Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 60

Thread: The End of History in America's Classrooms

  1. #31
    Administrator Topiary Lady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A Lovely Red Oasis In An All Too Blue State
    Posts
    24,769
    Blog Entries
    3
    ^
    That's interesting, CC. Thankyou for telling us.
    For God So Loved The American Right, He Sent His One And Only ... Topiary Lady!!!

  2. #32
    TAR Fanatic (Should consider spending time in Real Life) conservativecanadian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,809
    your welcome, also, i suppose it helps that my history teacher is like god, their is something awesome about an individual who will spoil the ending to a twilight book for a girl reading in his class and not paying attention.
    When one man, for whatever reason, has the opportunity to lead an extraordinary life, he has no right to keep it to himself

  3. #33
    Administrator Topiary Lady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A Lovely Red Oasis In An All Too Blue State
    Posts
    24,769
    Blog Entries
    3
    ^
    .........LOL! Good for him!
    For God So Loved The American Right, He Sent His One And Only ... Topiary Lady!!!

  4. #34
    conservative-atheist
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by FireDog View Post
    ^
    Bingo!! Like the schools that stopped using red ink to correct papers or stopped giving a "F" but give a "Tried." Wouldn't want to bruise those little egos. Hardly prepares them for reality.
    ha ha ha ........... I hate this Woosification of America, especially with our boys.

    A couple years back my boys wanted to join a JR's basketball league .......... and they asked me to help coach ...... I was like, "OK!" ...... so when we got to tournament time, we were setting up the award system and stuff, and they said that there would be no 1st place trophies, and these liberal/socialist dads were all in agreement ....... somebody said, "the most important point is to make sure that everybody has fun and participates." And the coaches of each team had to make sure they played each kid a certain number of minutes or your team would be knocked a certain number of points ........... I objected ....... I stood up and siad, "well, some kids suck! and shouldn't get as much playing time as others". these people looked at me like I was a member of the Nazi party or something.

    and when I said, "There can only be one winner of the tournament ........ everybody is not a "winner"", they said they wanted everybody to go hom with a trophy ....... and, we had to help raise funds for almost 100 trophies ..... expensive as hell, by the way.

    anyways, when it was all over, my boys' team made it to the quarter finals and got asses handed to them by some bigger and better kids. But they got a trophy anyways .......... Walking back to the car, one of my boys said something like, "we didn't do so bad, we came it 6th place!". I stopped that socialist shit right there ............. I said, "you guys sucked ........ you lost. You're not a winner! And the sooner in life you learn that, the better off you'll be" I let them know that this is not how life works when you get a job ........ you come in and tell your boss that you did the 6th best job, and s/he will fire you on your ass!

    When we got to the parking lot, I made them toss the trophies in the dumpster .......... they didn't like it, no more than I didn't like hard lessons like this when my father taught them to me ........... but later in life, they'll appreciate it. There was a long silent car ride back home to say the least.

  5. #35
    TAR Fanatic (Should consider spending time in Real Life) Dr. Madd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Wishes he was in the Amazon
    Posts
    23,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Yamaha View Post
    I love how you think all these powerful people are scared of you and want to destroy you. Of all the delusions, that's a nice one to have.
    Pitiful little man! You think TL's only worried about TL.. She has a great for America, which is a good deal than can be said for most.
    "...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]

  6. #36
    TAR Fanatic (Should consider spending time in Real Life) Isis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlantis
    Posts
    3,373
    It's no wonder the "old" media is dying. Is this just another attempt to attack Republicans with a half truth, when in fact the whole truth would make Democrats out to be the real villans? Or is this the result of decades of re-written history being taught in our schools?


    The New York Times: Three-Fifths Of A Newspaper


    New York Times' editors believe it "a theatrical production of unusual pomposity" that the incoming Republican Congress require "that every bill cite its basis in the Constitution.

    In any case, it is a presumptuous and self-righteous act, suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation. Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person.
    Just because Republicans want to make sure any legislation they pass meets Constitutional muster doesn't mean they believe blacks be counted as three-fifths of a person, but maybe by using this example as part of their rebuttal the New York Times believes three-fifths of their readership are functionally ignorant of history.

    Or maybe three-fifths of the New York Times editors are as well?


    Blacks in Southern states had no rights thus The North deemed it a joke they only be counted when beneficial to Democrats.

    Anti-slavery northerner James Wilson of Pennsylvania came up with a compromise.

