has always been the question with politics. Do they listen to their consituants and vote what majority want all the time, or does he vote what he feels is best.

Unfortunately, today politician vote for who will give them most power, and $$$ for their elections. Because at the end of the day $$$ is the deciding factor in most political raises. [/b][/quote]
An interesting way to represent the people would be a completely random sample of 1000 people chosen for a term. That would get the "error" down to 3% on yes/no votes - just like in the typical Gallup poll. One new difficulty would be people that don't want to serve. Maybe make it mandatory if chosen. ;-)

Creates other problems though.

Of course, the "founding fathers" didn't want "average joe" so fairly represented.

It's WHAT HE ADVOCATES, not that he is advocating, that I take exception to.

I wonder how he would feel about the live-in boyfriend of a pregnant woman teaching his kids in school.

That's different. Men are inherently less immoral than women -- God designed it so. Slut.

PD, I'm with you. I agree 100%. I'm objecting to Alex' statement - not yours. ;-)

Colin, I don't think that any politician should spend his time or effort promoting something that obviously violates someone's rights. There are no laws and nothing in the US constitution that says someone has to be married before they are pregnant. To propose something that like that would violate all of that person's rights.

This guy can advocate anything he wants as an individual. As an elected official, he should be more aware of the rights of people, and shouldn't be going off on a track that has no way to survive legal challenge. That is wasteful of the public's time, money, etc.

He's a relic from a past era. We should pity him for not having evolved.

Alex

You're just being closed minded. I completely understand where he is coming from and more power to him for believing it - though I disagree with him 100%. "Liberal" is not the only valid view of how the world should be though you act as if the Gods made it that way. I think there's room for consevative and liberal viewpoints in the world. I'm open-minded enough to live with both.

There are thousands of laws that violate people's rights. So what? There's a law that says I can't smoke in a restaurant in Florida (I don't smoke). It's not in the constitution. Guess what congressmen do for a living? They propose and make laws! Does it violate all my rights to say I can't own a restaurant and permit smoking there? Damn straight. It violates my rights every bit as much. That's what laws tend to do. They restrict freedoms. Repeat the following one million time ... "Thou shall not ... " I don't see the congressman's remarks as any more alarming than someone who says I have to wear a seatbelt. That's a damned violation of my rights if I ever heard of one. And I have to wear clothes in public? That's 10x more alarming if you ask me.

All minority viewpoints need to be and have a right to be heard. Even the whacko conservative ones. Don't you think? Your argument that certain viewoints shouldn't be heard and are a waste of time is surely dangerous. I'm surprised to read you writing that. It seems out of character. Remember in Fahrenheit 911 when the black woman spoke in front of congress about black votes not being counted? Do you think that was a waste of time because it wasn't going to get anywhere?

What is it that you are advocating? That public officials shouldn't speak up for minority viewpoints or that they shouldn't be permitted to speak up for minority viewpoints?

Hmmmm... so a knocked up single teacher is bad... but if same teacher gets abortion to keep job then that's ok?

baby? what baby? i dont see no baby

i want to knock up a single elemntary school teacher, awright giggity giggity giggity

Maybe this is just his way of promoting anal sex for unwed teachers...

Colin, you are attempting to make my arguements in to absolutes, and that is not the case here. It is clear that there is no way to limit who can be a teacher based on their maritial or child bearing status. It isn't a question of "liberal" or "conservative", but just a little common sense from someone who is PAIDED to make the laws.

We are not near the line. We are not in some grey area. We are not even close. There are endlessly long protections against job descrimination, hiring and firing of pregnant women, etc. It isn't new law, it isn't some hidden secret.

This guy is ignorantly attempting to force his PERSONAL moral values onto his state by using his PUBLIC position to advocate something that is CLEARLY, ENTIRELY, and WITHOU ANY DOUBT going to violated this teacher's rights in any number of ways.

It's a waste of time, it's a waste of effort, it's a waste of public money, and it's an ignorant thing for someone to do who should know better.

Alex

Alex, I disagree that it's a waste of time and effort on the part of Jim DeMint... I think this guy is getting just the effect that he intended and playing the press game quite well...

Alex, you know that I agree with you on the basics. Jim DeMint is an ignorant, narrow-minded bigot who would like to impose his moral values on society - values that Mike alluded to when he asked "I wonder how many single pregnant teachers there were in the 1950s?"

That being said, I have to agree with Colin in the very narrow sense that arguing he doesn't have the right to use the "bully pulpit" of his office to advance his views is patently absurd. That's an inherent benefit of ANY office, be it municipal dogcatcher or President of the United States.

That's funny, but it's true in a sense -- everytime the government tries to alter people's behavior with legislation, they end up with unintended consequences. If government made having kids costly enough, there's no doubt that anal sex would become more frequent.

Alex,

So you think every elected official should receive a pamphlet entitled "Official List of Restricted Subjects"? Maybe gun control should be on that list.

Colin, no, again, this isn't an extreme absolute. It doesn't take a very smart person to know that there are laws against this sort of discrimination. Who better to know than someone who's job it is to write new laws?

No subject is forbidden - but common sense is a nice thing to have.

Alex

That's different. Men are inherently less immoral than women -- God designed it so. Slut. [/b][/quote]
Haha, don't get me started on you.

Haha, don't get me started on you. [/b][/quote]
don't waste yourself on him,
start yourself on ME!
;-)))

P.S.
or I'll steal your man!


;-))

http://cotac.com/KK/wild.JPG