Another shamefully blatant attempt to indoctrinate school children&#33

[PromoTheRobot]

This may come as shock to you but the Dept of Education is run by.....educators. You know, people who, like, have degrees in Education? And besides, last I checked the US DoE did not set curricula. That is done by the individual State DoE's. Like the ones that got hijacked in Texas by ideologues.

 

PTR

[DC Tom]

This may come as shock to you but the Dept of Education is run by.....educators.

 

No, it's not.

 

You know, people who, like, have degrees in Education? And besides, last I checked the US DoE did not set curricula. That is done by the individual State DoE's. Like the ones that got hijacked in Texas by ideologues.

 

PTR

 

So federal DoE is good because it's run by educators, state DoE is bad because it's run by half-wit mongoloids.

[/dev/null]

This may come as shock to you but the Dept of Education is run by.....educators.

 

 

Oh wait, you really do think that. That makes me sad

[OCinBuffalo]

This may come as shock to you but the Dept of Education is run by.....educators. You know, people who, like, have degrees in Education? And besides, last I checked the US DoE did not set curricula. That is done by the individual State DoE's. Like the ones that got hijacked in Texas by ideologues.

 

PTR

You have been asked 3 times to provide examples of what you mean by hijacked by ideology. Let's make it a 4th.

 

WTF are you talking about?

 

We ARE a Representative Republic.

We ARE clearly the greatest country the world has ever known, and that IS largely due to our Constitution, to which every public servant and armed service member must swear an oath. The history of EVERY country is ripe with oppression, slavery in one form or another, war, and other terrible events. The difference is: no other country has ended up on morally right side of history more often than us, by far. No other country has consistently gone to war/spent our treasure on the preservation of freedom, and not gain, of the oppressed both here, and especially abroad, than us. By definition that makes us: exceptional. As in, we are the EXCEPTION to the rule that the rest of the world, especially Europe, has subscribed to for millennia: might makes right. And if that weren't the case, then how come whenever there is a problem, the rest of the world always comes to us? How come they always expect us to do something about it? Answer: because we always do.

We WERE founded by religious white men.

The Founders WERE primarily concerned with the LIMITATION of government, not it's growth.

 

I have given you some examples of the historically accurate tenets of the curriculum passed.

 

Show me the ones that aren't correct, or, cut the crap with the broad brush. Pick one.

[Magox]

This may come as shock to you but the Dept of Education is run by.....educators.

[John Adams]

You have been asked 3 times to provide examples of what you mean by hijacked by ideology. Let's make it a 4th.

 

WTF are you talking about?

 

...

 

Show me the ones that aren't correct, or, cut the crap with the broad brush. Pick one.

 

Promo and pbills would rather just keep saying it's screwed up without citing anything from the article. They are so outraged that they can't provide their list of problems.

 

Great, now I'm agreeing with OC. Thanks a lot promo.

[OCinBuffalo]

Promo and pbills would rather just keep saying it's screwed up without citing anything from the article. They are so outraged that they can't provide their list of problems.

 

Great, now I'm agreeing with OC. Thanks a lot promo.

Everybody eventually does.

[OCinBuffalo]

1. Still waiting PTR....been an hour. If you actually had something specific, I am guessing we would surely have heard it by now.

 

2. Reread the thread. For all the rational discussion RI Bills fan demands from others, he sure doesn't offer any himself. In fact, I can't remember the last time he wrote anything other than a personal attack, name calling, or pointless verbal sparring. Maybe we can expect him to pick up his game and do something useful like explain, never mind defend, the health care bill Or, even better, tell us why we shouldn't be extremely skeptical of Global Goring.

 

3. Reread the article. Check out this line:

 

"Numerous attempts to add the names or references to important Hispanics throughout history also were denied, inducing one amendment that would specify that Tejanos died at the Alamo alongside Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie."

 

Now do it again. The first time, didn't you get the impression that the net result was that the Board wanted to deny that Tejanos were at the Alamo? How about the second time? Inducing? It says an amendment was "induced". WTF does that mean? Was it added or not? Why not tell us one way or the other? This is supposedly a news article. What kind of reporter doesn't tell you what happened? Where is Lori?

 

Can we call this report either incompetent or biased?

[pBills]

Read that article and point out the parts that are outrageous.