    Blacks in the Southern states would be counted as "three-fifths" of a person. That way, it would take 50,000 people (instead of 30,000) in a district to earn congressional representation. That had the effect of limiting the power of the slave states.

    taken from; - Frederick Douglass: Speech, 26 Mar 1860 (Black abolitionist)

    ".......instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of ‘two-fifths’ of political power to free over slave States. So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at its worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery; for, be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a coloured man to vote.”

  7. #37
    TAR Regular mpano66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    M O O N! That spells Kansas! Laws, yes!
    Posts
    994
    I few fun items I've found in my nephews history books (he goes to public school, my son to private):

    1) The Founding Fathers were slavers, pure and simple. They owned slaves, they sold slaves, they supported and defended the slave trade. They were rich white men who made sure that only the elite and wealthy had a say in American government by mandating that you had to be a land owner to vote.
    -this completely ignores or attempts to hide the fact that at the time 97% of all American households WERE land owners, including some black men who owned property and (yes, I know, hard to believe but true!) also owned slaves. This also ignores or hides many of the real facts about some of our founder's written and known attitudes on slavery, many of which we've already discussed.

    2) Slave ships to and from America sailed the routes so many times through the mid 1800's, throwing injured and sick slaves overboard to lighten the load, that it to this day has changed the feeding/hunting patterns of sharks in the Atlantic.
    - if you buy this I have some lovely beachfront property I'd love to sell you in New Mexico. The biologic considerations of the feeding patterns of sharks aside, the US banned importation of slaves in 1807...and while it did not cease the flow of slaves to the States from Europe and Africa, it did slow it greatly. In addition, slaves were a commodity in that period, and a highly valuable one. While slaves were by no stretch of the imagination treated well, they were treated the same as most livestock (especially since a good slave at that time often brought more than 2 or even 3 horses). Did slaves die on the voyage across? Of course, as did some of the sailors. Was it epidemic? Of course not. Bad business...especially since slaves were seldom captured by slavers. They were by and large purchased from other tribes or at the slave markets (Arab and Nigerian/Yoruban), and a price far greater than the cost of 45 to 60 days worth of food and water.

    3) It is the job of the supreme court to interpret the constitution.
    -This one used to floor me. In all fairness they were trying to float this boat anchor back when I was in school, too....I still remember serving detention because I told a teacher she was either misinformed, ignorant or intentionally lying when she insisted this WAS the role of the supreme court. In case Yamaha ever returns, the correct answer is, "It is the duty of the supreme course to enforce the constitution in regards to laws and policy enacted by the legislative and executive branches of our government", or to provide a final ruling for lesser courts in regard to federal matters.
    Last edited by mpano66; 01-06-2011 at 12:19 PM.

  8. #38
    conservative-atheist
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Isis View Post
    In any case, it is a presumptuous and self-righteous act, suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation. Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person.
    Geez!

    That's an outrageous statement if ever I've heard one! Who the f*ck wrote that bullsh*t?

  9. #39
    conservative-atheist
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by mpano66 View Post
    mpano66,

    2) Slave ships to and from America sailed the routes so many times through the mid 1800's, throwing injured and sick slaves overboard to lighten the load, that it to this day has changed the feeding/hunting patterns of sharks in the Atlantic.

    - if you buy this I have some lovely beachfront property I'd love to sell you in New Mexico. The biologic considerations of the feeding patterns of sharks aside, the US banned importation of slaves in 1807...and while it did not cease the flow of slaves to the States from Europe and Africa, it did slow it greatly. In addition, slaves were a commodity in that period, and a highly valuable one. While slaves were by no stretch of the imagination treated well, they were treated the same as most livestock (especially since a good slave at that time often brought more than 2 or even 3 horses). Did slaves die on the voyage across? Of course, as did some of the sailors. Was it epidemic? Of course not. Bad business...especially since slaves were seldom captured by slavers. They were by and large purchased from other tribes or at the slave markets (Arab and Nigerian/Yoruban), and a price far greater than the cost of 45 to 60 days worth of food and water.
    I don't see any conflict with what the text books said and what you said.

