bullets13

First off, it's also been allowed in several places. I also didnt claim that people EVERYWHERE outside of setx would disagree with the mindset here. You're putting an awful lot of words in my mouth tonight. And secondly, while the topics are kind of related, it's not the same issue.

On an interesting note, I did poll ONE conservative lumberton parent about this issue, and he answered that he would be tentatively open minded to it, but would want the option to discuss it with his child first.

I'm plenty in tune with this area. I grew up here, I even attended ETBU for 4 years, which really dials you into the mindset of conservative east texas. That's why I knew that the parent they interviewed who had a problem with this would have a strong country drawl and the prerequisite camo hat before I saw the interview. Thats also why i agreed with you that my viewpoints might seem radical to some in setx. I don't disagree with you that there will be plenty of people in SETX who would raise a stink. But you said this teacher would be welcomed in very few places. I disagree. Your viewpoint is VERY southeast texas. I'm not criticizing that, but a good chunk of the country does not share the ideologies of this area. I'm not claiming to have polled parents from Lumberton... But don't believe that the viewpoints of some parents from lumberton will line up with people in all places.

She's an idiot and owes UConn an apology at least, your prepped before even speaking on something like this hence the reason they never had a "mistake" like this one before dealing with sport championships. I posted an article in the NCAA Tourney thread bout this. (oh maybe I should have put NAACP :rolleyes: )

SOME lumberton parents have a problem with it. I only brought that up because you called me a "radical" for not having a problem with it. So I asked two non-political people and one conservative person around me and they didn't care either. So maybe I'm not as radical as you think, or maybe you're not quite as in tune with "most places" as you might believe.

I love Roger Beard's interview for the piece: "there's some things we can accept in society that children are not gonna accept the same way that we do." Not really sure what that's supposed to mean. Later he says "they can do many things in life, but if it affects the young people, and their ability to learn and GROW NATURALLY, I think there's an issue with that." Ah, you had me until that last part. He tries to make it sound like he doesn't have a problem with transgenders, that he's only worried that its a distraction to the kids, but that one little comment belies what he's trying to portray. How is an educated sub doing their job going to affect children's ability to "grow naturally?" Oh yeah, I forgot, there are still people out there that think homosexuality or transgenderism is "catching". Just own up to your bias and admit you're uncomfortable with the situation! I can at least respect that viewpoint. But don't hide behind the "distraction" excuse! This sub had worked at this school before with no complaints. I guess only kids with parents who are uncomfortable with this topic get "distracted" by it.

Hahaha, I don't watch fox, although I do look at it when I try to verify some of the cockamamie "news pieces" on here. But it's funny how defensive you guys got. I just thought it was funny as hell. Who do you guys think will win the NAACP women's national championship tonight? It's the first time in the history of NAACP basketball that two undefeated teams have competed for a NAACP championship. :)

every article i've read online, whether from cnn or from the right, has basically said "Ted Cruz can run for president... probably." 
 
either way, i can't wait to watch the birthers justify their support of him, as his ability to run is certainly on more shaky ground than Obama's, who'm they tried to claim was ineligible. 

Quit trolling. Bullets.  You know good and well that the Hawaii birth certificate was a forgery.

I wholeheartedly agree on this. Also, no Medicaid for kids if their parents smoke in the house. I don't know how many students I've had who came in stinking of smoke all the time who had chronic allergies and sinus infections.

I wholeheartedly agree on this. Also, no Medicaid for kids if their parents smoke in the house. I don't know how many students I've had who came in stinking of smoke all the time who had chronic allergies and sinus infections.

If the govt. bans tobacco in the military and claims for health reasons then they must also guarantee no one using welfare dollars or Medicaid or food stamps will be smoking either!

Thanks to the dragging death there many years ago, "Jasper" is more likely to get them some press time.

Thanks to the dragging death there many years ago, "Jasper" is more likely to get them some press time.

Nah, he only broke NCAA rules, not the law.

Why would anyone be concerned with the ill effects of tobacco on veterans when we have Obamacare?

i can understand them WANTING to do this for two reasons:

1. the smoking related healthcare costs for veterans totals over
a billion dollars a year
2. Non-smokers make much more fit, in-shape fighters.


