Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 23, 2013 at 12:01 PM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #768378
SK in CV
Participant[quote=paramount]
I’m not opposed to gay marriage
I’m not opposed to gay adoption
I am opposed to gays being recognized as a minority of any type[/quote]
The “gays” ARE a minority. Just as people with black skin are a minority in this country. As are people of Asian heritage. As are Jews. How can you dispute that? Or is it that you just don’t want anyone to talk about it?
Participant[quote=flu][quote=The-Shoveler]Maybe its just a coincidence but I noticed the SD home price and qcom stock chart look similar LOL.[/quote]
I think Marvel (MRVL) is a better buy frankly at these prices. Well it was, at least right after those patent lawsuits from CMU when it was around $11/share…
Looks like KKR looking to take a 5% stake in the company recently.
They also crushed Q4 earnings estimates yesterday..
But what do I know…[/quote]
Funny you mention that. I looked long and hard at earnings play on MRVL. Just couldn’t find any juice in it, to either side. Surprisingly low vol. Even with the big beat, didn’t crash through a single standard deviation.
Participant[quote=flu]QCOM being at a 52 week high surely doesn’t help low prices here….[/quote]
Eh. Certainly hasn’t had any effect yet. It was in the same range for 18 months. Just broke out a couple days ago. Hasn’t quite been a stellar perfomer the last couple years in comparison to everything else. When they hire 3,000 people it might have some effect. A $5 stock move, not so much.
November 21, 2013 at 11:47 AM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #768269Participant[quote=paramount]Wow. These comments show how perverse a good portion of the population in California is or has become.
My position is: No sex education (no matter how subtle) at all in Public Elem Schools.
But I do understand the fervor: The “radical” gay agenda crowd wants to impose their views on the youngest, most impressionable and innocent in our society. It is homosexual indoctrination on the most vulnerable in society.
I am not aware of any hetero groups trying to do the same. They’re aren’t any.
Sick. Really sick.[/quote]
What exactly is the “sex education” that your child has been exposed to? The only thing that you’ve actually identified is what sounds like a vague reference to a gay adoption. Which has absolutely nothing to do with sex education. (“Little Billy has two moms” is NOT sex education.) I’m still waiting for an explanation of how your child was harmed by this.
Back in my day (which would have been the mid-60’s), we had “sex education” in the 6th grade, and it required written permission from parents. I think my kids got something similar in middle school (late 90’s) Are things significantly different now?
November 20, 2013 at 11:46 AM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #768225Participant[quote=spdrun]You can still buy cheaply if you buy in a neighborhood that’s “changing.” And foreclosures have actually gone up 50-75% since the sequester began, so prices aren’t really going up anymore for the time being.
[/quote]
I’m not sure if this comment was related to a specific neighborhood, but nationally, foreclosures have not gone up since the sequester began. Foreclosures and delinquencies combined have dropped about 15% since the sequester began 8 1/2 months ago.
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Except I know the end users. Once more don’t try to tell me what I do and where my products go.
Furthermore I marvel at how the point is conveniently ignored because it is much easier to not address the point but attack the person bringing it up because he doesn’t agree with the policies implemented by the administration.
Very well done by many of you.
Excellent strategy.[/quote]
Ok, let’s address the actual points.
you said
Additionally there was a good point made awhile back that what is more troublesome is not the lies from the top, but the abuses performed by individuals within the system. More often then not, these are done at the benefit of the administration without the administration even knowing it.
The actual abuses? Let’s see. Fast and Furious? no abuses that benefited the administration, and none that can actually be linked to the administration.
Benghazi? Whole lot of tragedy, big empty pot of scandal.
IRS? Whole lot of nothing, and even more nothingness when measuring based on benefits to the administration. (I suspect you may have missed the evidence that there was no one-sided targeting by the IRS, the targeting went both ways.)
The “fixed” numbers in the unemployment rate? Your conclusion, “someone said” qualifies as proof, even though examining what was actually said by “someone” provided no benefit whatsoever to the administration, irrespective of whether it was actually true.
So your conclusion is that if there’s lots of smoke there must be fire. Except there isn’t. It’s been a constant barrage of throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks, nothing sticks and you STILL point to all the shit that fell to the floor as evidence.
Participant[quote=flu]
It depends on the balance of power in 2014.
I’ll vote for the president that is opposite of who controls Congress so that there isn’t any more extreme government on either side of the spectrum…
16 years of extreme government is enough for me…
Maybe it’s time for an independent.[/quote]
You realize that what you’re wanting is exactly what you’ve had the last 16 years? Has that worked out well for you?
November 18, 2013 at 9:53 PM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #768140Participant[quote=paramount][quote=SK in CV] Hence, you’re homophobic. I’m not sure why you won’t just acknowledge it. Your words make it pretty clear.[/quote]
It’s amazing how deeply the gay agenda has brainwashed the masses.
