Comments on: Parents Nyet, State Da

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:18:34 +0000

Senator Obama or anyone else in this world SHOULD NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT COMES OUT OF ANOTHER PERSONS MOUTH! THIS IS AMERICA, FREEDOM OF SPEECH. SENATOR Obama is running for President of the United States of America, and if the media would continually broadcast the many stories made up by Senator Clinton, and treat each candidate the same, people would see this as fair; however, it is not fair to CONTUALLY TALK ABOUT SENATOR OBAMA'S PASTOR.

PEOPLE, LETS MOVE ON. WE HAVE A CAMPAIGN TO CONTINUE RUNNING. THE STORY HAS BEEN TOLD, GET OFF THE BANDWAGON OF BASHING OBAMA FOR HIS PASTOR'S WORDS.

THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG W/AMERICA. WE CONCENTRATE ON TOO MANY THINGS THAT DON'T MATTER, and we cannot change.

LETS CONCENTRATE ON ELECTING A DEMONCRATIC NOMINEE, AND LEAVE THE OTHER "PETTY STUFF BEHIND."

By: Da King

Da King — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:39:05 +0000

I wish a liberal with a real argument would show up here. Someone we could all take seriously and engage in a real discussion with, but alas, it is not so, at least not yet.

By: The Ghost of Vince Foster

The Ghost of Vince Foster — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:53:03 +0000

"I like to know what I'm dealing with."

You're dealing with left-wing loons. But hey, if you enjoy it, keep whackin' 'em.

But one caveat, King.

You risk growing complacent by dealing with those two or three puff-cakes that respond to you here. This could throw your sharpness & timing off if/when you run into a lib or Dim with real intelligence & knowledge.

By: Da King

Da King — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:25:33 +0000

Vince,
It's my way of vetting. I like to know what I'm dealing with.

By: da truth

da truth — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:54:23 +0000

It's not a new ruling it's the same old ruling they've had forever on a new case. It would be like someone reporting that abortion is now legal. Yes, we know. So what?

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:46:25 +0000

That fully explains why I refrain from arguing directly with specific commenters.

By: Ghost of Vince Foster

Ghost of Vince Foster — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:40:43 +0000

King,

A bit of advise.

A wise man does not argure with a fool because it makes him look foolish, too.

By: Da King

Da King — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:30:42 +0000

I'm wrong about what, exactly ?

The judge's ruling IS new. That's what I was talking about. The case was in court NOW. The reason the judge made the NEW ruling is because SOMEONE CHALLENGED IT.

Duh, dude. How inane.

By: da truth

da truth — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:11:36 +0000

Yes, of course you'll move on, because you know you're wrong. In your post, you made it sound like this is something new in California, which it isn't. If it's such a huge deal, have it changed, since we both agree the country is mostly conservative anyway. Much like the defense of marriage act, you are trying to make an issue when the only one there is that conservatives have been lazy for 50 years in allowing this to be the state of the law in California.

By: Da King

Da King — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:29:20 +0000

What is wrong with you ? I know what the law is. The article I linked to originally stated what the law is. There was no effort to hide it. Duh.

My point, for about the 10th time, is that I DISAGREE with the law, and I disagree with the judge when he says parents don't have a constitutional right to homeschool their kids. They most certainly do. The Constitution does not grant the sole right to the government, therefore the people retain the right, and further, parents most definitely should have a say over their own children's education.

And you sound like a freaking idiot talking about my boy AH-NOLD without knowing my opinion of him. I'm not even a fan of his. You must be under the mistaken impression that I agree with everyone who has that R next to his name. You couldn't be more wrong.

Now, unless you want to make up some more imaginary arguments, I think I'll move on.