[Kearny Resident Going to the Inauguration]

Defunitly one of Karney's grate mineds.

National security, huh. Great.

I apologize that you have so much free time on your hands that you can sit there and insult someone on the basis of their spelling. From now on when I post, I i wll do so prior to running out for class. If this is what our society has bred, people who are incapable of doing anything other than find some way to demerit an individuals achievements by any means available to them, then I truly pity your existence. The fact that you enter as a guest on a free-registration site tells me a whole lot about your character and hopefully I will never have the misfortune of working with someone's who ignorance and incompetency level is rivaled only by the heights of Mount Everest. I also fear that your intellectual depths is about as deep as an inflatable kiddy pool, but thank you for providing the information so that I may inform you that you are a waste of carbon.

[Kearny Resident Going to the Inauguration]

It really is great oppurtunity, I can't wait to go. The forum on National Security was amazing so I can only imagine that this will be even greater. Paul give Katie my congradulations. This really is a great oppurtunity for us.

[KHS Teacher Controversy]

Alright I know I haven't read all these posts so if I say something that has already been said please forgive me. But religion is an essential part of history. How can you talk about the Dark Ages without mentioning religion? How about the Crusades, are we to pretend they never happened? How can you talk about ancient societies without understanding their religion? By the logic of never talking about religion, I am allowed to tell my teacher that talking about Greek and Roman Mythology is a violation of church and state. Technically the mythology is based on an ancient religion, which some people do still practice. Would we be banned from talking about the Salem Witch Trials being they involve religion? To deny the impact religion has had on the world would serve only to show your ignorance. Now here I am talking about religion, does this force you to have certain religious views? I just finished a paper for my history class in which I had to analyze the creation accounts of five different cultures, should I bring a case against the school for that? I do not know why this is still drawing a debate, the topic is quite old. But let me ask you another question, isn't science just another belief system? You can argue it either way if you like and I hope that I have not fueled this debate anymore. But logic says that science is a belief system and maybe that shouldn't be taught either, or maybe we are to let history dissappear because it involves religion. In the end, religion is a necessary part of history, and Matt did seem as if he was provoking the debate, but whats done is done...you know what they say, no point in airing out your shit, it only stinks the rest of the room up.

[Why John McCain is not suited to be president]

In other words, you got a piece of information that didn't fit with your prejudices, so you decided to ignore it.

Young Punk, if the next president decides we really need to get "tough" with the world, he's not going to pull soldiers out of his ass. He just might draft yours.

If this so-called war was really necessary to our national security, that is exactly what would have happened already. Everyone who was being honest about it knew that our voluntary force wasn't big enough to maintain peace. Forget about whether that would transform Iraq into a democracy. Bush, Cheney, et. al., talked tough, but when it came time to put up, they meowed like pussycats. This war was totally unnecessary, and their own behavior proves it.

Be careful what you wish for, son. If your guy wins, you just might get it. Please excuse me if I don't come to see you off. Don't forget to write your folks.

I would love to serve my country, but I am restricted from doing so due to horrible eyesight, and that im recovering from a recent spinal problem. I believe in the war and why we are fighting

[Why John McCain is not suited to be president]

Punkie, this is a response to both your posts.

If a man can't become president just because someone questions his patriotism, all the radical right has to do is question every Democratic candidate's patriotism - which is essentially what they have been doing. You're obviously not thinking this through. You're just stacking the deck in favor of the guy for whom you've already made up your mind. Was anything more needed for you than the mere label "Republican"?

Experience is useful only if it leads the president to make good choices. So how do you explain the fact that Obama knew what a disaster a war in Iraq was going to be, and warned against it? Why doesn't that score a lot of points for you?

If you'll study your history, you'll see that many of our presidents didn't have much "experience." Several, including Clinton, Reagan and this Bush, had only been governors. Lincoln was a one-term former congressman who had lost more elections than he had won. So when you make the "experience" argument, why should I think that you're doing anything more than justifying what you've already made up your mind to believe? And that's only through your second sentence.

Then you quote at length from an msnbc news commentator, Jack Jacobs. Jacobs is entitled to his opinions, but they are hardly the final word on anything. If in fact the army captain witnessed the events firsthand, then his is the more reliable account. This wouldn't be the first time one person looked at a story and saw something no one else saw. But what do you do, Punkie? You read something critical of Obama, and because you've already made up your mind that you don't support him, you decide that Obama is "clearly . . . ignorant."

We have had ignorant presidents. In fact, we have one now. Barack Obama rose from nothing to become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Punkie, do you realize what an accomplishment that is? Think about it. The man you're calling ignorant has one of the most brilliant minds not only in the country, but in the world.

We need look no further for an example of ignorance than your "analysis" in the paragraph following the Jacobs quote. You argue for a strong military, then you pull out of your ass the completely unsupported conclusion that increasing US ground forces is somehow not a good idea. Why not? Increasing the number of ground forces is "tough," isn't it? Do you know what McCain's position is on this issue? What if McCain supports it? From what you write, I'd be willing to bet my house that you would support it. You don't tell us why this isn't a good idea, and again what's obvious is that you're not thinking. You're just reacting.

