Jump to content

BISD board member is a NAACP member???


5GallonBucket

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Not if it sways your decision making about race, religion, gender...you get my point.

I get your point. I do. The problem is that with your criteria, you couldn’t have ANYONE on a school board.

Are you saying that if someone is a member of the NAACP and also a school board member then they may lean towards helping black students more? Awarding bids to more black-owned businesses? Pushing a different agenda in classes that you don’t agree with? Don’t you think that happens to an extent (whether white or black) anyway? Let me ask you this. If a retired teacher was on the school board, would that be a problem? What if they were a member of a teachers association? I’m saying you wouldn’t give it a second glance. But don’t you think that person would lean more toward giving teachers more pay? Would you balk at a Mormon or a Jew being in the school board? What about a Muslim? Can you honestly tell me your problem is not mainly that you don’t agree with the NAACP? I can tell you right now, I don’t agree with LOTS of things they promote. I’m not a member. Can’t see myself joining anytime soon either. But I don’t take issue if an NAACP member is elected to the school board. Those that don’t like it can vote him out at the next election or even run him/herself for his seat. Or is it just that your prejudice won’t let you accept that answer. I will admit I’m prejudiced to a degree. I think we all are. But I think we ALL share the same fundamental human rights. That’s what America is. That’s WHO WE ARE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

I get your point. I do. The problem is that with your criteria, you couldn’t have ANYONE on a school board.

Are you saying that if someone is a member of the NAACP and also a school board member then they may lean towards helping black students more? Awarding bids to more black-owned businesses? Pushing a different agenda in classes that you don’t agree with? Don’t you think that happens to an extent (whether white or black) anyway? Let me ask you this. If a retired teacher was on the school board, would that be a problem? What if they were a member of a teachers association? I’m saying you wouldn’t give it a second glance. But don’t you think that person would lean more toward giving teachers more pay? Would you balk at a Mormon or a Jew being in the school board? What about a Muslim? Can you honestly tell me your problem is not mainly that you don’t agree with the NAACP? I can tell you right now, I don’t agree with LOTS of things they promote. I’m not a member. Can’t see myself joining anytime soon either. But I don’t take issue if an NAACP member is elected to the school board. Those that don’t like it can vote him out at the next election or even run him/herself for his seat. Or is it just that your prejudice won’t let you accept that answer. I will admit I’m prejudiced to a degree. I think we all are. But I think we ALL share the same fundamental human rights. That’s what America is. That’s WHO WE ARE!

Not prejudice at all and want to limit it on places like a school board as much as possible.  Don’t want to see anyone on it that you know may have a bias towards or against anyone or any group.  Whether that’s a group like the NAACP or a good old boy that doesn’t care for minorities.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Not prejudice at all and want to limit it on places like a school board as much as possible.  Don’t want to see anyone on it that you know may have a bias towards or against anyone or any group.  Whether that’s a group like the NAACP or a good old boy that doesn’t care for minorities.  

Then we better start clearing out the school boards all over the place. Including Our dear old Lumberton ISD. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

It’s only self explanatory if the people think just like you. Can you be specific for those that really don’t understand what you are saying or what conflict it causes? I feel like you are being elusive because you’re either too scared to say it in a public forum or you don’t really have a reason other than you don’t like the NAACP. If that’s the reason, then just say it. 

 

On 6/3/2020 at 8:55 PM, LumRaiderFan said:

Not if it sways your decision making about race, religion, gender...you get my point.

 

On 6/3/2020 at 8:11 PM, LumRaiderFan said:

I don’t want any agenda promoted by a school board other than education.  No favoritism should be shown when hiring, firing, or anything else.

Read up on the modern day NAACP, maybe you’ll see what we’re talking about.

 

On 6/3/2020 at 7:57 PM, LumRaiderFan said:

I can see your point and I think it’s a good one.  Anyone that is a member of a group that leans towards promoting the welfare of one race (any race) over another has no business on a school board

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

I get your point. I do. The problem is that with your criteria, you couldn’t have ANYONE on a school board.

Are you saying that if someone is a member of the NAACP and also a school board member then they may lean towards helping black students more? Awarding bids to more black-owned businesses? Pushing a different agenda in classes that you don’t agree with? Don’t you think that happens to an extent (whether white or black) anyway? Let me ask you this. If a retired teacher was on the school board, would that be a problem? What if they were a member of a teachers association? I’m saying you wouldn’t give it a second glance. But don’t you think that person would lean more toward giving teachers more pay? Would you balk at a Mormon or a Jew being in the school board? What about a Muslim? Can you honestly tell me your problem is not mainly that you don’t agree with the NAACP? I can tell you right now, I don’t agree with LOTS of things they promote. I’m not a member. Can’t see myself joining anytime soon either. But I don’t take issue if an NAACP member is elected to the school board. Those that don’t like it can vote him out at the next election or even run him/herself for his seat. Or is it just that your prejudice won’t let you accept that answer. I will admit I’m prejudiced to a degree. I think we all are. But I think we ALL share the same fundamental human rights. That’s what America is. That’s WHO WE ARE!

This

itsabout the character of a person

should never be about race or gender

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...