September 24, 2009

You Wonder Why We Home School?

Thank you Vince



Reason #4567 - Indoctrination


Patty pointed out, "They’re teaching plagiarism, too! I heard a lyric from Jesus Loves the Little Children in there...

They say “red, yellow, black or white are all equal in his sight”

"Jesus loves the little children
All the children of the world
Red and yellow, black and white,
All are precious in His sight.
Jesus loves the little children of the world"

So it is completely off limits to sing a song about Jesus or God but it is fully acceptable to worship a man, as long it is not God. Even sing the same songs and replace Jesus or God with [whatever you worship, other then the Creator]. Worship is worship and they have violated their own rules. Hypocrisy!! We all know what the truth is. Worship anything other then God himself.

Alex Jones said "The idea of kids being forced to worship Obama in schools across America is no longer just a chilling example of Maoist style political brainwashing – children are literally being trained to religiously worship Obama via adapted versions of Christian hymns!"

Speaking of Home School. My daughter found another good homeschooling resource - Brain Games

57 comments:

  1. Black and yellow, red and white...

    No, it's "red and yellow, black and white," which is humorous that you misstated your precious song's lyric, but the best part is your ignorance (and that of your wife, evidently; though in her defense, she didn't sit at a computer with internet access and type it out as an accusation).

    For one, you only seem to be annoyed at the 'plagiarism' regarding the children's religious tune, but not the use of The Battle Hymn of the Republic. The song at the end is sung to its tune.

    For two, and far more amusing, is your absurdly ignorant claim regarding Jesus Loves the Little Children. I'll even let a Christian site explain it to you:

    The tune was written by George Frederick Root as an 1864 Civil War tune titled “Tramp, Tramp, Tramp, the Boys are Marching.” Later the words of “Jesus Love the Little Children” were written for the tune by one of Root’s favorite lyricists, Clare Herbert Woolston.

    Of course, it's not plagiarism in any sense, in either case, unless the 'artist' (the children, or school, would collectively be considered the artist in your video) represented the music and/or lyrics as their own, when in fact they were not. Also, since both Tramp, Tramp, Tramp, the Boys are Marching and The Battle Hymn of the Republic were published before 1923, and the copyright holder in each case died over 100 years ago, they are both in the public domain.

    No plagiarism, no use without permission, nothing. If nothing else, though, you should become a relative expert in plagiarism with all the recent education and experience you've had with it.

    Find some other avenue for your reactionary zeal.

    As to the chant, or recital, or whatever you want to call it, I'd guess that the parents of the children involved were given the opportunity to hold their child(ren) out of the event -- with the speech to schoolchildren, an 'opt-out' letter came home beforehand. That being said, no such 'opt-out' paperwork has been sent home regarding the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance, so I suppose it's possible that you may have a weak point.

    Most fascinating to me, however, is that the public school system seems to have no problem assuming "under god" is an acceptable phrase to coerce schoolchildren into saying, yet when it comes to a speech geared toward encouraging children to excel in school -- the text of which was released beforehand -- and when the vast majority of that audience will be ineligible to vote until 2016 at the earliest, they are careful to include an explicit form to allow parents to remove their children from Obama's diabolical influence...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  2. I guess it depends where you look. Many claim it is Black and yellow, red and white

    Either way, your semantics makes the point even stronger.

    Are you saying that it isn't plagiarism if something is not copyrighted, does not have the ©?

    "Of course, it's not plagiarism in any sense, in either case, unless the 'artist' (the children, or school, would collectively be considered the artist in your video) represented the music and/or lyrics as their own, when in fact they were not."

    In fact they were not? Really? Any explanation or evidence of that, or is that a bare assertion?

    ReplyDelete
  3. In fact they were not? Really? Any explanation or evidence of that, or is that a bare assertion?

    Are you fucking kidding me? You mean, is there any evidence that it was plagiarism, or was that a bare assertion?

    Ass.

    There is no evidence that this was plagiarism, and in this country, one is presumed innocent, remember?

    Are you saying that it isn't plagiarism if something is not copyrighted, does not have the ©?

    It's simpler. It's not plagiarism, because it doesn't conform to the definition of plagiarism. It is in the public domain, and so it's available to be used by anyone for any purpose. Even if it weren't, however, it would still be subject to Fair Use, which can suspend copyright infringement for various applications, including educational use. You may or may not argue whether this episode is truly educational, but based on your [implicit] claim that this incident occurred in the public school system -- and the further implication that this was not a voluntary situation in which the parents were provided an option to 'opt-out' -- this does not appear to violate any use restrictions.

    Anyway, what was your point?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  4. "It is in the public domain, and so it's available to be used by anyone for any purpose."

    Complete hogwash dude.

    So then a book, mp3, or picture, in the public domain called the internet, is fair use for anyone, for any purpose, then? That is it not plagiarism?

