Backintheday544

And here is where you explain……. I take the same stance for anyone committing treason or affecting international relations. You know the blockade of an international border is costing hard working Americans jobs and money right?

Well Canada doesn’t have a border with Mexico, so I think it would be pretty dumb if Canada to try to make a law like that.

Lol if only the right had money. https://www.inquirer.com/politics/clout/david-mccormick-super-bowl-ad-lets-go-brandon-20220214.html Left unmentioned (and probably un-leaked by the McCormick campaign) was that it ran in just a single market, Pittsburgh, with only $70,000 behind it. For comparison’s sake, you need $1 million to make a real statewide dent on TV. —- Dude couldn’t afford more than $70,000. In the words of our former one term President who lost by the most votes ever #sad.

Dear Elon, help Canada replace the less than 9 percent of truckers that would leave the workforce: https://www.wired.com/story/what-does-teslas-truck-mean-for-truckers/ If they’re part of these protests and leave the workforce willingly hopefully Canada takes away any benefits like unemployment they could get.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

want to point out @RaoulDuke79 does not back the blue with his thumbs down on my comment on how we need to back the blue.

Is that something Trump digested too? Real conspiracy… trump didn’t have covid he was just shitting this out.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Yes, thanks! Also any other ideology that violates the EO like CRT.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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?

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.

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.