 

 

Outrageous... an amendment by Republican Don McLeroy suggesting that the civil rights movement led to "unrealistic expectations for equal outcomes." "Another proposed change removes any reference to race, sex or religion in talking about how different groups have contributed to the national identity."

 

Outrageous... Numerous attempts to add the names or references to important Hispanics throughout history also were denied

 

Outrageous... Politicizing Textbooks

 

 

 

Outrageous... simply outrageous. Let the usual attacking begin.

[pBills]

Promo and pbills would rather just keep saying it's screwed up without citing anything from the article. They are so outraged that they can't provide their list of problems.

 

Great, now I'm agreeing with OC. Thanks a lot promo.

 

 

What did you think about all of the banter with Obama speaking to Children? Was it an attempt to indoctrinate school children?

 

Speaking to Children vs. Changing censorship in schools. Their probably going to ban dancing and music next.

[pBills]

Oh and Mr. Adams... I did happen to like this read. I'm sure you won't:

 

link

[DC Tom]

"Another proposed change removes any reference to race, sex or religion in talking about how different groups have contributed to the national identity."

 

How the hell is that outrageous?

[OCinBuffalo]

Outrageous... simply outrageous. Let the usual attacking begin.

Nope, let the questioning begin. I bet my questions will do a lot more damage to your position than any lame RI Bills fan-type name calling and personal attacks.

Outrageous... an amendment by Republican Don McLeroy suggesting that the civil rights movement led to "unrealistic expectations for equal outcomes."

Wait, but, this wasn't passed. So, why are you getting worked up about something that didn't pass? An amendment was "induced" that made specific mention of Tejanos at the Alamo. With the assumption that "induced" = passed, the civil rights thing is out, Tejanos at the Alamo are in. WTF are you crying about? The net result it: accurate history, which is what we all should want. Right?

 

Or, are you simply pissed because history isn't being rewritten here?

"Another proposed change removes any reference to race, sex or religion in talking about how different groups have contributed to the national identity."

This article, once again, is poorly done because we can't figure out the context in which this statement belongs.

 

Is it: that we are trying to remove the concept that white men led the revolution in Texas?

 

Or is it: that we are trying to give MORE credit to minorities?

 

Or is it: that we don't want to acknowledge white men, because if we did, we'd have to teach history as it actually is?

 

The bottom line is: how the f are we supposed to study history if we can't talk about the background of historically significant people? Where they came from/what their values were/their status in society most certainly had an affect on their thinking and therefore their actions. What defines a "group", and why they made the contributions they did, more than race, sex, and religion?

 

Or, are you simply pissed because history isn't being rewritten here?

Outrageous... Numerous attempts to add the names or references to important Hispanics throughout history also were denied

Also, it is possible that, just like we so often do with Black History Month, there is an attempt to elevate Hispanic historical status, based SOLELY on race, and not on historical import?

 

Far too many people operate on the assumption that the reason we didn't learn about minority history is due to some racist conspiracy. The simplest explanation is the correct one: there were a lot more white people in this country than anybody else for a long time. Therefore, it simply makes sense that a lot more white people would be doing historically significant things. Never mind the fact that, given the clear limitation, and even oppression of minorities, the opportunities simply weren't there for a real long time.

 

You can't have it both ways. So which do you choose? Do you agree that there were significant limitations on opportunities for non-whites? Or, do you agree that those opportunities did exist, that non-whites took them and made much larger contributions than we know? You can't tell both stories at the same time, so pick one.

 

Disclaimer: I will give you the Teddy Roosevelt getting credit for something almost 100% accomplished by black soldiers, that not only bailed out his sorry ass, but won the battle as well. But that's a progressive with political ambitions, so, it's OK, right? Hell, the National Parks are an end that justify his means, right? He couldn't have been "The Hero of San Jaun Hill", and he didn't do anything to help those that were, but, since he was a progressive, none of that matters.

 

Or, are you simply pissed because history isn't being rewritten here?

Outrageous... Politicizing Textbooks

I have news for you: we have seen this same story play out on Gay Marriage, Welfare, you name it. Once again, LIBERALS started out doing something ridiculous, get away with some change, push that change to ridiculous levels, get called on it, have no basis in reality for their actions, and proceed to provoke a response that not only removes all their efforts, but, pushes things further to the right than when they started.