    Plagiarism is defined as to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (a created production) without crediting the source.

    That definition that I just gave is plagiarism if I did not provide the source which is Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 9th ed, (Springfield, Ma: Merriam 1981, p. 870).

    You are wrong and your bare assertion that it was, and your name calling, is completely baseless.

    Educational use? So if a school renames their school song to "I Wanna Sex You Up" then they do not owe Color Me Badd anything?

    Come on, dude.

    It wasn't even plagiarism that was the point though. The fact that they used a Jesus song and reworded it to reflect their messiah, Obama.

    In other words they wanted the children to chant "America voted for god."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dan:

         Without getting into the copyright-violation/plagiarism mess, I would like to clarify what "public domain" means. The term "public domain" means that all copyrights on a work have expired or that the legitimate copyright holder explicitly released the work so that no copyrights are in effect. It does mean that the public can find a way to access it. (Incidentally, all works by the United States government are also public domain.)
         Plagiarism is a rather sticky issue. It is not uncommon for people to use quotes and not even know the original source. I'm sure we've all heard the line "Laugh and the world laughs with you; weep and you weep alone." But how many people could cite the source for that? (Or even identify the next line: "For the brave old earth must borrow its mirth, but has trouble enough of its own.") That is one reason why I didn't pester Dan about using Ctrl-Ins, Shift-Ins to present an argument. Most arguments are recycled and very few are explicitly cited. Still, if you are going to recycle an argument, it is a good idea to understand it well enough to defend it. (I think Dan ran into some trouble on that point.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. So then a book, mp3, or picture, in the public domain called the internet, is fair use for anyone, for any purpose, then? That is it not plagiarism?

    You're an idiot. You have no idea what "Public Domain" means, do you (did it help that I capitalized it)?

    A song played on the radio, for example, is publicly accessible, so in the sense of a domain being a 'sphere of knowledge, influence, or activity' (Merriam-Webster online), yes, media which is accessible is in the public "domain."

    Public Domain (again capitalized for your benefit) applies to media which is not technically owned, or at least that media for which no copyright holder exists. From Wikipedia:

    The public domain is a range of abstract materials — commonly referred to as intellectual property — which are not owned or controlled by anyone. The term indicates that these materials are therefore "public property", and available for anyone to use for any purpose.

    This includes not only the lyrics of a song, but the tune to which it is sung.

    Similarly, "Fair Use" (again capitalized for your benefit) provides a medium for certain groups to use copyrighted media without seeking permission from the copyright holder. Again from Wikipedia:

    Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. (emphasis preserved from original)

    So for a school to use public domain lyrics -- a specious accusation, since the 'lyric' in question was a quote of Obama -- and a public domain tune, "for any purpose," such use is almost certainly covered under one or both of Public Domain or Fair Use.

    You are wrong and your bare assertion that it was, and your name calling, is completely baseless.

    That is was plagiarism? You are asserting that it was plagiarism, based apparently on nothing more than a fucking YouTube video. The video appeared to be a rehearsal of some kind, complete with choreography, so it should come as no surprise that any required attribution isn't evident, but even if it weren't hidden somewhere on the performance's program, it would hardly be deserving of the accusation you levy.

    It wasn't even plagiarism that was the point though. The fact that they used a Jesus song and reworded it to reflect their messiah, Obama.

    You're daft. The song is not a Jesus song, it's a Civil War song. The words involved had nothing to do with the song, but were positioned as being a quote of Obama (which, it should be noted, would undoubtedly have been a quote on his part of the song you reference).

    Like I said, you may have a minor point, but you do it a disservice by making absurd accusations which are absolutely baseless, and which demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of 'public domain,' 'fair use,' and 'plagiarism.' If this video is evidence of plagiarism, then so, too, is every filmed rehearsal of any performance.

    Ass.

    The weak point is with respect to what you would describe as children being coerced into 'worshiping' Obama, but as I noted, there is nothing to indicate that the event in the video was required, and given that the speech was provided an 'opt-out,' I'd guess that an activity such as that shown in the video would also have been provided an 'opt-out,' so you would have had the opportunity to avoid any damage to the brainwashing to which you subject your children, by refusing them the opportunity to participate in a different form of brainwashing.

    In other words they wanted the children to chant "America voted for god."

    You don't like the role-reversal much, eh? Just a couple topics ago you were defending "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance, yet you're bitching about what you perceive as being coerced Obama worship.

    Try to be consistent, at least.

    Ass.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  7.      Sorry, I didn't notice a typo on my part before. It should read "It does not mean that the public can find a way to access it." I apologize for any confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Stan:
    You're an idiot. You have no idea what "Public Domain" means, do you (did it help that I capitalized it)?
     
    Forgive the man, Stan...it's apparent that Dan's been "home schooled".