    I mean, we know that shark patterns changed, (if we are to believe the marine biologist) . . . . . I have to take them at their word. But the first part is absolutely true about slaves coming to America up to the mid 1800s. Its ironic that you would mention this because I just posted a link wehre there's a database where you can look up the manifests of more than 80% of all the Slave ships headed to ports along the eastern seaboard .. what cargo they started out with, and what they landed with. They kept surprisingly good records




    Quote Originally Posted by mpano66 View Post
    3) It is the job of the supreme court to interpret the constitution.
    -This one used to floor me. In all fairness they were trying to float this boat anchor back when I was in school, too....I still remember serving detention because I told a teacher she was either misinformed, ignorant or intentionally lying when she insisted this WAS the role of the supreme court. In case Yamaha ever returns, the correct answer is, "It is the duty of the supreme course to enforce the constitution in regards to laws and policy enacted by the legislative and executive branches of our government", or to provide a final ruling for lesser courts in regard to federal matters.
    Aren't you mencing words here though?

    The Executive enforces the laws and the constitution; the word "execute" is in the text of the President's oath.
    The Legislature only hase the Constitutional authority to Make Law. That's it.
    So the only thing left for the Court to do, is to interpret the law. Ideally, the Courts are to interpret the original intent of the Founders, and the current legislators, right?

    And if you get technical, what you said here,
    . . . . the duty of the supreme course to enforce the constitution . . . .
    is factually incorrect. The court has no authority to enforce the Constitution. It can't. It has no police force or military to do so. That is the role of the Chief Executive;
    "to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed."

    Look no further than Brown v. Board of Education. The Court made a ruling, and several states simply ignored it. It wasn't until we had a Chief Executive who was willing to faithfully execute the law with the military, that its ruling was enforced. And the court in this case didn't "make law". It simply interpreted the constitution the way it should have always been.
    Last edited by conservative-atheist; 01-06-2011 at 12:50 PM.

  10. #40
    Administrator Topiary Lady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A Lovely Red Oasis In An All Too Blue State
    Posts
    24,769
    Blog Entries
    3
    That's what I'm talking about, mpano. They have inserted all of these lies into the books. Even the little kids are being indoctrinated with garbage books or video's like The Story Of Stuff. http://video.foxnews.com/v/3940813
    Last edited by Topiary Lady; 01-06-2011 at 12:52 PM.
    For God So Loved The American Right, He Sent His One And Only ... Topiary Lady!!!

  11. #41
    TAR Addict
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,692
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by conservative-atheist View Post
    Aren't you mencing words here though?

    The Executive enforces the laws and the constitution; the word "execute" is in the text of the President's oath. The Legislature only hase the Constitutional authority to Make Law. That's it.
    So the only thing left for the Court to do, is to interpret the law. Ideally, the Courts are to interpret the original intent of the Founders, and the current legislators, right?

    And if you get technical, what you said here, is factually incorrect. The court has no authority to enforce the Constitution. It can't. It has no police force or military to do so. That is the role of the Chief Executive;

    Look no further than Brown v. Board of Education. The Court made a ruling, and several states simply ignored it. It wasn't until we had a Chief Executive who was willing to faithfully execute the law with the military, that its ruling was enforced. And the court in this case didn't "make law". It simply interpreted the constitution the way it should have always been.
    CA, I think you're mincing words too. I "interpreted" mpano66's words about the responsiblity of the Surpreme Court being to "enforce the Constitution" to mean that they are to rule on the basis of the Constitution's original intent. I believe that mpano66's problem, and mine too by the way, is how the left has bastardized the word "interpret" to mean whatever a lefty judge wants the Constitution to mean.

    I fully agree with what you say about the history of Brown v. Board of Education, and in the purest sense, your definition of the words "enforce", "interpret", and "make law" are correct. Here's where I think the "mincing" occurs: I saw mpano66's statement that the Supreme Court's job is to "enforce" the Constitution to mean it's job is to "rule" 100% consistently with the original intent. I see that as "enforcing the intended meaning of the Constitution"!

    Let's use your fine example of Brown v. Board of Education to make another point. In reading over that decision, I clearly see how the Constitution can be interpreted to mean exactly what the Court ruled it meant. I also clearly saw during my lifetime how that decision was ignored by the State Executives charged with "enforcing" the ruling. Since those days, I've seen the Supreme Court rule that an unborn child's life is not important, and that a mother may kill her unborn child for her own convenience. I saw then and I see now NOTHING in our Constitution that would allow such an action! Nevertheless, the Court in its "wisdom" claimed the Constitution permitted such action, and quoted a "right" that clearly does NOT exist in our Constitution! Makes me believe that the Court's duty should be to "Enforce" the original intent of the Constitution???

    Communication can be difficult at times, and I think your interpretation of mpano66's words may be a good example of his mis-communicating his actual intent????

