Free Republic

One of the most emotionally draining books I've ever read. A heartbreaking story of a man who desires the one thing he cannot keep, for she cannot stay a child forever. As he completely unravels emotionally as she gets older, it's almost painful to read.

It's a great work about an incredibly uncomfortable subject.

Tough to limit to five. These five are good, although I'd replace number five with Alan Parsons, whose signature sound made Pink Floyd.

Given that you feel that way, I am certain you would have no objection to the government Taliban forcing your children into madrassas.

Right! And I'd be perfectly fine if teachers were executing students because parents can always teach their children they're not actually dead!

Sheesh. Overreact much? There are lines, obviously. where teachers overstep the boundaries between being a teacher and overtaking parental control. Whether or not they teach your particular version of history isn't one of them, or shouldn't be for rational thinkers. If my children were to come home telling me the earth was only 5000 years old, I'd work with them to dispel them of that notion. If they told me they learned man couldn't possibly have walked on the moon because they would have sunk in to the fine dust, I'd work with them to teach them how to approach that logically. If you disagree, teach your kids otherwise, or homeschool.

Public schooled students learn only one theory with no opposition or debate allowed.

Not true. No debate is allowed in the school perhaps, but parents aren't helpless. If your child is being taught something in school, and you want them to see the argument from a different standpoint, teach them yourself. Don't rely on schools to be the only source of education for your children.

I can't count the number of times I'd come home from school, be asked "what did you learn today", relate the stories of that days lessons, and be asked "Hmm... and what about...?", which led to alternate ways of looking at nearly everything. Some were simply from the devil's advocate view, just to improve my rational and critical thinking skills and teach me to defend what I believe to be true. Others were intended to make me see there is more than one way to approach nearly every issue.

Point is, parents have more influence over their children than they believe. Disagree with what the school teaches? Fine. Tell your students that's what the school thinks, but challenge them to see things from another viewpoint as well.

Seems a bit of "seeing monsters under the bed" to me. I didn't notice any preaching in the film at all. Seen NYC three days after sanitation workers go on strike? Kind of looked like the world portrayed in the film, actually.

Seems there's enough real issues to get upset about without railing against imagined bogeymen in animated films. I thought the movie was extraordinary, and will likely go see it again. I've also recommended it to all of my friends and family and will continue to do so.

How about former Congressman Watts.

I could see this, to be honest. Wouldn't be a bad choice, but not a great one either. That said, I think that if Obama gets the nomination, we'll see a black VP for McCain, to help stave off any racism claims every single time anyone disagrees with Obama's position on anything. It's sad that in 2008 that still matters, but it does.

Yet.

Yeah! He's as innocent as Marion Jones, and she... oh, wait. Never mind.

Hmmm... perhaps my anatomy is off (I drank through most of those classea anyway), but based on the artwork, shouldn't the show be called the Vulva Monologues?

Wow, your evidence is overwhelming. Guess you told me.

I heard it with my own ears. Saw it with my own eyes. There are far too many bigots who were willing to vote against Romney solely due to his religion. You condone that?

Absolutely a major reason in Romney never "catching fire" was the bigotry of so-called "Christians" against Mormonism. There are far too many on here and out in the "real" world who have stated they couldn't vote for a "cult member", or that Mormons aren't Christians so they could never vote for Mitt.

Saddest part are the apologists who will deny that ever took place, and will do everything in their power to place blame elsewhere. Yes, there are other reasons Romney wasn't "the" choice. But to deny the "he don't look like me, do he?" bigotry of supposed Christians against Romney is to justify their actions. It's disgusting, and I'd hope that eventually these holier than thou types will gow up and grow out of that. I'm not holding my breath, however.

And I wasn't even a Romney supporter.

The fact that you think a persons' religion is an "irrelavant factor" shows that you have an intolerance for those who do not consider it irrelavant.

You're stretching now. Is that fact I don't think a candidate's soda choice is important somehow bigoted towards those who drink Coke every day? Or does his soda choice really, really matter in the grand scheme of things?

As I said, your definition is a lot different than mine.

Your definition of bigotry is a little different than mine, to say the least.

Yes, perhaps you missed the context or my text in parentheses where I say that supporting a candidate based on religious preference or any other all-but-meaningless reason is also bigotry. I should perhaps clarify that I'm stating that meaningless reason for support or opposition should be a dominant factor in the decision. The text of many on here (and thankfully thus far this does not include you) makes me believe Romney's Mormonism is the driving force behind their decision to support someone else. That, in my opinion, is bigotry, where a political decision is made not on the merits of the candidate, but on how much he looks like you (you used in an overall sense, not directed at you personally).