Of course, you don't mention McCain's statement that under his plan we may be in Iraq for 100 years. Why not? Don't you think that's relevant? Don't you think the American people have the right to say "No, we're not doing that." Don't you think that's an unreasonable demand to make on the American people? What is to be accomplished if we must be there for 100 years? Why doesn't that alone disqualify John McCain from the presidency? There's nothing of substance in your writing and apparently your thinking. All you've done is say if it looks tough, then it's good, unless Obama does it. You can't even maintain a consistent standard within a single paragraph.

Don't you think it's wise to bring nuclear materials under control? You criticize, again without basis in fact, but what's your alternative? You don't present one.

Finally, your single comment in post # 7 only displays your complete lack of objectivity. Farrakhan's comment does not turn a reasonable person away from Obama one bit. Barack Obama did not ask for Farrakhan's support, and has rejected it. He cannot stop Farrakhan from supporting him. You're trying to cast blame on Obama not even by association, but by involuntary association. That is completely unfair and illogical. That's an obvious point. Don't you think you should admit it?

Adults here welcome a young person's participation and involvement in the political process. However, all that will be a waste if you do not use the lessons and methods of reason that you were taught in school. If you hope to make a contribution in politics or any other field, you cannot start with your mind already made up, and just fit everything into pre-determined conclusions.

Allow me to respond to your post piece by piece and thank you for actually addressing all the points I made. First it isn't just a matter of the Republicans questioning his patriotism, if it were just that then I would hold as nothing more than political mudslinging. But when the news brings it up like that I feel it is more substantial. The fact that Obama was against the war from the start doesn't score points with me for I have and continue to support the war. From my point of view I find it to be a neccessary evil and wish I could serve with them. As for experience, yes history does show that more governors are elected to the office of President then Congressmen, but from Obamas voting record I was not impressed. I feel that if he can fine tune his agenda into something feasable he might stand a better chance, he can't hit middle ground til he's learned to compromise with the opposing party. Now do not misunderstand me, I am not questioning Obama's intelligence as a whole. I believe that all the candidates running are highly intelligent regardless of their view points, I was reffering specifically to his ignorance on the military, which is a big part of this country and the Presidential campaign. The main foreign focus of this campaign is Iraq, and he does not seem to have accurate information or even able to get an advisor who possesses acurate information. Even if McCain made the statement about the troops I would criticize it without more information, as on Obama's website it did not say how he plans to do it. I admit I was reacting to what I read, hence the length of the post, but I am not close-minded on the situation either. I agree that we need more troops, but I can do nothing but criticize it until I understand or am at least told how it is to happen. I happen to agree with the concept of finishing the job that we had started, and of course the American people reserve their right to say "no" but that is what the election comes down to. McCain, on the military, is very smart. He was saying from the beginning that we needed more troops, even before the troop surge. And he proved right. I do believe nuclear material needs to be controlled, but once again Obama does not propose how he would accomplish such a feat. As for Farrakhan, Obama accepted an award from him a year ago (I believe). I apologize if I sound close minded, for I am really open to others opinions on this topic. As I said before I made a reactionary post and I do have my mind made up on my candidate, but I did do my research though it doesn't always show

[Why John McCain is not suited to be president]

I would also be a little turned away if my candidate was called "Hope for the entire world" by the leader of a black islamic racist group, wouldn't you?

[Why John McCain is not suited to be president]

John McCain is a war hero and a long-time member of Congress. He has sponsored important legislation and sometimees stood for principle, until last year when he decided to compromise his principles to win the Republican nomination. Like Senator Obama, he deserves our respect. However, he should be our president, and here are a few reasons why.

1. He does not have the self-confidence required of a president. Look at him and listen to him when he speaks.

2. Unfortunately, his years in a prisoner of war have taken their toll. Heroism is something to be honored, but it doesn't qualify him for the White House. In this case, it leaves him unsuited to the job.

3. He has a horrible temper and is known not to get along with his colleagues.

4. He does not understand the public demands of the presidency. "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" is not funny.

5. He does not have the energy and vigor Obama has. If he won, he would be 72 years old when he took office.

6. He does not understand where the country is right now or what it wants. He cannot bring about the kind of changes we need because he doesn't believe in them. He doesn't even see them. Therefore, he cannot lead us.

7. He is on the wrong side of the war, which we need to end.

8. He is on the wrong side of the Bush tax cuts.

9. He has made it clear that if elected he will pander to the radical right to stay in office.

10. He is on the wrong side of health care.

In other words, he is on the wrong side of the most important issues we face. We need a president who understands the critical importance of restoring a balanced economy and re-invigorating the middle class. McCain does not understand that.