  12. #42
    conservative-atheist
    Guest
    JPRD,

    No matter how forceful I sound, I wasn't tryin' to bash mpano66 over the head. Even though I still think he should have done detention

    OK, So call me Antonin Scalia with my literalist interpretation of the Constitution. ha ha ha ha

    Perhaps I jumped on top of the guy too quickly. I'll wait for him to come in and see what he says.

  13. #43
    TAR Addict
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,692
    Blog Entries
    1
    ^, I didn't think you were bashing him, CA, I simply thought you misunderstood him. Now, he might well come back and tell me that it was me who misunderstood him??? lol

  14. #44
    TAR Regular mpano66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    M O O N! That spells Kansas! Laws, yes!
    Posts
    994
    I mean, we know that shark patterns changed, (if we are to believe the marine biologist) . . . . .
    Wow. Ok. Ummm...wow. Really?

    Marine biologists never claimed this, because it was patently false. Shark swim patterns did not "forever change" because of slaves being tossed overboard like some human breadcrumb trail from Africa. Did sharks follow the ships? Yes. Spend any time on a boat and you can watch sharks follow, especially if pumped bilge or dumped garbage contain anything edible (sharks will eat ANYTHING).

    The assertion is something vocalized by Congressional dingbat John Lewis, and he got it from a 1840 painting by British artist Joesph Turner entitled "The Slave Ship" (seen here). The part about it "forever changing shark patterns" is something the imbecile made up on the fly, as best as anyone can tell, along with his claim that slavers threw "millions" of blacks to waiting sharks.

    The painting was inspired by events in the British slave trade, in which the practice was to throw dead or dying slaves over the rail to collect the insurance, which covered losses at sea but not cargo arriving to port dead. In particular he was inspired by the Zong Massacre, in which 122 sick slaves were tossed overboard, along with 60+ dead slaves and 7 dead crew, in a voyage from Africa to Jamaica. This happened in 1781, and the court case happened in 1783. The crew were not charged with murder, because according to British law killing a slave was not illegal... but the events surrounding the case did a lot to further the cause of abolition, as public outrage about the events was widespread. It also caused insuring companies to change policies regarding the "lost at sea" clause.

    Again, not American. Not true. No evidence to support this ridiculous allegation in any way....yet it ends up being taught to kids in a classroom to further a political agenda.

    first part is absolutely true about slaves coming to America up to the mid 1800s
    And thats why you'll see, if you read my statement, "while it did not cease the flow of slaves to the States from Europe and Africa, it did slow it greatly". And it did. Fines were stiff for offenders, as were prison sentences. People purchasing illegally imported slaves were also fined substantially.

    And yes, my problem with "interpret" is that the left has taken this to mean that they can decide the constitution means whatever they want it to mean, to suit the agenda of the day. They keep harping on the idea that the constitution is a "living, changing document", and to an extent they are correct, of course. The issue I and many have with this, however, is that they wish to completely revise it to, again, suit their sick, twisted and warped ideology. And yes, to me "enforce", in this context means to make certain that laws and policy put forth by the other branches of our government conform to the constitution.

  15. #45
    TAR Regular mpano66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    M O O N! That spells Kansas! Laws, yes!
    Posts
    994
    Another thing: the same book and teacher also cited that during the slave trade, from start to finish, the average loss on these ships was around 40%, and that the slave trade predominantly served the US. Both assertions are sheer lies.

    Almost 90% of the African slaves were sent to Caribbean colonies or South America. The biggest slavers were the British, the Dutch and the French, with slaves going to their most productive colonies. After 1807 some sources estimate that less than 4% of all slaves exported from Africa (yes, exported...we'll get to that) came to the states.

    The average voyage, according to most of the data I've found, saw losses of between 13% and 15% (though Milton Meltzer's research claims 12.5%). In many cases these mortality rates were lower than crew mortality rates (some research asserts that 18th and 19th century merchant sailors had mortality rates near 17%).

    This same school taught the "Roots" theory of slavery: that evil Americans with clubs and nets would raid villages of peaceful, agrarian Africans to gather slaves. The truth of the matter is that yes, some active capture did happen in Africa, by the Portuguese, mostly, and in specific areas for a limited time...but the VAST majority of slaves taken from Africa were sold to European traders by African slavers (Yoruba and Arab mainly).

    The most common way of becoming a slave in Africa in the 17th, 18th and 19th century? Lose a war.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •