Backintheday544
-
Posts
1,790 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Backintheday544
-
-
2 hours ago, BillStime said:
This aged well
Seeing this post. Absolutely horrific what the OP thinks is appropriate.But you know what, this is just the modern day right, sick and disturbed. Everyone on the right here should be ashamed
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
There is a very simple solution to all of this. Let us all get back to ***** normal. They aren’t demanding any major changes. They aren’t asking for crazy *****. They want things put backs as they were 24 months ago. Simple
88 percent of Canadians have had at least one dose of the vaccine. This is just a fringe group trying to get their way. Policies shouldn’t be based on less than 12 percent of people whining.Lets not forget all these people are breaking the law and now breaking court orders. If they want to continue, they should be allowed to…. In the jail they deserve to be in.
If they don’t want to be vaccinated they don’t need to be. They just can’t do US-Canada shipments. So either find a new job or only take shipments inside of Canada.
The US is finally getting to a point where less people are dying each day than 9/11.
-
41 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
Confederate and Nazi flags? Really? Confederate Canadians in a hotbed of Nazi extremism like western Ontario? Who makes up this crap? Whoever it is they need to run their fictional accounts through the "Bullsheet and believability test. Why not throw in a few references to human sacrifices and Stanic worship to juice up the narrative a little more!
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/10/1079842220/ottawa-trucker-convoy-protest
https://www.cija.ca/nazi-flags-at-the-truckers-protest/
-
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22926134/canada-trucker-freedom-convoy-protest-ottawa
The so-called “freedom convoy” is nominally protesting a vaccine mandate for truckers, implemented in mid-January on both sides of the US-Canada border. But the demonstrations have swiftly ballooned into a broader far-right movement, with some demonstrators waving Confederateand Nazi flags. Protester demands include an end to all Covid-19 restrictions in Canada and the resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
The border crossing blockage is putting more stress on the US-Canada supply chain, costing (by one estimation) $300 million a day in economic damage
The so-called trucker movement is on the fringe, including among Canadian truckers — some 90 percent of whom are vaccinated.
They are angry because they have lost.-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, B-Man said:
Citizens form a line around truckers to prevent Canadian police from arresting them, police stand back.
AMEN.
That’s like 40 people? Cops need to do their jobs and arrest these asses.If you break the law, you go to jail. Cops shouldn’t be judges. They should say hey is this illegal? Yes. Then my job is to arrest them and throw them in jail.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:
Dude back the blue. They can’t do anything wrong. If they move them then they move them and we support the blue.If our blue need to use lethal force against these people then I’m sure we will all support that because we back the blue here on two bills drive.
want to point out @RaoulDuke79does not back the blue with his thumbs down on my comment on how we need to back the blue.
-
5 minutes ago, B-Man said:
Is that something Trump digested too?Real conspiracy… trump didn’t have covid he was just shitting this out.
-
3 hours ago, Demongyz said:
This is when the truckers dig in and the government of Canada will show what petty tyrants they really are.
Loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the government when they deserve it. - Mark Twain
Dude back the blue. They can’t do anything wrong. If they move them then they move them and we support the blue.If our blue need to use lethal force against these people then I’m sure we will all support that because we back the blue here on two bills drive.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Doc said:
You'd think at some point these clowns would stop being fooled...
I think a big problem the left has is how much free thought is in the party. It makes it hard to band together. Trump did it well to the point a record number of Americans said no to him.The right on the other hand seem to have indoctrination as part of themselves. So them being fooled just happens and they never realize it’s happening over and over again.
-
35 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:
I think we will reading about this in the history books...so inspiring...workers around the world- unite! 👍
Prolly the same as the Whiskey Rebellion as a minor footnote on the wrong side of history.If anyone here is supporting this while complaining about inflation in the other thread is something else.
They are disrupting our economy now. All fun and games are over. Sanction Canada until they throw them all in jail.
The loud minority are something.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:
Well that school district was apparently wrong then. Creationism wasn’t taught from a religious point of view when I was in school. But, I also don’t agree with the inference that you’re leaping to. Teaching that there may be a creator is not against the law or in conflict with the Constitution. In fact the Constitution mentions a Creator as from where we get our human rights. This is NOT a separation of Church and State issue.
Don’t blame me, blame the Supreme Court. The Edwards case specifically.Question
Did the Louisiana law, which mandated the teaching of "creation science" along with the theory of evolution, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion:Yes. The Court held that the law violated the Constitution. Using the three-pronged test that the Court had developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) to evaluate potential violations of the Establishment Clause, Justice Brennan argued that Louisiana's law failed on all three prongs of the test. First, it was not enacted to further a clear secular purpose. Second, the primary effect of the law was to advance the viewpoint that a "supernatural being created humankind," a doctrine central to the dogmas of certain religious denominations. Third, the law significantly entangled the interests of church and state by seeking "the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose."
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1986/85-1513 -
13 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:
Let me try this another way. Creationist theory is not taught from a religious perspective. At least it wasn't when I was in public school. I even did a science fair project about it. It's really a simple science-based discussion about "Where did everything come from?" Before the beginning something must have started it. Keep your shirt on. God isn't going to smite you for asking good questions. This line of instruction doesn't pit people of faith against pagans. It's science class!
Except it is. We’ve had several major cases on it such as Edwards v Aguilard and most recently Kitzmiller (Edwards looked at creationism whereas Kitzmiller looked at the new name for creationism post Edwards, intelligent design).Kitzmiller is over 100 pages long, but a good summary:
The district contended that ID is not a religious theory; it is a theory independent of creationism that does not specifically promote God as the creator, though it does provide that some unidentified force created humankind. The Pennsylvania District Court disagreed and found that the district’s policy impermissibly advanced religion. First, the court applied the Endorsement Test, which asks whether government action conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval to a reasonable, objective observer. The court surveyed the history of ID and creationism and found the content of both theories so similar that an objective adult or student in the Dover school system would perceive the district’s promotion of ID to be overtly religious. Further, the court found that since ID is basically the theory of creationism under different terms, it was not a science, but a religious belief. Thus, the policy failed the Endorsement Test. Next, the court applied the test developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which asks whether the purpose and effect of government action is to advance religion. The court found numerous instances in which individuals indicated that the purpose of the policy was to explicitly advance religion; the superintendent of the board and its members had repeatedly discussed ways to teach creationism, and the board contacted certain proponents of creationism who ultimately suggested ID as a viable alternative. Regarding the effect of the policy, since the court already concluded that ID was not a science but a religious belief, the only possible effect of the disclaimer could be to advance that religious belief. Because the disclaimer policy failed both the Endorsement Test and the Lemon test, the court concluded the policy violated the Establishment Clause. https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/cases/kitzmiller-v-dover-area-school-district
-
2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:
Oh I see. A few minutes ago creation was all about Christianity and now …it’s not. Care to move the goal posts any further?
No goal posts moved, from one of our first discussions I point out that creationism has an effect in other religions.
“Further, to tie this to VA. VA has an email where you can tell on teachers for teaching divisive topics. You can see the executive order for what exactly divisive is, but it’s main target is CRT. I’d say creationism also falls under divisive theory as it puts Christians and other religions with a Supreme Being thinking they are better than religions that do not have a Supreme Being”
That is a clear violation of the EO.
-
Just now, Beach said:
ok i understand the assignment now. as an occasional sub teacher i will make sure creationism is no longer mentioned as a belief in the schools of Virginia. the students are safe now. we good?
Yes, thanks! Also any other ideology that violates the EO like CRT. -
7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
You are really misinformed. The concepts of creation and abstinence are NOT uniquely linked to Christianity. Put you godless paganism back in its holster.
Again, creationism doesn’t need to be linked to just Christianity for it to violate the EO.
Creationism is linked to a supreme being creating everything. That means you must have a faith that believes in a Supreme Being such as Christians, Muslims, Jewish, etc. It puts any faith that has a Supreme Being above any faith that doesn’t believe in a Supreme Being.-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Isn’t it interesting how he throws out a veiled slur (disability). The classic new age liberal. When your argument falls apart…start calling people names. Nice!
No argument is falling apart.Your stance as schools shouldn’t teach ideology. We discussed how Christian ideology is being discussed or offered as an opinion in schools now.
We then took that into context of the VA Executive Order and found that teaching faith based ideology such as creationism is a clear violation of the Executive order as it puts faiths that have a Supreme being to spur the creation in creationism above faiths that do not have a supreme being.
The EO explicitly says we can’t do that.
So if you want to get rid of ideology such as CRT in VA, we need to get rid of all ideological studies that even if they’re things that you or the others on the right support.
-
7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
He’s hung up on the religious thing. It’s the go to of the classic godless liberal. You’re getting nowhere.
Religion is a thing here because it’s specifically mentioned in the EO. If it wasn’t mentioned in the EO then you would have a point. Unfortunately, it is, so we need to view concepts with religious based backing as divisive.
You with your response calling me a Godless liberal yet again proved its divisive.
If you were a VA teacher, I’d have no other option but then to report you under the VA EO.
For the purposes of this Executive order “inherently divisive concepts” means advancing any ideas in violation of Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including, but not limited to of the following concepts (i) one race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith is inherently superior to another race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith; (ii) an individual, by virtue of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex or faith, is racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously, (iii) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex or faith, (iv) members of one race, ethnicity, sex or faith cannot and should not attempt to treat others as individuals without respect to race, sex or faith, (v) an individual's moral character is inherently determined by his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith, (vi) an individual, by virtue of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, ethnicity, sex or faith, (vii) meritocracy or traits, such as a hard work ethic, are racist or sexist or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.
22 minutes ago, Beach said:creationism is not "taught". it is mentioned as an option along with the other theories. i think i said that a few times.
Then you go the definition of taught. A teacher bringing it up in a classroom setting to me seems like teaching.
If it’s just brought up as an option, what happens in the classroom? Does the teach say, hey everyone I’m not teaching right now so this isn’t being taught to you, but there is this thing called creationism that I want to mention. Creationism means blah blah blah. Ok done not teaching you students, I will go back to teaching you other things now.
In the same token, CRT isn’t being taught. And I’d say if it does come up it’s just mentioned as an option along with other theories on race.
-
3 minutes ago, Beach said:
why are you so interested in my opinion? im a former teacher/former track coach, now an occasional sub. i make no stances, i just like working with young people. i dont get into this stuff with them.
Then your opinion means even more than others here. If you sub in a VA science class where that day they ask you to teach creationism, 1) would you do it now that an argument is made it violates the VA EO, 2) would you report yourself to the VA education board?, 3) would you be worried about teaching it knowing that some Karen will report you to the VA education board? -
3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Abstinence is religious based? 😂😂😂 You seem to want to equate everything to religion. What’s next? The concept of good and evil? Let’s toss that while we’re at it. This conversation has become absurd.
Yes, abstinence education has historically been pushed by evangelicals.The issue of religion is coming up due to an EO signed by Youngkin. I understand that reading isn’t your forte but in the EO which has been quoted several times, you cannot teach any idea that puts one faith above another.
Faith deals with religion so religion is a topic that should be discussed as right wing teachers violate the EO.
-
6 hours ago, Buffarukus said:
a crazy idea. hear me out. the class is given a syllabus at the beginning of the semester. it has a sign off sheet for the parents. if parents wish there children to learn something else then whats on there. the school offers options. if the teacher is caught giving assignments or forcing participation on subjects parents find controversial, for any reason.. then the teacher is fired. if they are lying about the syllabus..the teacher is fired, and we agree on this. no exceptions.
we had to do it with sex ed in my school. why is this a hill so many must die on. the arrogance of we know better then you as a stranger or i only found out this was being taught when...blah blah blah secretive stuff. the fact such young children are being involved makes it all the more creepy. that goes for religious subjects as well....or any subject. the parents have the final say PERIOD.
we can all stop arguing what we think other parents kids are exposed to and it will be a better world.
Except it won’t. 1. There is a massive teacher shortage and the far right is making it worse. The ability to fire a teacher at the call of any right wing Karen is a terrible idea. 2. Our education system should expose our kids to many ideas. Creating a school that is just an echo chamber of ideas will further decline public discourse similar to what biased media already has.You bring up sex Ed. Great point that we can tie to the creationism argument as well. Any teacher teaching abstinence should be fired under your argument.
Surveys show sex Ed is actually pretty popular. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/7a/ac/7aacf0ad-fd1c-4dcc-b65f-47e3c3754e0d/sex_education_-_a_national_survey_on_support_among_likely_voters_logo.pdf
The idea of teaching abstinence is actually religious based. Going back to the VA EO, that means this teaching is divisive and we should email the VA education department to report any teacher teaching abstinence. -
26 minutes ago, Beach said:
as i told you, creationism is offered as an option and not specifically "taught". if you wanted my opinion then i would be against creationism being taught. im really just trying to offer you the facts of what is happening without my opinions.
Creationism is not taught as an option. It’s part of the curriculum.So if that’s your opinion you have 2 stances to take in VA. Allow CRT and creationism or say no to creationism and CRT.
-
5 minutes ago, Beach said:
im against CRT, and i really dont care about the other theories if the aren't divisive
But we just defined theories such as creationism as divisive under the wording of the governor. So you care that creationism and other Christian centric education is divisive per the EO and you’re against them per you. So you’re anti-creationism being taught. You’re anti-any God/Supreme based being being taught in public schools.great! Please spread your beliefs to other Virginians.
-
14 minutes ago, Beach said:
yea i heard CRT wasnt taught in schools here. it wasnt called CRT but it was taught. i witnessed it with my own eyes and ears.
Great!So after this discussion if you think something like CRT shouldn’t be taught in schools then Christian ideologies such as creationism shouldn’t be either (yes creationism is in other religions but there are religions where creationism isn’t a thing)
Or say you’re a liberal and the free exchange of ideas is a cool thing!
-
2 minutes ago, Beach said:
the Governor has nixed that so our opinions dont really matter
Yea he nixed CRT which wasn’t taught in schools anyways with the EO and the crux of this argument is his EO also nixes Creationism from being taught in VA.We can start with creationism but what other Christian ideology is also being taught in schools that we should nix?
11 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:Please re-read my post. I think you missed the critical point. The theory doesn’t promote a specific religion. What scares you about the concept that the universe was ‘created’? Even evolutionists don’t know what started it all.
The theory promotes a Supreme being to do the creating. There are religions that do not have a supreme being concept.
Teaching such ideology makes people of a faith without a supreme being concept feel inferior and thus violates the governors EO.
Trudeau flees Canada
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
They don’t. No one is stopping them from getting a job without a vaccine. They just can’t cross the US border.
If you don’t have the qualifications for a job, you don’t get it. No one is stopping them from getting another job.
Canada should protect their borders as they see fit.