I think McCain is the only one suited for the job of President of this great country. Obama not only lacks the experience but how can one run for President and have their patriotism questioned at the same time? The president must be dedicated to this country, McCain has shown that by not only being a war hero but by spending his life serving this country. Also Obama showed quite clearly that he is ignorant in the tool called the military. This is an excerpt from a recent news article on msnbc.com:

"But last week, during his debate with Clinton, Obama tried speaking about substance when he mentioned the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he displayed an astounding ignorance of the military instrument. He said that an anonymous U.S. Army captain told him that his infantry platoon was split and sent to different areas of operations; that they were lacking vehicles; and that they had insufficient ammunition to fight.

Although problems do occur in combat situations to be sure, none of what Obama related makes any sense and is, according to people with whom I spoke, untrue. Units the size of platoons are not sent to separate theaters, ammunition has been plentiful, and an investigation indicates that the unit in question was missing only one of its Humvees, all to no peril of the unit.

Obama used the anecdote to demonstrate that the current president was not supporting the troops and to suggest that he would if elected. Given Obama’s ignorance of how ground combat operations are actually conducted, one expects that he’ll be no better at it than President Bush. Indeed, as bad as Bush’s Iraq strategy was for its first four years, Obama’s plan for rapid withdrawal is equally flawed and perhaps impossible to execute.

Politicians rely heavily, on almost every subject, on advisors to get them educated and keep them current. And nobody really expects Obama or Clinton or even McCain, who was a Navy aviator, to know anything about ground combat. But one does expect the candidate to employ advisors who know what they are talking about and to prevent their candidate from embarrassment.

While Obama has attracted money, notoriety and delegates, he has yet to attract military advisers who know what they are doing. If he doesn’t, and he becomes president, the United States won’t fare any better than it has for the past eight years. "

Also McCain is tough on foreign policy and in this world of terror and animosity we need to stand strong. This is not the time to let a limp-wrist who probably couldn't tell you the difference between a guerilla fighter and a terrorist. If we are ever to gain credibility in the world we must not become pushovers to rouge nations like Iran and North Korea or to countries like Russia and China. In Iran he wants to talk, with a nation that has openly said they will not negotiate and have torn up condemnations and laughed at UN sanctions. Obama who is so anti-war promises to increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines. Out of whose ass, may I ask, is he pulling these men out of?

On Nuclear material he promises to secure all loose material in four years, how is that possible? Are we going to find them hidden at the end of the rainbow? No, no we wont. He wants to make the world "nuclear free", but only speaks of the US and Russia, what about China, France and the UK who have Nuclear Weapons?

['08 Election]

Punkie, you can be taken seriously at your age, but not if you're going to get your "information" (if you call it that) from a website "about conservative politics and metal." That's like taking a class on personal responsibility from Britney Spears.

And you can't make an intelligent decision about the war in Iraq by reading a general history on "honor." Instead, read a book that is actually about the war, like Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq by Thomas E. Ricks.

There's plenty of good information about the Iraqi war. It's a freaking disaster, the worst foreign policy decision in our history, right along with Viet Nam. Study. Read. Then draw your conclusions. Don't start out identifying yourself as a conservative or a liberal either, limit yourself to reading only what supports your chosen viewpoint and think you've done anything worthwhile. No one is ever going to take you seriously that way, not even when you're 70.

Honestly, from what you're writing, the "information" you're getting isn't conservative. It's radical right wing. There's nothing conservative about it.

And if you don't know anything about Barack Obama, then don't draw a conclusion. Keep your mind open --- no --- open your mind, open a newspaper (a good one like the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times, not a useless rag like USA Today or the New York Post), study the candidates, and then make a decision.

While I used that as quotes, that is because when asked my opinion people usually want it from another source. That being said, I do believe in a lot of conservative views, at least when it comes to foreign policy. I do not really know where I stand domestically. I agree that the war was mishandled, but I view it as necessary. Please excuse the fact that I did not respond to all your points I have to go to my next class, but I will respond further within the night.

['08 Election]

Punkie, me boy, why on earth do you want to vote for a Republican?

They're prepared to keep us in Iraq for 100 years. McCain specifically said so, so if he is elected, you can count on us being there throughout his term, which is not good for our country or the world, and it's not what the American people want. That can only divide this country, which is already at the breaking point politically. After how the Republicans have abused power these past many years (including McCain for going along with it in Congress), it makes no sense to support a Republican for president. Their position on the war alone disqualifies McCain, or any of the Republicans except Ron Paul (who isn't going to be nominated and isn't credible for dozens of other reasons) from any credible claim on the next presidential term.