Absolutely I would vote for a Muslim, if that candidate had policies that I believed were the best for the United States, understood and promised to uphold our laws, and had no character issues that lead me to believe he or she is unqualified for the position. I judge the character of an individual by their actions, not by some label they give their beliefs.

My position on bigotry is not "knee-jerk", as you would label it. I believe that any time anyone takes irrelevant factors into a decision making process, they are exhibiting bigoted behavior. What church Romney attends has such a minuscule bearing on how he'll perform in the office of the President that using that as a decision making factor is ridiculous, in my opinion. If his religion has an impact on his policies, and you disagree with those, fine. That's all well and good. Those who use solely his choice of religion as a determining point in their decision as to who to support for President are bigots, same as if they voted based on the candidate's race, or the brand of suit a candidate wore at a debate, or whether his middle name starts with a vowel or a consonant. There are plenty of ways to distinguish between candidates without having to resort to petty, useless and bigoted methods of doing so. Watching members of a forum made up of mostly informed and intelligent people resort to such bigotry is disgusting to me, and makes the rest of us look like undereducated, unthinking reactionary hicks by association.

Legality has nothing to do with it. Several stupid things people do are perfectly legal.

When you choose to oppose (or support) a politician based on things that have little to do with policy or actions they take that reflect on character, you're displaying bigotry. Opposing someone due to their religious affiliation is no different -- in my opinion -- than opposing them on basis of their sex or race or hair color or favorite soda brand. It's silly and shows lack of thought. The scariest part is these people will go to the polling booth full of the self-righteous attitude that they're perfectly right to keep those evil Moooooooooooormons out of office.

Oppose a candidate's policies? Great, vote against him or her. Oppose a candidate due to a lack of character? Fine, vote against him or her. Oppose a candidate because they don't go to church in the same building you do, have skin with a different melanin content than yours, or dissed your favorite restaurant? You're not all that bright, and would do us all a favor by forgetting what day the election happens to fall on this year. Sure, it's legal for you to think that way. That doesn't justify it, however. After all, the three-fifths decisions I mentioned earlier was legal as well.

...The fact that I’m ready to point out Romney’s psuedo-Christian beliefs is not bigotry...it is truth.

And a good number of people actually believed that blacks were three-fifths as valuable as whites. Does that make that true, too? Bigotry is bigotry, no matter how much the bigot believes themselves to be right.

Posted by DannyTN

I do have a big problem with the notion of a Mormon in the White House, and I don’t really see Romney as being any better than Hillary on abortion gays. Romney congradulates them on Pride week and then acts all conservative when he’s running for president. Please, Huckabee is really conservative on these issues. Romney is as liberal as they come.

I was thinking how to respond to this when it occurred to me there's no need to add any of my thoughts at all. This post in and of itself pretty much sums up why I'd never, ever vote for Huckabee.

Never heard of a "Captain Morgan" sauce at Buffalo Wild Wings. Sure isn't listed on their web site, and I've never had it in person. But I will say for a chain they're not bad. The Blazin' hurt, twice if you know what I mean, but I'm a big fan of the Jerk, and "Wild" works okay too.

Then again, there was a barbecue place here in KC that used to offer "atomic" wings that were absolutely lethal, and fan-freakin'-tastic.

Of course, homemade works best every time.

I love the quote against Romney.. as though raising money were a bad thing, which, I guess, to commies like the newspapers, it is....

I was a Thompson guy. Now, I'm a Romney guy. If he doesn't get the nomination, man, I'm kinda like Rush. I can see me not voting Republican this time, because it we're going to have a liberal government that fails, it would be better to have that under the Democrat watch than under what was supposedly an (R). It sucks to even have to say that. It really does.

You hit the nail right on the head. Linder (and Neal Boortz) support Huckabee because he's committed to the Fair Tax. I happen to like the idea of the Fair Tax in principle, but I have never been and will never be a single issue voter. There are far too many reasons not to vote for Huckabee, regardless of his stance on taxation.

I'm praying at this point that we nominate anyone except Huckabee or McCain (I don't include Paul in that, because I have as much chance of being nominated as he does, and because no one in their right mind takes him seriously)

Nice! Now, take that article and make it corrolate to your claim that Thompson wants the states to make abortion legal. Come on, give it the ol' college try.