Jump to content

an American in Texas

Members
  • Content Count

    99
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About an American in Texas

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. Unfortunately for you, a lot of people do care about this particular case of putting lipstick on a pig. $150,000 is a hell of a lot of money to spend on clothes, hairdo's, and such. It's typical Rethug wild excess; I doubt anybody would have said much of anything if they'd spent, say, $15,000 dollars . . . or avoided having Willow photographed with the Fendi bag (or whatever it was outrageously expensive brand it was; not my field of expertise). We could only wish they'd spent a few dollars on prettying up her intellect as much as they did her exterior. That poor woman is beyond ignorant Leigh
  2. Bryan/College Station, home of Texas A&M University, which is likely the most conservative university in the country. Also home of the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library. And probably (no stats on this one, going by my extensive connections there) home of the single largest concentration of young Republicans in the country. Really, this is the ABSOLUTE LAST newspaper I'd expect to see endorsing Obama. Wowsa. Leigh
  3. Evidently, Bern and I live on the Planet of Good Kids. We do keep a close eye on the offspring, but we don't have to resort to low-rent CIA-style tactics to accomplish that. I do know whereof I speak here, you know. My two older daughters came through high school and college intact (yes, I do mean what you think I mean). I believe the best way to keep your kids safe is to actually TRANSMIT THE VALUES you want them to internalize. Trailing around after them with your handy-dandy spy kit is not going to accomplish that. Leigh
  4. Most unlikely, at least for the first three. I'm speaking statistically here, particularly in regard to our respective IQs. As to the fourth, my mother taught me that is vulgar to discuss money with strangers. But in any case, do you really associate your value as human being with your job title and salary? How sad. Leigh
  5. And you know this how, exactly? I can assure you that this kind of thing doesn't go on in classrooms in Austin. If it were tried, the teacher would be urged to follow the law. If it continued, the offending teacher would be out on his or her ass. Then again, Austin is a notoriously blue island in a red state. It is also peopled by many of deep religious faith, like me, who would prefer that our kids get their theology in church and from us. Leigh
  6. Hmm. I still think you mean "pretentious poseur". But who am I to quibble with your diction? And if your characterization is based on something other than the words I use, what is your objection? My opinions, which are no doubt fundamentally different from yours? (You should pardon the oblique pun . . .) Leigh
  7. Paul has noticed this trend, I'm sure. Whenever we use words they don't understand, we suddenly become "pompous". Folks, if you can't understand my remarkably clear prose, the expression you're reaching for is "supercilious snob". Or maybe "pretentious poseur". I'll bet it was that word "meretricious" that pushed this YAG over the edge. Sheesh, folks, don't you know how to use Google? BRYAN is pompous. Paul and I are warm, witty, and do you the honor of assuming you're well-educated. After all, it's not our fault if you can't keep up. (For the sarcasm-impaired, this whole post is slightly -- only slightly -- tongue-in-cheek.) Leigh
  8. Gee, Bryan, that's oh-so-reassuring coming from you. After all, you're the guy who doesn't think P. was proselytizing. I doubt you'd think any speech that didn't include a Reading of the Gospel and an altar call could be called proselytizing -- and you might think even that would be okay as long as there were no choir singing "I Surrender All" in the background. Leigh
  9. Oh, and I didn't bother to address the rest of Bryan's ridiculous post because it was just his usual B.S. Leigh
  10. No, Bryan, you failed dismally at "proving" that P's letter wasn't taken from Barton. But in your world, where black is white (if you slice and dice it enough), apparently you think we're all dazzled by your brillance. Too bad. You're self-deluded as well as willfully blind. You're also an obnoxious little twerp. It really amazes me that, no matter how many times you get thoroughly thrashed, you come back declaring that you won. You're like some kind of bobble doll. It's also apparently escaped your notice that your only allies are semi-literate and as dumb as bricks. Everything about you is meretricious. Alas, not all fools are wise. Leigh
  11. Jeez, Bryan, we've been over this many times. Those on both sides have listened to the entire exchange. I know I did. We heard proselytizing. As I may have mentioned before, I was brought up in a Southern Baptist church. I certainly recognize preachin' when I hear it. The denial is not on the tape, as you very well know. It comes from Matthew's testimony. I believe him. You don't. I believe Matthew because he has been the more credible witness. And if P. has denied it, I'm not aware of it. And by the way, I don't think you're close-minded. I think you're willfully blind. (as a moron) That would be correct. You've certainly attempted to demonstrate some problem with context -- ad nauseum, in fact. You've failed miserably. (This was in response to my assertion that I don't tolerate bad theology, scientific quackery, and fake history.) It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that someone who says dinosaurs were on the Ark is full of crap. P.'s later letter to the editor was full of fake history, courtesy of that crackpot David Barton. And his take on hell is very bad theology indeed, as we exhaustively explored on another thread. So yes, I can recognize those evils when I see them. Just as I can recognize your sophistry, no matter how much you roll your eyes. Leigh
  12. Some people will NEVER get it. This guy taught fundamentalist Christian doctrine in a public school classroom. That is AGAINST THE LAW. (And Bryan, your sophistry aside, anybody who listens to that tape can clearly hear the teacher proselytizing.) He then LIED about it. THAT IS IMMORAL. I am absolutely flabbergasted by the morons who continue to defend the indefensible. And by the way, it's not just "atheists" who are opposed to these actions. Christians are too. There is no way I'd let any of my children's teachers get away with spouting a mixture of bad theology, scientific quackery, and false history in the classroom. Leigh
  13. Always the optimist, Proud American. But I'm afraid in this case you're quite wrong; 2dim and Patrat are beyond help. Their minds ossified some time ago . . . witness the resurgence of this "Kool-aid alert" nonsense. You and I can learn something at the PAW site. But 2dim? No, I don't think so. His learning curve has flatlined. Leigh
  14. Wowza. I would love to see these presentations. I am a great admirer of Ken Miller (Finding Darwin's God). I got to see Barry Lynn last spring at the University of Texas; he's great. Congratulations on the all-star team coming to Kearny. Congratulations also to Matthew on his speaking engagement with the ADL. Leigh
  15. It's obvious to any rational person. On your side is all the evidence: 1) the tapes; obvious preaching in class 2) past experience w/ P; testimony that he'd been doing this for years; Matthew was aware of this 3) P's response in the meeting w/ the principal; flat-out lying 4) P's response since this became public; more preaching and an assertion he had the right to preach (this is a lie, of course, but he copied that lie from David Barton) Give what DID happen, it's really hard to argue that Matthew's approach was not reasonable. That doesn't seem to be stopping some of the Kearney folks, but nobody with any sense is taking them seriously. Leigh
×
×
  • Create New...