The message is: If you don’t agree with or embrace my view of homosexuality or how it’s being taught, you must be a homophobe and a hater. Or a troll. Or whatever.
Stop imposing your secular progressive religion on others.
Why not learn to exercise some tolerance for the views others might have without the need for personal attacks.[/quote]
I don’t have any desire to impose any religious views on others. I’m pretty much a non-believer in everything. It’s you that is attempting to impose your views. The agenda is all yours.
By the way, I’m still waiting for an explanation of how your child was harmed by what you described.
November 17, 2013 at 8:40 AM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #768065Participant[quote=ctr70]
How about worrying about something that really matters like teachers pay and job stability to be based on student performance?[/quote]
I think it should be based on parents performance. Student success has a much higher correlation with parent performance than teacher performance. So if teachers can get parents to perform where they historically have not, they should get bonuses.
November 17, 2013 at 8:09 AM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #768061Participant[quote=6packscaredy]age of consent varies by culture too.
we evolve.
or devolve.
maybe it’s not part of an “agenda”, but just a somewhat feeble attempt to be “relevant”. Catch kids attention? Like any topic du jour, global warming, honey badgers, etc.
that’s possible, right?[/quote]
No, it’s not possible. Is it possible that the battle for civil rights was just an attempt by minorities to be relevant, and there really was no discrimination occurring?
November 16, 2013 at 9:32 PM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #768044Participant[quote=paramount][quote=6packscaredy]
No probably he meant having kids be aware of homosexuality is immoral.
But that can’t be right because we must teach our children Torah, and so they will learn of homosexualitys existence there…[/quote]
Teaching young children (elem age) in a school about ANY matter regarding hetero/homo relationships is immoral, period. The comments I’m reading here are VERY disturbing. Is this a NMBLA Board in disguise?
Torah? Well, it can’t be any worse than the Mark Swift Manifesto so many here obviously worship.[/quote]
Can you describe what was taught regarding relationships? All you’ve actually described is that a gay couple adopted a child. Exactly what harm can be done by that?
November 16, 2013 at 8:28 PM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #768038Participant[quote=6packscaredy][quote=SK in CV][quote=paramount][quote=SK in CV][quote=paramount]
So you don’t think mommy and daddy should ever be discussed either?Parent(s) or Guardian(s) works just fine.[/quote]
Unless parents happen to both be men or both be women. Hence, you’re homophobic. I’m not sure why you won’t just acknowledge it. Your words make it pretty clear.[/quote]
What? You’re making no sense at all.
Let me say it again: Regardless of the home arrangement, parent(s) or guardian(s) at all times.
Gay Marriage (or any marriage for that matter): It’s none of my business who marries who – but don’t talk to my elementary school age kid about it in any official public capacity.
BTW, I really don’t care what you label me at all.
Seriously, I don’t.[/quote]
I’m making no sense? You say it’s ok to mention parents. Or Guardians. Guess what? Your kids know that people have a sex. Male or female. But you want to hide that from them so they aren’t damaged? Pretty much the very definition of “political correctness” that you so hate.
How exactly might they be damaged?[/quote]
i dont know. i guess i was still pretty old and knew about sex but didn’t really beleive that people were doing it, at least not in large numbers. i doubt i would have even beleived my parents. it just seemed so weird[/quote]
You misread. “have a sex”, i.e., they are either male or female. Not “have sex”.
November 16, 2013 at 7:41 PM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #768026Participant[quote=paramount][quote=SK in CV][quote=paramount]
So you don’t think mommy and daddy should ever be discussed either?Parent(s) or Guardian(s) works just fine.[/quote]
Unless parents happen to both be men or both be women. Hence, you’re homophobic. I’m not sure why you won’t just acknowledge it. Your words make it pretty clear.[/quote]
What? You’re making no sense at all.
Let me say it again: Regardless of the home arrangement, parent(s) or guardian(s) at all times.
Gay Marriage (or any marriage for that matter): It’s none of my business who marries who – but don’t talk to my elementary school age kid about it in any official public capacity.
BTW, I really don’t care what you label me at all.
Seriously, I don’t.[/quote]
I’m making no sense? You say it’s ok to mention parents. Or Guardians. Guess what? Your kids know that people have a sex. Male or female. But you want to hide that from them so they aren’t damaged? Pretty much the very definition of “political correctness” that you so hate.
How exactly might they be damaged?
November 16, 2013 at 7:14 PM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #768023Participant[quote=paramount]
So you don’t think mommy and daddy should ever be discussed either?[/quote]Parent(s) or Guardian(s) works just fine.[/quote]
Unless parents happen to both be men or both be women. Hence, you’re homophobic. I’m not sure why you won’t just acknowledge it. Your words make it pretty clear.
-
AuthorPosts
