David Paszkiewicz should be fired

[an American in Texas]

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

[an American in Texas]

Oh, and I didn't bother to address the rest of Bryan's ridiculous post because it was just his usual B.S.

Leigh

[Bryan]

We also know a jerk when we see one. Or would you like us to list the criteria?

71034[/snapback]

Sure. But only if you can avoid self-description.

[oldfart56]

Oh, and I didn't bother to address the rest of Bryan's ridiculous post because it was just his usual B.S.

Leigh

71044[/snapback]

watch this youtube.com/watch?v=gh7ilqR9zEY

[Guest Guest]

Matthew has credibility. "Guests" on this forum do not. Guess whose word would carry more weight?

70967[/snapback]

And people registered under meaningless, made up names with no point of identification carry all the credibility in the world. Identify yourself or get off your "guest" high horse.

[Guest Guest]

How about we just ban smoking because it's filthy and disgusting.  The people that do it are affecting those around them that have the right to be in a smoke free environment.

Keith is a classic paranoid who thinks the government is out to get him.  He said a few posts back that he's got a problem with almost all of the laws the government uses in privately owned establishments.  Maybe we should all start urinating or fighting in the middle of a restaurant because the owner says it's ok.

71039[/snapback]

Just as we should have a public policy to stop smoking, the government should try to prevent ********** sex. A lot of it ******* ** ***** *** **********. Their spread of AIDS affects the whole community.

Their health-care costs are picked up by everyone. And those that also have sex **** ***** spread their diseases to ******** *****.

Public education and heavy fines or jail time when caught might help.

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

[Bryan]

Bryan, here is a question specifically for you*; something that can allow you to illustrate your point:

In what context (I know you love context) is it appropriate for a teacher in a public school to express their personal religious beliefs?

*Well, If others would like to answer, feel free.

71018[/snapback]

That's primarily up to the employer.

There should be no constitutional prohibition on a public school teacher's expression of religious opinion short of proselytizing or discriminatory treatment (and that sort of thing) because of the First Amendment (no law restricting the free expression of religion).

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/PDF/pa...idereligion.PDF

[Guest Guest]

Matthew has credibility. "Guests" on this forum do not. Guess whose word would carry more weight?

70967[/snapback]

Certainly not your words or for that matter Matthews have any credibility so live with it.

[Guest Guest]

But separation of church and state does mean more than that. You may wish it didn't, but it does, and even if you think that's not what the Framers intended (I think it is), it's still the law, because that is how the Supreme Court has interpreted it, and unlike Bush v. Gore the votes weren't close. Even the current court, which is about as far right as we're going to get (I hope!) would recognize the fact.

We all know that Mr. P has many supporters in town. You were at the meetings with your signs. We get it. What saddens me is that you see one thing, your religious beliefs, and everything else is secondary to that. You're free to live that way if you want to, but the fact is that most of us don't agree with you. So while it's clear that Mr. Paszkiewicz isn't going to be fired for what happened here, I think it's also safe to say that he isn't going to be getting any awards unless your group decides to give him one.

70750[/snapback]

What you fail to realize is that just because it may be a law it does not always mean it is right. Laws have been changed over and over since the framers starting writing them. It’s what keeps people like you with food on your table. It’s not about how many supporters Mr. Paszkiewicz or anyone else has. It’s about what is right for the community and the people of it.

And as far as you being happy or sad, I couldn’t care less. Never could. You and your band of lawyers have made society in America so much weaker than you will ever realize. And you do lie when you say that that most of you agree with you. It contradicts what you said above. I would be happy to give Mr. Paszkiewicz. What you and your lawyer friends have done to him is wrong yet you call yourself a religious man. I want no part in that religion.

[Strife767]

How about we just ban smoking because it's filthy and disgusting.

And drinking isn't? Hell, I could say the same about fundamentalist Christianity, but you won't see me calling for a ban on it, because I understand the concept of freedom in this country.

There is a difference (which most people are unable to see) between wanting people to stop doing something, and wanting the law to force them to stop doing something.

Most of the time someone expresses a "there oughta be a law" sentiment, there usually oughtn't.