Then you take the disastrous policies of the current Republican party, including:

- massive redistribution of wealth toward people who aren't earning the income, thereby

--- devastating the middle class, which is the backbone of any economy

--- handing huge amounts of wealth and power to people who haven't earned the wealth and can't be trusted with the power

--- creating a new class of inherited wealth, which is completely contrary to the spirit that builds a country and keeps it moving economically

- disregard for the environment

- disregard for civil liberties and the Constitution

- indifference to health care

- indifference to education and the fact that the USA keeps falling further and further behind the rest of the world in the sciences

- indifference to our natural environment

- indifference to the massive debt they've piled up so they could give our money to people who are richer than sin

- indifference to the fact that corporate executives make obscene salaries at our expense

- indifference to the sub-prime disaster, which is throwing our country into a recession and will cause millions of people to lose their homes if something that Republicans aren't willing to do isn't done about it

- apparent indifference to the real threats we face in the world, including terrorism, which is gaining strength while our military is stetched paper thin trying to make up for Mr. Bush's mess.

McCain knows the Bush tax cuts were wrong. He voted against them because he knew they were going to result in an enormous debt. Now he wants to make them permanent. Great. That's like saying "what the hell, I spent most of my life's savings on booze, I might as well spend the rest."

Not to mention the fact that McCain would be 72 years old when he took office. What makes you think a person that age should lead the country, when we have capable people in their prime who can do it?

Not to mention the fact that his time in a POW camp is a double-edged sword. Yes, he's a hero, but an experience like that wounds in a person in ways he never recovers from. You can see it when he speaks. Heroism isn't enough. We need someone who can take the country forward, and McCain is not that person.

You're young, punkie. What's wrong with you?

I would like to vote republican because while I do not agree with all their sentiments, I do agree with many conservative policies. For example I agree with the war in Iraq to some extent. I agree that Iraq was a potential threat and a definite threat to allies with in the area. In a book I'm reading Honor: A History, it puts a whole new outlook on the war in Iraq making it seem as if we were defending our honor, but I will elaborate more once I have finished the book. But I do not agree with the military occupation of Iraq. I have no doubt that our military can make any country fall to its knees, but they are not for the purposes of building countries. That, as far as I'm concerned, is a job for diplomats. I like John McCain because he realizes that we need to finish the job. But I do not agree with outsourcing and illegal immigration, though I can understand and sympathise with the companies and people who do this. I understand the concept of making as much money as possible with the least amount of cost. I think that we need to give jobs back to Americans until the economy has stablized again. As far as his age, it has no effect on me, he seems to be capable and healthy. I would rather a president who is old, but one who is experienced and knowledgable about how to run a nation. So theres nothing wrong with me, I'm just conservative, which in my school isn't a good thing.

While you may not agree with what he said, his reasoning is exactly correct. Every candidate who runs for office has strong points and weak points. But this is a young person, who at this stage won't be voting on election day. He simply makes an arguement why he likes Mc Cain. We may not agree with him but thats what voting is all about. The right to choose the candidate of your choice. Please let's not criticize him. It's tough enough to get young people involved in the process and as the election cycle goes on he may change his mind. Our election is next tuesday and my wife and I are still not sure who we are voting for although we are leaning towards Obama.

Thank you, it's very hard for people to take me seriously due to my age. People don't seem to think that my experience in doing model congress and model united nations or the week I spent in Washington D.C. learning about national security permits me to have an informed opinion on politics and world affairs. I really do not know what Obama's policies are, so the only thing I can speak on is his inexperience. Therefore I sincerly thank you for not criticizing my inexperience as some have.

Young Punk didn't write the piece. We don't know who wrote it.

I understand your point, but I think we set the bar too low if all we're doing is begging for participation. The essence of democracy isn't just participation, but also give-and-take, and that means constructive criticism.

As I said in my post, I quoted the website arthurshall.com. The website is about conservative politics and metal. I used this site as the basis of my post because I am not as articulate as most, due to my age and lack of experience

['08 Election]

You have way too much time on your hands.

What else do you expect from a 17 yr old?

['08 Election]

Moving back to the topic of the election, I would like to vote for McCain. I can not vote in the primary but it seems pretty obvious that he will move on to the general elections. Unless Romney has a miracle on Tuesday, he will not be able to beat McCain who is currently leading by 35 delegates I believe. Too save people the time of asking why, if they even care, here is some excerpts from a website that I enjoy that puts my ideas in more eloquent and articulate terms:

"One thing I don't think anyone can say is that John McCain is not committed to our nation. He has lived a life of public service. He was a POW in North Vietnam who REFUSED to be released when the North Vietnamese offered it to him because they learned that his father was an Admiral in command of the region. That is service my friends, that is commitment. So we know he is a man who loves our great nation. But is he trustworthy? I say yes. He has a history of sticking to his political principles. He opposed the Bush tax cuts that easily passed in 2001. He knew that would make him unpopular within the Republican ranks. But he did it anyway because he saw that tax cuts without spending limits were a recipe for massive deficits and inflation...exactly what we have seen in the last four years. In his Senate career, John McCain has been a strong advocate against pork-barrel spending. The GOP has been horrible over the last few years with spending, god damn horrible. He will put a stop to it. Does that make him popular with Senators or lobbyists? Does it make it easy for him to go to groups who typically rob the government for support and campaign donations? Surely not. But he sticks to his guns on the issues that are important to him and that is exactly the type of man we need to lead us."