    That would explain a lot of his posts, wouldn't it? Especially the evolution ones.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ray Comfort is publishing an edited "origin of Species" with an introduction by him. That book is in public domain, meaning the copyright has expired and it is perfectly legal.

    But even more important, a new study has been reported today showing that children who are spanked end up with lower IQs than those that do not.

    The article aslo links to better ways of disciplining kids.

    Sorry Dan.
    Here she is, Dan. Read it and weep.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Stan,

    I heard that two couples found out that their children were on the Video watching the news. They were appalled to see their kids. They did not know their kids were exposed to that indoctrination.

    At the very least, we cannot trust the public school system because of the indoctrination, such as this. ]

    Reynold,

    Nope you are wrong I am a product of the public school system. That is why we home school. You had it twisted. I wanted to stop the lies at my generation. I wanted to give my kids a fighting chance to know the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Froggie,

    "Ray Comfort is publishing an edited "origin of Species" with an introduction by him. That book is in public domain, meaning the copyright has expired and it is perfectly legal."

    Yea, I know. I have my copies already and I will be at the colleges November 24th to hand them out. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  12. " Dan +†+ said...
    "It is in the public domain, and so it's available to be used by anyone for any purpose."

    Complete hogwash dude.

    Well then you contradit yourself:
    "Yea, I know. I have my copies already and I will be at the colleges November 24th to hand them out."

    You claimed one thing then claimed another thing.
    You continuously expose yourself as one of low integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Froggie:

         The two claims you posted are not contradictory. (This is not, in any way, meant to suggest that Dan has never contradicted himself.) Stating that something is available to anyone for any purpose does not contradict him choosing to hand out copies of a particular rendition to draw attention to that rendition.

    ReplyDelete
  14. How is this "kids being forced to worship Obama in schools across America"?(emphasis mine, of course.

    Guess what. Most teachers are humans (except of course,according to good old Alex, for the reptilians). Some humans are douches.

    Now...Shall we all stop and go research home schooling (or any other) humans that have indoctrinated children?

    Exactly what does this video prove, except that, at most, a handful of adults are idiots?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dan, Publius,

    Apology. I must have misread something. I was in a hurry at the time. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  16. But even more important, a new study has been reported today showing that children who are spanked end up with lower IQs than those that do not.

    They needed a study to show that?! Sheesh. Isn't it obvious? Stupid children need spankings.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  17. Stating that something is available to anyone for any purpose does not contradict him choosing to hand out copies of a particular rendition to draw attention to that rendition.

    Of course you're right, Pvblivs, but I think Dale has a point here nonetheless -- Dan bitched that the use of lyrics from a song in the public domain constituted plagiarism, yet he is actively participating in precisely the same use of public domain media via Comfort's abridging of Darwin's Origin. It's an implicit contradiction, especially since Dan seems to think that claiming the rehearsal in the video is not plagiarism is a bare assertion, yet I somehow doubt he'd say anything of the sort regarding Comfort's latest ruse.

    In each case, permission was not granted from the author of the work in question, but in each case, it doesn't matter as the media in question is part of the public domain -- a fact which seems to have escaped Dan's spanked-to-double-digits IQ.

    It's slight, perhaps, but it is a contradiction, since it illustrates Dan's double-standard; he applies one set of standards against those uses of public domain media with which he agrees, and a different standard entirely against those with which he does not.

    I don't know if that was Dale's point or not, but either way, it seems to me it's a contradiction which exposes Dan's selectively reactionary style.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dan
    Reynold,

    Nope you are wrong I am a product of the public school system.

     
    Oh? Could have, and did, fool me.

    That is why we home school. You had it twisted.
     
    You're not thinking something through here; you've already been shown to be lacking in education...don't you think that you should leave it to professionals to teach your kids? From what we see here on this blog, when it comes to science and history, you're not going to be doing your kids any favours.

    Think about it...You either went to a lousy public school (or were just a lousy student), and now you, with your sub-par educational level, want to teach your kids?

    Any teacher should be shown to be knowledgeable and competent in the courses that they teach. I don't see that here from you.

    I wanted to stop the lies at my generation. I wanted to give my kids a fighting chance to know the truth.
     
    With creationism, presuppositionalism, and David Barton type history, you'll be doing the exact opposite.

    Home school success depends on the same things that public school success does: the knowledge of the teachers, access to lab facilities and the accuracy of the course materials,

    Problem is, most home schoolers I've heard of are of your type Dan...they want to make sure that their kids just believe the babble as opposed to science and history in the real world.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Stan said,
    "-- a fact which seems to have escaped Dan's spanked-to-double-digits IQ."

    ZOMG! You've coindd a new phrase.
    Bravo, Stan!

    And yes, you did iron out the contradiction I was referring to. Thanks!