The people that do it are affecting those around them that have the right to be in a smoke free environment.

That's why smoking is banned in public places, and shouldn't be banned in private ones. That way, no one is ever forced to go anywhere where people are smoking, and they can have a smoke-free environment, while smokers can smoke. Why isn't that a reasonable compromise?

[Guest Guest]

This is what I've heard from credible people. A "guest"'s contradiction is not exactly enough to counter that.

Credible? Let me guess? MATTHEW

1. "God" is not the foundation of law in this country; the Constitution is. If you don't like that, feel free to pray for it to magically change.

Sure! And the founding Fathers believed in flying saucers. Right?

2. Keep your sick, sadistic fantasies to yourself. Look at the horrible ways this faith has warped your mind. You would positively relish seeing me burn, wouldn't you?

Actually, NO. I don't desire anything like that for anyone, not even for you.

The way I feel is: you can take a horse to water, but you can't make the horse drink the water.

Depraved monster

That was not nice.

Don't get your undies up in a bunch. I did not tell you have to believe.

It's your choice.

Am I a doodyhead, too?

More times than you realize.

No, I will not accept that Paszkiewicz was disrespectful to his students. How is that my choice, by the way? Do you even read what you write?

Who did not read?

I was not talking about Mr. P at all.

It's your choice where you are going to spend your eternity.

[Guest Guest]

This is for our friend Strife.

By the way Chris. What are you doing on the computer at 10:30am on Monday morning? Does the town knows that instead of working your are on KOTW? One more reason why taxes are so high in this town. We are paying for Strife to be on his computer/phone when he is suppose to be working.

Now, 11:00 he still here.

Shame! Shame! Shame!

[Guest Guest]

Strify!

It's 11:25am (Monday)

Go back to work. If you get caught you will get in trouble!

[Guest Guest]

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

71043[/snapback]

What a pompous ass.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

How about we just ban smoking because it's filthy and disgusting.  The people that do it are affecting those around them that have the right to be in a smoke free environment.

Keith is a classic paranoid who thinks the government is out to get him.  He said a few posts back that he's got a problem with almost all of the laws the government uses in privately owned establishments.  Maybe we should all start urinating or fighting in the middle of a restaurant because the owner says it's ok.

71039[/snapback]

Ok. let me make my point one more time. It's clear there are many more non-smokers than smokers. Why can't the market decide? Cleary a business that offers a non- smoking environment will do very well because most people don't smoke. That being said there should be no reason why a business should not be able to allow smoking for those customers who choose to smoke. Everyone wins because there is a choice. What is so wrong with having a choice? That's what I don't get. In many communities we may never know how well that could have worked because they just make sweeping mandates and bang! It's done!What is so wrong with creating choices?

Paranoid? Let me see, I am an adult smoker. I choose to smoke and enjoy same. Everytime I turn around there is some new law or tax regulating smoking. I wouldn't call that paranoia, I would call that a stone cold fact.

As far as other laws regarding private establishments your comment about urinating and fighting are an absurd comparason and you know it! I'm talking more about mandated closing times, mandated dollar amounts of food sales, physical contact with customers (lap dances at strip bars) and smoking.

Why is is that folks like you are so unwilling to live with compromise? It' clear that in today's environment that the vast majority of establishments would be smoke free if allowed to choose but that isn't good enough for you is it? No, you must have sweeping mandates because it's all about your rights isn't it? What about my right to be filthy and disgusting in an establishment that allows it and has clear signage that states as much?

[Guest Guest]

A suit challenging a prayer composed by government officials and mandated as a regular recital in class?

How is that supposed to be a precedent for this case?  There is no legislation involved, here.

Likewise, a statute mandating a Bible reading.

There's no statute in this case.  How does the precedent apply?

Don't let Google do your thinking for you.

71023[/snapback]

It doesn't matter whether there's a statute or not. In the Engel and Schempp cases, the state actor was the state. In the LaClair case, the state actor was the teacher. The legal analysis remains exactly the same. A religion was promoted in class, and that's not allowed.

