Posted on 08/19/2008 6:54:24 AM PDT by reaganaut1
I don’t know...I’m in ChesCo, and I’d put Lehigh County (particularly Easton and Allentown) higher on my list than Lancaster (though reading is pretty awful).
No male-bashing intended (well,maybe just a little poking..LOL)...my manchild of 32 years is wonderful.:)
Where they openly stated these intentions? I can’t find anything on democratic websites. Where should I look — I would like to show this to some people who wouldn’t believe it without some type of backup.
Don't worry about the Gen Y's in the work force. so many of theose people are functionally innumerate that the competition is thin.
This birth gap presents a quandary for politically active liberals. Not wanting to be inconvenienced with raising their own children, they still want to see their ideas perpetuated. Professor Darren Sherkat of Southern Illinois University worries that because conservatives "who have lots of children" are not being matched by those on the political left who "may well not have kids," these demographic trends will push the country in a more conservative direction. (Data indicates that 80% of children end up adopting the political attitudes of their parents.) To counterbalance this trend, he argues for increasing immigration and expanding the black population. He also hopes that childless liberals will "be able to reproduce themselves in strangers," by taking on jobs as teachers, writers and other people of influence. The idea is to let conservatives raise their children, while liberals influence them through the schools and universities.
Yeah, but they're SO GOOD at PowerPoint and Excel and, like, know how to get 6,000 hits on MySpace!
Many of the Yers that work for/with me are technically knowledgeable (at least in terms of using windows applications), but a little arrogant considering their other deficiencies. It seems that we have intellectual degeneration with each successive generation.
“It seems to me that the regulative idea that we heirs of the Enlightenment, we Socratists, most frequently use to criticize the conduct of various conversational partners is that of ‘needing education in order to outgrow their primitive fear, hatreds, and superstitions’ . . . It is a concept which I, like most Americans who teach humanities or social science in colleges and universities, invoke when we try to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic, religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own . . .The fundamentalist parents of our fundamentalist students think that the entire ‘American liberal establishment’ is engaged in a conspiracy. The parents have a point. Their point is that we liberal teachers no more feel in a symmetrical communication situation when we talk with bigots than do kindergarten teachers talking with their students . . .
When we American college teachers encounter religious fundamentalists, we do not consider the possibility of reformulating our own practices of justification so as to give more weight to the authority of the Christian scriptures. Instead, we do our best to convince these students of the benefits of secularization.
We assign first-person accounts of growing up homosexual to our homophobic students for the same reasons that German schoolteachers in the postwar period assigned The Diary of Anne Frank. . .
You have to be educated in order to be . . . a participant in our conversation . . .
So we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable.
We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours . . . I don’t see anything herrschaftsfrei [domination free] about my handling of my fundamentalist students.
Rather, I think those students are lucky to find themselves under the benevolent Herrschaft [domination] of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents . . .
I am just as provincial and contextualist as the Nazi teachers who made their students read Der Stürmer; the only difference is that I serve a better cause.”
-‘Universality and Truth,’ in Robert B. Brandom (ed.), Rorty and his Critics (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), pp. 21-2.
Yes, and they also tend to INTERMARRY in large numbers from the third generation forward. Intermarriage is even higher among better educated immigrants (and especially their children) from South America.
2.3 children is not historically large. My grandfather was one of 12 children.
“Christianity should also share some of the blame for destroying the religious consensus within the empire”
religious consensus? the only religious consensus that existed prior to Christianity was that Caesar was supreme. instead God was made supreme which did change peoples outlook on government.
Is it a bad thing to stop supporting a government which kills thousands of people solely for entertainment purposes?
Also,watch how Mom treats Pop. I learned that the hard way. :0(
Oh thanks. But that’s an opinion piece from a Canadian newspaper. I thought you were referring to an actual policy of the left.
Lol...I got a bunch...feel free to borrow one...teenager, not tattoo
I've been married for 18 years, and I'm still attracted to the T&A thing. You'd have to be 90 to get turned on by lots of common sense or an eye for thrift.
The quote in the opinion piece is from a Southern Illinois University prof, and the other response is from a prof that taught at many universities in the US. They have actually stated the policy that they want liberals to pursue.
I hope you aren’t just blowing this off.
The left implements nearly all their agenda via stealth, and to ignore it because they keep it under cover for the most part will be cultural and national suicide, not to mention sacrificing your own kids to this indoctrination.
That's probably true.
Then again, if access to sex is the primary reason for some men to get married, are those men really marriage material?
"Gee honey, I'm not really sure about committing myself to you for the rest of my life...but if that's the only I can 'get some', well then I guess I'll do it."
I'd hate to hear that coming from someone I was dating. If she can't find enough reasons to marry me besides a need for my body, then I wouldn't want her as a spouse.
My question is, due to the fact that our population in particular woman have grown fatter and less attractive, doesn’t this cut down on the number of children born?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.