juansavage1

Now, we can see if those claims are true. Is there more racial violence in the South? Maybe. I know it was true in the past, when lynching occurred with some frequency. The gun culture thing is pretty easy to dismiss. Where there 's a culture of guns (hinting, magazines, shows, and other signs of popularity), the gun violence rate is pretty low. Almost all gun violence (not suicide or accidents) occur in urban areas where there's a crime/gang culture.

Thanks. When something like this happens, you look at the cultural mileu of the perpetrator and make connections. Your connections are a regional culture with a history of racism, not necessarily a modern mainstream ideology and people who like guns too much. We can react to specifics, which is why I asked the question.

I'm an officer in the Army Reserve and they tell us that Chinese love to hack into our systems. I'm not a computer expert, but I don't think we can have a closed system unless we just have wired connections with no internet or distance capability. We have a system where people use CAC cards and other ID to log in to access information remotely. I'm sure if it were as simple as just fixing it, somebody would have figured it out. This is what we use in the military: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet The Chinese hacked in and we don't think a strong response is worth the economic or military pain in the ass it would be.

So, then you're not blaming Republicans or conservatives for fostering a climate of hate or creating a dangerous situation by allowing people to have guns. You think this person was a lone wolf, mentally disturbed, and/or part of a small group not affiliated with any larger group, like the Tea Party, etc.? Is that a good summary?

So, the take away from this incident is to reflect on the sad state of affairs of the Republican party- too conservative. Thanks. And, for the record, you're a liberal. Do we need to continue this thread?

Would you say that this shooting reflects poorly on conservatives?

Shouldn't you guys wait about a week to make all your lame political points?

I kind of agree that all of the firing is getting excessive, on both sides. Remember the guy from Firefox? I wonder if they resigned to make a statement or something. Public school teachers aren't easily dismissed.

The issue was that the other kids were teasing the boy. Shouldn't the book have been about teasing people?

What is a pervert? Was the book about people who were just friends? Or, was the book about people who were sexually attracted to each other, but who remained abstinent?

I gave three choices. There may be exceptions. There may be people who think gay sex is immoral, but want it taught to kids or who think thinking gay sex is immoral is bad, but who don't want it taught to kids anyways. There may be people who think that all sex is equal is the way forward, but who nonetheless don't want to teach it in school.

Thank you. A fair statement. Fine. This is a long, unpleasant conversation that I've had before and don't want to repeat it. As always, I'll get to the point. If you think that the only proper sex is that which serves a reproductive purpose, as many do, then you don't want your school to endorse another kind, lest kids do the experimenting you mentioned or think that all methods of gratification are equal (thus serving no higher purpose, but gratification). If you think all forms of sexual gratification are equal (I'll leave coerced or non-consensual sex aside), then you don't mind this. If you hate the first group or think that society will progress from thinking the latter, then you want to push this belief to eliminate the former.

Would you prohibit books by ex-gays? If they did read from those, would you just "get over it?"

I have a way to handle this so that most people except those with an agenda are happy. What was the problem? Teasing. The most common teasing problem in school is against fat kids. Is the way to deal with this situation reading a book about how great it is to be fat or "famous fat people?" The teacher should have just told kids that teasing isn't allowed. You don't have to take sides in a moral debate.

What about Anne Heche and the "gay until graduation" phenomenon. There are many people who claim to have re-oriented their sexual desire to some degree.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010509/aponline013921_000.htm They exist. Get over it. Do you think children should know about this and that teachers should read them stories about gay people who have turned straight? It wouldn't be an agenda. It would be more of an awareness campaign.

Why does it suck if people don't think homosexual sex is a good thing?

This is a fair comment. I expect that when teachers read about gay people who converted to straight or children who live with a gay couple missing mom/dad or something similar, you'll say the same thing. Because we know that some people think homosexual sex is wrong and we should hear their stories as well.

This is the corollary to the professor who got fired for saying a joke about the differences in sexes. I would LOVE to know who thought that firing was OK and this one wasn't.

If I could be an inanimate object, I'd be Hannah's saddle.

2X = Me.

I'm probably more man than any three posters here, and I agree with Jeanneaus, partially. I think she's good as what she does. Remember, she's employed by the Angels, not a newspaper. She's not supposed to ask tough questions. She's very personable. Not the hottest out there, but maybe just picking the hottest woman would be too obvious. On cheerleaders: Angels could easily get some of the shirt bazooka chicks to do some kind of routine. There's probably a lot of cheering experience among them.

Yes. Just pointing out that people like brazen outrageousness on their side.

Are you asking me? I'm pro-science. ----------Trigger warning for people who don't like the truth---------- Pro-science means that you don't have moral problems with fetal stem cells and other things liberals don't have problems with. Anti-science means that you have a problem with it. You can still be pro-science and have moral problems with Tuskeegee experiment or other things liberals have problems with. There are truly anti-science positions, as in holding positions that are disproven by science, like thinking the earth is 4000 years old or that men and women have the same brain.

Did you have a traumatic experience in sex-ed? I made it clear that I didn't say that, but I was on a phone, which makes quotes and getting links more difficult. Here's the original story: http://www.angelswin-forum.com/forums/topic/21387-political-correctness-strikes-again/page-6