[Guest Guest]

Matthew's entire presentation took the quotations out of context.

There was no playing of the recording during the meeting.

Your unintended irony is impressive.  You were able to ignore the obvious truth in favor of slavishly covering for LaClair effortlessly. 

71024[/snapback]

So now Bryan's complaint is that the school officials are too stupid or too lazy to listen to the recordings and decide for themselves. It wasn't just the meeting that fried Mr. Packy. It was everything put together, including his classroom proselytizing, which was so blatant that even the Rutherford Institute admitted it.

[Guest Guest]

Paul,

  You are correct that this issue does hit a raw nerve because where will it all end?We can't live in a vacuum. There will always be many dangers that children will be exposed to, that's part of growind up. If you see a flag today, stop and look at it for a minute and think about what it really stands for. Freedom maybe? That's what I've always beed told. If you truly want to live in a free country the sometimes you have to put up with things you don't agree with without trying to legislate them away.

71042[/snapback]

Smoking costs 425,000 deaths and $75 billion every year according to the latest statistics. This isn't just a normal part of growing up. It's a threat and a menace to everyone.

The famous saying about freedom is that your freedom to move your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Smoking costs people who don't smoke. So there has to be a balance.

[Guest Paul]

Regarding Kenneth Miller's presentation: why are we having so much discussion about a presentation that no one witnessed?

Besides, it was a presentation on evolution and anyone who really understands evolution knows that it is not a debatable topic.

71019[/snapback]

We're having the discussion because the radical religious right cannot abide the fact that a real expert set straight Paszkiewicz's babbling. I would hate to think, however, that evolution isn't debatable. All science is debatable. That's what drives it forward. The point is that evolution is univerally accepted, practically speaking, throughout the scientific community and communities of enlightened minds all over the world.

[Guest Paul]

It must be, but I forget where--couldn't find it by searching in the forum.

Maybe Paul or Matthew could re-link us here if/when they read this?

71028[/snapback]

Kevin Canessa had put them on Canessa's Corner in February, I think. I'm not sure whether they're still there. The New York Times also put up the classroom recordings, but I don't think they ever put up the meeting.

[Guest Guest]

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

71043[/snapback]

Perhaps Bryan should commandeer the now infamous : "Mission Accomplished"

[Bryan]

It doesn't matter whether there's a statute or not.

Then shouldn't you be able to provide me an application of the precedent demonstrating your claim?

Or is it supposed to rest on your accompanying huffing and puffing?

In the Engel and Schempp cases, the state actor was the state.

The law was simply struck down in each case. There were no other relevant consequences for the state, so your talk about a "state actor" is superfluous.

In the LaClair case, the state actor was the teacher. The legal analysis remains exactly the same. A religion was promoted in class, and that's not allowed.

71138[/snapback]

A religion was discussed in class, and that is allowed.

Or if it's not, then something's been done to the First Amendment.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

Smoking costs 425,000 deaths and $75 billion every year according to the latest statistics. This isn't just a normal part of growing up. It's a threat and a menace to everyone.

The famous saying about freedom is that your freedom to move your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Smoking costs people who don't smoke. So there has to be a balance.

71141[/snapback]

Maybe you could also tell us how much smokers pay every year in state,local and federal taxes that are never used for their intended purposes. I won't accept the "its costing me money" dodge because you see we ARE already paying those costs but unfortunately those monies do not go where they are supposed to.

Balance you say? Is your idea of balance legislating away my right to smoke at home, in my car or my own yard?

[Strife767]

anyone who really understands evolution knows that it is not a debatable topic.

71019[/snapback]

I wouldn't go that far--sure it's debatable, but (and this is a big but) if and only if someone's actually got legitimate evidence that challenges some part of what is already established.

That's the criterion creationists fail miserably to meet.

[Strife767]

And people registered under meaningless, made up names with no point of identification carry all the credibility in the world.

Don't move the goalposts. I'm talking about Matthew's word vs. that of "guests."

I am NOT contradicting Matthew, therefore I have nothing to prove in that respect. I'm not even in the same category. Think for a couple of minutes before you post, for crying out loud.