"I am not writting this endorsement to castigate other Republicans but I have no choice but to point out a few things on this issue. I was strongly considering endorsing Mitt Romney. The problem I found was that every time I looked into any issue I saw a duplicity in what he says now vs. what he did in the past. He was pro-abortion and now he is against it. He was for gun control in Massachusetts and now he is a "hunter". He was an "independent in 1994 and did not want a repeat of Reagan." Now he loves Ronnie. I call b.s my friend. I think he is a good man much in the mold of John Kerry. Good guy but weak minded..I cannot have that. One thing I admire about a man is their ability to stand up against the hurricane of public opinion. Bush has been able to do it...but his father and Clinton were not up to that task. I believe that John McCain will be able to weather the inevitable cry "foul" from an uneducated and apathetic public."

"Another reason I am endorsing Senator McCain is his stance on religion. What is that? I don't know and that is how I like it. I am not sure if he is a Christian and that is a good thing to me. If you are forced to campaign on sharing religious beliefs with people it means you have very little record to stand on. Romney and Mike Huckabee are fighting a religious war and it is pathetic. It goes a little something like this: Romney "I am a Christian who believes in magic underwear and golden tablets"..Huckabee "Mormons are weird and I believe that the Earth is 6000 years old". Absurd. Huckabee is to blame for this religious test problem. He has injected his personal beliefs into every possible photo op and it has led Romney to defend himself. This is one of the many reasons I will not endorse Huckabee among many others (nanny state belief system, utter lack of foreign policy experience, etc)."

"John McCain is not a threat to our 2nd amendment rights. I know that the gun-lobby is not a huge fan of John McCain but I do feel that there is some fanaticism at play here. He was against the defunct "assault weapons" ban. He co-sponsored a bill to allow the five law abiding citizens of Washington DC to own handguns. He opposed waiting periods for purchase of firearms. He voted against ammunition laws that would restrict certain types of ammunition that were labeled "armor piercing". The gun lobby has been pissed at McCain for his support of gun locks. To my understanding, these are placed on the weapons during transport. That seems like a reasonable rule to me. He also attracted the ire of some gun-rights folks when he agreed that existing laws for gun purchases be extended to gun shows. Why should gun show purchases be different than in store purchases? They are not. He is a friend of the 2nd amendment and his record proves it. Don't believe me...look into his record as a whole, not just what the GOA tells you. Most of the NRA's problem with McCain is his bill to reform our campaign finance laws. This is true because they are a huge lobby and it is a lobby that I support. The idea of limiting monetary access to our lawmakers is a good idea and while his bill may not be the best solution I agree with his sentiment. So rather than read the NRA or GOA's assessment of McCain, just look at his ACTUAL gun rights record and you will see that you will not lose your right to bear arms by electing John McCain."

"McCain's record from a national defense standpoint is outstanding. He has consistently supported pay raises for military personnel to help with recruiting and retention. His has also been a supporter of the war in Iraq and was one of the early proponents of the surge that has been so successful in Iraq. He was critical of the war plan in Iraq from the outset, saying that there were not enough ground forces from the start and he was proven correct when Generals finally received increased manpower. McCain understands we must win in Iraq and install a democracy. There is no way we can leave until the task is completed. He has told anyone who will listen that Iran cannot get nukes and is on record as saying that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons that WE WILL ATTACK. I believe him."

"I believe that Giuliani is more electable in a national election. He is more charismatic than McCain and more well liked by the public at large. The problem with Rudy is that he is barely a Republican. His personal life is very questionable but more damning to me is his record of heavy-handed tactics in fighting crime. He is lauded for cutting crime in New York but the untold story is that he banned certain types of legitimate businesses that tended to be robbed. That is a communist way of fighting crime and I fear that those types of ideas would be extended. So as much as I know that Rudy is more electable, I cannot endorse him. McCain is not the most electric figure on the campaign but he is quite forthright with what he believes, which will contrast well with the slimy Cliton. I have no doubt that he can beat Hillary. McCain is not a hard-core religious conservative, which will play well with non-Christian independents. His record is socially conservative but his stances are solidly grounded on Constitutional limits of government rather than religious beliefs. His sometimes prickly relationship with President Bush is also a good thing in the eyes of the voters. I believe that voters see him as independent of Bush which does not help him in our primary but will be an advantage in the national election. I honestly believe that he is our best choice to stave off the communists while adhering to our nation's Constitutional heritage."

"Senator McCain also has a decent record of environmentalism. He sees the ethanol subsidy for what it is...a pork boondoggle. He has a roughly 50% rating from environmental groups which means he has a mixed record which in my view is a good thing. He advocates a nuclear and hydrogen based economy, and recognizes that our dependence on Middle East oil is a threat to national security. He, like me, sees economic benefits to environmental protections and that the two are not mutually exclusive."