 

Who started the politicization of textbooks? Liberals, starting about 8-10 years ago.

What happened? Initially? They corrected real historical inaccuracies. They should have stopped there.

But no, once they realized they had some power, they decided to push it with ridiculous re-writing of history trying to de-emphasize the role of our founders, trying to make the Civil War solely about the fight against slavery, etc.

Whether they thought they were smart, or, the rest of us were stupid, ultimately, they got caught.

And now, given the amount on angst that has been building up for years against this folly, the Liberals have provoked a backlash, that yes, in some cases, pushes the interpretation of history farther to the right.

 

Now, whose fault is this? Liberals are exactly like the 150 lb. schit talker in the bar...they keep pushing you, and despite your significant attempts to not engage and rely on your patience, eventually push too far, and then you have to respond. Then, after you have given them a sound beating, physical or verbal, they dare to complain about that, and try to make it about your response and not about their provocations.

 

What do you think is going to happen in November? Is "the story" going to be about what the Dems did to lose Congress? Or, is it going to be about how dumb the American people are for voting their asses out?

[pBills]

Nope, let the questioning begin. I bet my questions will do a lot more damage to your position than any lame RI Bills fan-type name calling and personal attacks.

 

Wait, but, this wasn't passed. So, why are you getting worked up about something that didn't pass? An amendment was "induced" that made specific mention of Tejanos at the Alamo. With the assumption that "induced" = passed, the civil rights thing is out, Tejanos at the Alamo are in. WTF are you crying about? The net result it: accurate history, which is what we all should want. Right?

 

Or, are you simply pissed because history isn't being rewritten here?

 

This article, once again, is poorly done because we can't figure out the context in which this statement belongs.

 

Is it: that we are trying to remove the concept that white men led the revolution in Texas?

 

Or is it: that we are trying to give MORE credit to minorities?

 

Or is it: that we don't want to acknowledge white men, because if we did, we'd have to teach history as it actually is?

 

The bottom line is: how the f are we supposed to study history if we can't talk about the background of historically significant people? Where they came from/what their values were/their status in society most certainly had an affect on their thinking and therefore their actions. What defines a "group", and why they made the contributions they did, more than race, sex, and religion?

 

Or, are you simply pissed because history isn't being rewritten here?

 

Also, it is possible that, just like we so often do with Black History Month, there is an attempt to elevate Hispanic historical status, based SOLELY on race, and not on historical import?

 

Far too many people operate on the assumption that the reason we didn't learn about minority history is due to some racist conspiracy. The simplest explanation is the correct one: there were a lot more white people in this country than anybody else for a long time. Therefore, it simply makes sense that a lot more white people would be doing historically significant things. Never mind the fact that, given the clear limitation, and even oppression of minorities, the opportunities simply weren't there for a real long time.

 

You can't have it both ways. So which do you choose? Do you agree that there were significant limitations on opportunities for non-whites? Or, do you agree that those opportunities did exist, that non-whites took them and made much larger contributions than we know? You can't tell both stories at the same time, so pick one.

 

Disclaimer: I will give you the Teddy Roosevelt getting credit for something almost 100% accomplished by black soldiers, that not only bailed out his sorry ass, but won the battle as well. But that's a progressive with political ambitions, so, it's OK, right? Hell, the National Parks are an end that justify his means, right? He couldn't have been "The Hero of San Jaun Hill", and he didn't do anything to help those that were, but, since he was a progressive, none of that matters.

 

Or, are you simply pissed because history isn't being rewritten here?

 

I have news for you: we have seen this same story play out on Gay Marriage, Welfare, you name it. Once again, LIBERALS started out doing something ridiculous, get away with some change, push that change to ridiculous levels, get called on it, have no basis in reality for their actions, and proceed to provoke a response that not only removes all their efforts, but, pushes things further to the right than when they started.

 

Who started the politicization of textbooks? Liberals, starting about 8-10 years ago.

What happened? Initially? They corrected real historical inaccuracies. They should have stopped there.

But no, once they realized they had some power, they decided to push it with ridiculous re-writing of history trying to de-emphasize the role of our founders, trying to make the Civil War solely about the fight against slavery, etc.