That being said, screw them for considering actually acting on it. Our veterans give up large chunks of their lives (if not their life itself) to serve our country and protect our freedoms. And as far as I am concerned, if a man goes out and gets shot at for me and my country, he can smoke (chew, dip) as much as he wants, and we'll just find a way to foot the bill if he gets sick later. With all of the money being wasted by politicians on both sides of the aisle, the expense of veterans' healthcare should be the least of our worries.

i can understand them WANTING to do this for two reasons:

1. the smoking related healthcare costs for veterans totals over
a billion dollars a year
2. Non-smokers make much more fit, in-shape fighters.


That being said, screw them for considering actually acting on it. Our veterans give up large chunks of their lives (if not their life itself) to serve our country and protect our freedoms. And as far as I am concerned, if a man goes out and gets shot at for me and my country, he can smoke (chew, dip) as much as he wants, and we'll just find a way to foot the bill if he gets sick later. With all of the money being wasted by politicians on both sides of the aisle, the expense of veterans' healthcare should be the least of our worries.

A couple of those questions have "no" for an answer. I'm on record as not supporting him. People on here often confuse asking for truthful articles and not blindly supporting lies about liberals as being a "koolaid drinker." I find it ironic, because one of you guys will post a false article from western journalism, and everyone gulps it down, then gets pissed when I dispute it, even if I can prove it erroneous or misleading. Not supporting Obama does not mean I'm required to swallow every fake article about him, although you'd think so based on the responses I get whenever I choose not to blindly believe it. Smitty is the king of posting ridiculous articles that seldom have any validity, and even more seldomly do they come from a reputable source. That was the basis of my original comment, not any "drooling" over Obama.

don't worry. several have kept up your tradition of posting blogs and forwarded emails and propaganda pieces under the guise of factual news articles.

That's the conundrum. The right would like to protect them before they're born, then complain about having to support them once they're born. I respect your beliefs against abortion, but I entirely disagree that if all of these unwanted babies were born and Medicaid, WIC, and welfare all increased dramatically that the right would be okay with that.

Here is what I will say to your assertion about the bad behavior of "Christians".  There are a lot of "goats", or to say it another way, many who call themselves Christians who are really just that in name only because the "fruit" of their lives in no way shows that Jesus Christ is their "Lord"!!  Their behavior in the "name of Christ" in fact defames the name of Christ and makes anyone who is watching who has no knowledge or only a nominal knowledge about Christianity actually turned off completely to the truth of the Bible!!  Christ himself said that on that last day the goats would be seperated from the sheep!!!

Of all the posts that I can remember you have made, this is by far the one that I agree with whole heartedly!!!  :)

it's no surprise that every rightwing "news source" has picked this story up, greatly misrepresenting and distorting the facts. however, if you find the actual facts, it's that aborted babies and miscarriages at a small number of hospitals were treated as "medical waste" and were incinerated along side other medical waste and trash. in a couple of instances, hospitals were using the incinerators to create power for their hospitals. now, thanks to the very misleading title, the image that comes to mind is a big fire with babies being tossed in to create heat for the hospital. what in fact was happening was that hospitals were burning all of the trash, as well as their "medical waste" together in the incinerator that was used to power the facility. the vast majority of this would be the regular trash from the hospital, a much smaller amount would be medical waste such as tumors, amputations, removed organs, etc., and an even smaller amount would be the unwanted remains of either abortions or early term miscarriages. And while i am pro-choice, i do have a problem with this practice. but i also have a problem with the way the story is being portrayed. In the United States, the remains of early term miscarriages are also often incinerated. while some mothers do choose to have some sort of burial or cremation service for an early-term miscarriage, the majority of US early-term miscarriages are also treated as medical waste unless the mother chooses differently. it isn't until a baby is at 24 weeks in the womb that they are considered "stillborn", meaning that either a burial or funeral home cremation is required in the US. so while i'm not a fan of the practice of burning the remains in a fire that is used to provide heat for a hospital- two hospitals in England after the cost of professional cremation became too much for them to afford... from the title you'd think this was a common practice- i don't really understand what you'd have them do. if the mother does not want the remains, what should the hospital do with them? they're basically doing the same thing that a funeral home would do.

Wow guys. You're ok with a guy who lost his certification for having an improper relationship with a student being hired by Bisd? I'm beginning to see what the real problem is in Beaumont.