"John McCain is the most experienced candidate running for President, case closed. No candidate on either side of the aisle can match his distinguished record of service. They all seem like rookies if you look at their records; one term senators, wives of powerful men, one term governors, mayors.. f**king amateurs. I want our next President to know what the hell is going on from the day he is elected."

[We need change!]

Before I reign in this discussion back to the actual realm that it was intended to, allow me to start off with saying how disappointing some of the members on this website are. As the days go by, this forum begins to look more and more like a bunch of bickering children. Why must everything that starts off as a great thread, suffer the enthropic breakdown into insults on Paul and Matt, and the offenders? I have stated in the past that I didn't agree with Matt, but I know when someone is beating a dead horse. It must be sad that a 17 yr old, is the one who seems to find the ongoing insults played out and unnecessary. It doesn't matter what end of the political spectrum you fall on, each side has vital points. Philosophy will tell you that truth is relative and utopian. For example I am sure most people learned growing up, is that there are two sides that when put together make the truth. Also anyone who understands strategic military planning would understand what group think was. For those who don't it means that the objectives are only being viewed in a one-dimmensional field. The reason our great government is so successful is due to the fact that we hear the otherside to the story. The War in Iraq, like everything else in the world, lives in constant duality. If one applies basic logic then one one find that everything is flawed. An example would be, Humans are flawed...Humans created Ipods...(logical deduction) Ipods are Flawed. Nothing is perfect, and that gives us room to improve and do better. While I make it no secret that I am conservative (a real conservative, not a FOX conservative), I understand that Liberals do have valid points at times. By seeing things through the other sides eyes we are given the opportunity to correct mistakes, unless it is a misconception. Also while at times I don't agree with President Bush, I will never insult him nor show disrespect to the position, we elected him and it would be futile to insult him and do nothing to get him out. Slinging insults is something I expect from children attending a grammar school, not adults who were brought into this thread with a genre of politics. It's easy to see at times why our founding fathers did not entrust the general public the honor of a direct election of the president.

Now to the original topic of this thread.

I think Ron Paul is thinking to ideal for my likes, and Isolationism is not the road that any country can go down if they expect to be a global power. It is said that our civilization has evolved so much that it has devolved. By that I mean, that communication, news, and economics has become so interconnected between countries that the world has devolved into a small town. Isolationism at this point will slaughter our power. Also I do not agree with his education policies. For instance I believe this is the first time in I don't know how many years that Kearny has passed a vote to raise money for the schools, Ron Paul wishes for education to be left to the state, which is what we had back during the industrial revolution and for some time after that. We need to continue to be active in foriegn affairs, but perform threat analysis' with greater percision.

I apologize for the length of this post, I hope maybe this will get us back on topic

[Wishing Everyone A Happy holiday]

Happy Holidays to all and all A Good Time

[Where are the parents?]

I agree that something has to be done about these punks. I drive over the chestnut bridge every now and then and I see them mouthing something at me. Luckily for me my music is too loud for me to hear what they're saying. But I would feel sorry if they get hit, mostly because the driver will get in trouble over these D**bA** kids.

[A proposed solution to school uniforms]

In posting on another topic, a thought occurred to me. I'm posting it here as a new topic and inviting comment. I really think this could resolve the school uniforms controversy. Here's my suggestion.

Offer a uniform on a voluntary basis. If a student violates the dress code, make the uniform mandatory for that student for the remainder of the school year. The administration should be required to take a photograph of the offensive clothing as proof, in case the student exercises the right (which all students have anyway) to challenge the punishment. That will put the school on firm legal ground and it should put a stop to violations. So as to ease the burden on administrators and avoid non-compliance with punishment, identify students who are required to wear uniforms to their teachers, and insist that the teachers as well as the administrators enforce the punishment.

This will allow parents who have trouble getting their kids dressed in the morning, as some have claimed, to choose the uniform and solve the problem in their home, which is the only place they have any right to be concerned about it.

Students won't violate the dress code because a single violation (or two or three if you like) would put them in a uniform the remainder of the year. They won't risk it, and if they do they'll learn a valuable lesson in personal responsibility. That should solve the problem of inappropriate dress, which is the main legitimate concern in support of uniforms.

It won't make everyone equal, but that is not the government's job.

It will preserve freedom, which is important, especially in the training of citizens in a free society, but at the same time it will make the limits of the dress code practical to enforce.

The school district won't even have to go through the pretense of paying for a uniform or two to get around the state requirement of a free public education. This will also save the taxpayers money.

I look forward to constructive comments.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Though I do agree that this plan is unmanagable and has a low possibility of success, I applaud Paul for trying to make a compromise. Though I am in favor of no uniforms whatsoever, it is hard to deny the lack of a dress code that the High School seems to have. I think in regards to this "Voluntary Uniform Program" that the administration also set down very clearly what is considered inappropriate because otherwise it becomes a relative question. I heard someone say that a prism drawn on a sign was a symbol for enslaving egyptians, which knowing who wrote it and what they meant I know they really just meant they love pink floyd. But I digress, the point is instead of everyone complaining that uniforms are a good idea or that uniforms are a bad idea, lets come up with a solution of sorts. I don't agree with uniforms, but I do agree that the High School needs to enforce some sort of dress code. So keep trying to come with an idea, because I personally know that any attempt to enforce some sort of uniform that is not accepted by the student population of the high school will be met with fierce resistance. I don't go to the high school but alot of my friends do, so thats how I know. So it may be good for the kids to come up with ideas for dealing with disobedience to the dress code, teenagers are at the point where they will disobey any order they dont like, but if they come up with it they will be more likely to accept the punishment and probably not violate it as much. Just a suggestion.

[School Uniforms]

Now that I've gotten a chance to read alot of peoples opinions on the idea of school uniforms I'm gonna put my ideas out there. I personally think school uniforms are a waste of money and a waste of youth. I am not gonna talk about personal freedoms are any of that, mainly because thats usually what is covered when talking about school uniforms. But the reasons that have been presented to me for school uniforms by the Kearny Board of Education does not seem capable of holding up against any arguement that I can think of. Usually in politics or controversial topics one can see why the other side wants to do things their way, but it does not seem that way with school uniforms. The arguements presented to me were: (a) parents save money, ( we will know whos in the school, © its harder to bring in weapons, (d) kids will pick on each other less. and (e) kids will not be distracted so they can focus on their work. Now with these ideas being put forth even I would say uniforms are great, but a little bit of research and thinking will put uniforms in a very different light.

(a) how do the parents save money if they must still purchase clothes to wear outside of school? I know I would feel silly if I went to church or a family event in a school uniform, so it would seem to be an added expense to parents rather then a relief.

( Isn't it easier to fake a uniform, when they're being sold in stores around town, then to fake an ID card which is distributed by the school? Im pretty sure if I wore khakis and a blue collared shirt under my jacket people would think I belonged in the high school. And I would be more worried about adults being in the school that shouldn't be rather then kids.

© If a child wanted to bring a weapon into school couldn't they still put it in their backpack or shoes? I mean if a child were really bent on hurting another child couldn't something as simple as a pen be used as a weapon? It seems that the only way to eliminate weapons in a school enviroment is rubber rooms and foam equipment.

(d) Kids will pick on each other no matter what. I have seen kids made fun of for something as simple as a scrunchie on their wrist. Also don't you think that kids are gunna wear normal clothes outside of school and see other kids from school? Wouldn't those clothes be the object of the childrens mocking still? Unless the Board of Education will supply perfumes, deodorants, and parents buy enough uniforms for outside of school as well this seems like a pitiful arguement.

(e) I sometimes have work to do in suits and sometimes I work in ripped jeans and a sleeveless shirt, and to be perfectly honest I feel no difference in my work ethic. I feel that people either value knowledge or they don't and if they don't they will find something to get distracted. They will gaze out the window more frequently, daydream, or look at a girls face.

I am quickly becoming disappointed in the board of ed and the policies being instituted by our state government in regards to education. As of right now the parents are being told how to dress their kids and what their kids can eat. Now some kids do need to be told you should have respect for yourself and not dress like that, but that doesn't mean that you punish everyone. If a kid wants to be fat let them, because sadly there is only one percentage in this world that will never change. That is that there is a 100% chance you will die, its a scientific fact everyone dies. Let them live their lives the way they want, if they want to get fat because they love the taste of food, let em. It won't change the outcome of those statistics. I would rather live to be 30 living the way I want to live and enjoying life rather then living to 200 monitoring and taking note of everything that I consume and do.

[The problem is the dress code.]

I never thought I'd say this but I agree with Paul, the dress codes in Kearny High School are vauge. But the ideology behind the uniforms is so irrational that I am at a loss for words. Of course I will say that the kids do dress inappropriately, that is not being debated. But the idea that school uniforms will decrease violence in a school is nothing short of lunacy. Kids will pick on each other no matter what, I will find a snow storm in Iraq before kids are at a loss for insults. I understand uniforms being permitted in Private Schools because you pay for your kids to go there, you can always take them out and put them in public school, but if you dont want to pay a large amount of money to go to a school then why should your kids be forced to wear uniforms. There also is no way to say that uniforms will cease weapons from being brought into the school, because if one wanted to they could use a pen as a weapon. I see no actual point in a school uniform. Also isnt it easier to fake a school uniform then a school ID?

[Supporting the Troops.]