Whether they thought they were smart, or, the rest of us were stupid, ultimately, they got caught.

And now, given the amount on angst that has been building up for years against this folly, the Liberals have provoked a backlash, that yes, in some cases, pushes the interpretation of history farther to the right.

 

Now, whose fault is this? Liberals are exactly like the 150 lb. schit talker in the bar...they keep pushing you, and despite your significant attempts to not engage and rely on your patience, eventually push too far, and then you have to respond. Then, after you have given them a sound beating, physical or verbal, they dare to complain about that, and try to make it about your response and not about their provocations.

 

What do you think is going to happen in November? Is "the story" going to be about what the Dems did to lose Congress? Or, is it going to be about how dumb the American people are for voting their asses out?

 

 

I will go through your post later on when I have time. Quickly, I do find it funny how you placed blame on liberals awfully fast. And as far as November is concerned, I think the republicans will pick up some seats... no doubt. Because as Americans we have to come to this notion that things can be fixed instantly. Instant gratification. Sorry, that's not going to happen when two sides don't play well together. Unfortunately, we're going to go back to where we were the eight years prior to Obama and REALLY see nothing get done in Washington. Any sort of health care reform, buh-bye. Any sort of help for middle-class americans... buh-bye.

[OCinBuffalo]

I will go through your post later on when I have time.

We'll see. I would hate to have to call you Brian Moorman

Quickly, I do find it funny how you placed blame on liberals awfully fast.

The truth is easy. BS political spin takes a while.

And as far as November is concerned, I think the republicans will pick up some seats... no doubt. Because as Americans we have to come to this notion that things can be fixed instantly. Instant gratification. Sorry, that's not going to happen when two sides don't play well together.

Then why, oh, why were Dems running around in 2006 saying we had to elect them to Congress immediately? Because there was an immediate set of things that needed to be accomplished, and, if we elected them they would immediately set about doing them? It's been 4 years and I am still waiting for that immediate energy policy. What's going to happen when the Saudis raise their prices again? Yeah, let's hear about that new-fangled Veto thing again....that apparently didn't exist until 2006. Oh wait, does that Veto thing matter for the last year and a half?

 

Funny also that all we have heard from Dems is how they are going to work with Republicans. How? Attempting and failing to pass their "handouts for people that give us money" agenda? By doing everything from as far to left as it gets, short of Communism?

Unfortunately, we're going to go back to where we were the eight years prior to Obama and REALLY see nothing get done in Washington. Any sort of health care reform, buh-bye. Any sort of help for middle-class americans... buh-bye.

Quite the opposite. This is 1994, all over again. And, this time, the Republicans have learned their lesson. A ton of positive things were accomplished from 94-2000. I am looking forward to that. I honestly believe that the best situation for our country is a Republican Congress and a Democrat President, not the other way around, and not one party controlling everything. This way, the Congress and the President compete with one another to lower taxes and spending, the private sector thrives. The Democrat President doesn't allow things to get out of hand, and keeps regulations that work. But, the Republican Congress instantly removes all nonsense spending and doesn't allow growth of government to get out of hand....a perfect check and balance system...exactly as it was intended.

[John Adams]

Outrageous... an amendment by Republican Don McLeroy suggesting that the civil rights movement led to "unrealistic expectations for equal outcomes." "Another proposed change removes any reference to race, sex or religion in talking about how different groups have contributed to the national identity."

 

So you are upset about the things that DIDN'T make it into the textbooks?!

 

Striiiiiike 1.

 

Outrageous... Numerous attempts to add the names or references to important Hispanics throughout history also were denied

 

And yet many additions of famous hispanics were made to the curriculum. Guess what: not everyone makes the cut.

 

Striiiiiiike 2.

 

 

 

Outrageous... Politicizing Textbooks

 

It would be if these text books were politicized.

 

Striiiiiiiike 3.

 

Even you get the point now. The process may have had some idiots but the textbooks themselves were not offensive in any way. But it's nice to puff up the false outrage isn't it?

[John Adams]

Oh and Mr. Adams... I did happen to like this read. I'm sure you won't:

 

link

 

I read it. That board member is a lunatic. But guess what: I don't see any of his lunacy in the first article describing the actual adopted changes. Again, more fake outrage.