I believe the war in Iraq was necessary to a point. There were two threats in the middle east that needed to if not now eventually neutralized. They are Iran and Iraq. Most people will tell you that neither was a threat to the US, this is true to an extent. They are not a threat to our actual country at the moment, but they are a threat to every oil-producing country in the region and to US interests in the area. Of course the administration isn't to be left blameless (though I believe blame lies also with Bush Sr. for not going straight through and taking out Saddam like I would have wanted) Though Russian, British, and American intelligence showed that Saddams regime was a threat, but Bush made an error. He misdefined the word Weapons Of Mass Destruction. He narrowed it strictly to nuclear weapons, but there is evidence of about 9 chemical weapons plants and around 12 biological weapons site. Of course Iran has nuclear weapons as well as biological and chemical weapons. But I believe that no matter which country we went after first, diplomatic negotiations would prove to be futile, and if war were to break out there would be guerrila tactics disrupting the peace after major hostilities ended, and the other country ( the one dealt with later) will step up production because they know that time is short. The problem is after 9-11 this country began to realize that there are threats out there and people who wish us harm, and I know bringing up 9-11 is a tasteless thing when talking about politics and for that I apologize, but now that we can begin to see what nations are posing threats, (such as Iran bankrolling islamic extremists and breaking international decrees) we can learn how to deal with these threats. I of course believe war is a last resort, blood should not be shed if it is preventable, but if there is no compromise then war is an answer. War is a continuation of politics by other means as Clausewitz says. A threat to this nations security is not to be allowed and should be stopped at all costs. I thank the men and women serving for our country and I hope they come home safely. And to address the original topic of this thread it is not unpatriotic to not support the war, that is a matter of opinion and it can be argued either way. Should you show support I believe you should because then the morale of the men and women fighting would vastly increase. But as long as you support the troops and do not allow people to treat them as they did in Vietnam then you are patriotic.

[School Uniforms]

Just out of curiosity, what does everyone think about giving the uniforms to the high school? I was at the town forum and it seemed that a lot of people were against it though it was apparent that the cons were produced mostly by students attending the highschool. I have my views, but I wanted to know what benefits the board of education sought with these ramifications?

[School Uniforms]

I was wondering whether anyone has heard anything of the uniform situation in Kearny High School.

[LCC or Lithuanian Knights]

What, finished with your studies on history already?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol. of course not. But its always good to learn something else.

[LCC or Lithuanian Knights]

I was wondering if anyone knew of a program that teaches the Lithuanian Language or a Lithuanian School. I'm interested in learning the language and I wanted to know if anyone could help?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For the same reason that Jewish people learn Hebrew. It is my heritage and culture. Though I will be an American above all else, it never hurts to learn a new language. There are only 5 Baltic tribes left in the world from an original 15. It is a dying language, I agree. But Kearny High is still teaching Latin, and that is dead at least Lithuanian is on life support

[LCC or Lithuanian Knights]

I was wondering if anyone knew of a program that teaches the Lithuanian Language or a Lithuanian School. I'm interested in learning the language and I wanted to know if anyone could help?

["You belong in hell"]

****, I appreciate your speaking with Matthew, but you're wrong here. There was no apology nor any correction, so we are pursuing our remedies. We never asked for only an apology. We also wanted quality control (which the Board has now said it will do) and corrections of inappropriate remarks. In any case, after four months, we'd be entitled to take a different position than we did at the beginning.

There is plenty wrong with an authority figure in a public school telling students of other religious faiths that they belong in hell. You chose the least offensive of the remarks, and it's still out of line.

As for toughness, I dare say Matthew has exhibited plenty of it. And as for Thomas Jefferson, Matthew has been selected for the Thomas Jefferson Student Activist award, to be given in Madison, WI this October. Have you ever done anything that put you in a position of standing against your peers like this? If not, on what basis do you lecture Matthew on the subject?

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was not questioning Matthews toughness, I was merely stating that the response he is recieving is to be expected. And yes I have stood against my peers, Only I took a lot more then death threats. I used to get in a lot of fights because people didn't agree with my views. But the difference is, I never went complained about what someone said, being words are only what you make them to be. I also was fighting uniforms before Matt and you were, at least to my knowledge. So do not misconstrue what I said, Matt has guts to do what he did, I just honestly think that everyone is making a big deal out of nothing. Is it really that terrible? Was he reprimanded? I believe the answer is yes to both questions, but how can you ask someone to apologize for an opinion? If you said something that I didn't agree with should you apologize to me?

["You belong in hell"]

I agree with what Bryan had said. The transcript clearly states "then to hell with me" not "to hell with you." Is there anything wrong with saying that you're going to hell? I say I'm going to hell all the time. I also would like to ask a question, if Matt said at the beginning all he wanted was an apology, then why are the LaClairs suing the Kearny Board of Ed? I heard that its compensation for the stress that Matt is dealing with, but isn't that to be expected? I personally harbor no ill feelings to Matthew, but did he think people were going to pat him on the back and congradulate him for doing something the kids dont want? Thomas Jefferson once said, "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle stand like a rock." Basically saying that if one were to make waves, he better have the toughness to withstand the onslaught that is to follow.