    "Spanked to double digits IQ"

    Notice that Dan has not responded one word to that.
    At the average IQ of 100, five points off that is a very significant difference in what an individual can learn. Especially in the case of Dan where spanking is the norm and routine. That five points is an average. Routine spanking may produce even more loss of IQ.

    By the way, I have a new doctor and had my first appointment with her last week. She is continuing her education to become a psychiatrist. She had schedulted some extra time for this intake appointment and we had a chance to talk a bit. I asked her about the spanking issue and she said routine use of spanking as discipline is one of the worst things a parent can do for their kids. She claims it is becoming a hot button issue in the medical community and some professionals are not releasing results of clinical tests because of the deep seated and absurd Christian ethic of spanking.

    She did say that a swat on the butt for a 2-4 year old kid on rare occasion to interupt a bad behaviour is probably not harmful, but not painful either. I will agree with that.
    She told me that spanking produces neurosis far more than reported and it is humiliation and abuse at best.
    She concluded by telling me that there is no difference between spanking a child or spanking an adult. It absolutely produces

    fear and resentment tht WILL manifest itself in some way at some time in the future.

    I know that is anecdotal but it is what she said.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Froggie and Stan,

    There is a difference.

    Origin of Species has not been changed all the credit is still going to Darwin. Ray is merely stating a case at the beginning. Nothing is changed or altered in the original. No harm no foul.

    That school project "song" however, never gave credit to the original authors and it was an obvious take on a religious song. Maybe even violating the separation issue. I digress.

    It is getting a great deal of coverage though. Parents were not notified that their children would be involved in something like this. It is getting a fair amount of necessary coverage though. Eyes are opened and that was my goal. (in the school case and the Origin of species case)

    The logic of both of you is laughable at this point. Do you give credit to your education for that? If that is the case, then I have nothing to worry about. You two are easy to debunk. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Origin of Species has not been changed all the credit is still going to Darwin. Ray is merely stating a case at the beginning. Nothing is changed or altered in the original.

    Do you have evidence of this or is it a bare assertion?

    That school project "song" however, never gave credit to the original authors and it was an obvious take on a religious song.

    Do you have evidence of this or is it a bare assertion?

    Any explanation or evidence of that, or is that a bare assertion?

    Oh... That was you.

    That school project "song" however, never gave credit to the original authors and it was an obvious take on a religious song.

    Seriously this time, your statement here is bullshit. It's a video clip of an apparent rehearsal of some kind, and to cry that credit wasn't given in the course of the video is dishonest. It was not 'an obvious take on a religious song,' since a) you apparently cannot agree as to the lyrics in question, b) the 'religious song' was itself adapted from a Civil War tune, and c) the actual statement to which you so pathetically object goes as follows:

    (Boy reciting chant) He said red, yellow, black, or white, all are equal in his sight. Mmm mmm mmm. Barack Houssein Obama...

    At best, you could complain that Obama was guilty of plagiarism, but even that would be dishonest, since the song in question is in the public domain. Assuming the chant refers to an actual statement of Obama's (and since it is spoken rather than written, we don't know if it is meant as a direct quote or as a paraphrase), its use is not subject to the accusation of plagiarism -- or when you or your children sing that song, do you pause before or afterward to explicitly note the lyricist? Have you ever considered the author of the tune, the Civil War tune from which the music for your precious "religious song" was taken? Have you ever heard that song -- the Jesus version -- sung at a church, by children, with any mention whatsoever of either the lyricist or the composer?

    Would any such recital be plagiarism? Would a video of such a recital be plagiarism?

    How about this video? ZOMG plajarizm!!!1!@

    Parents were not notified that their children would be involved in something like this.

    At this point, I doubt any untainted truth can be had, with all the sensationalist spin and political fervor the incident has drawn, but if parents were not notified of this incident, as I've repeatedly said, you may have a weak point. Clearly, though, somebody filmed it, and unless the schoolchildren are carrying video equipment nowadays, I'd guess it was a parent, which would indicate that parents were both aware of and invited to the rehearsals. This is speculation, true, but it's pretty damned plausible, wouldn't you say?

    I realize you home school your children, but can you honestly imagine these kids memorizing this chant at school without ever mentioning it at home (assuming reasonably attentive parents)? Me neither. Every day I ask my kids what they did in school.

    The story is [hopefully] an isolated incident, involving a naïve teacher and/or school program, some inattentive parents, and some very opportunistic spin-doctors. Based on the hundred-and-fifty seconds of actual footage, I'd say the sky isn't actually falling.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  22. *edit -- I misspelled 'Hussein'; I apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This is absurd, Dan. It's not the tune of the song that's bothering you. Why don't you tell the truth.

    It's like the tune of the song, Happy Birth Day to You.

    Fess up Dan, what's your real gripe?

    Besides, since this was a rehearsal for an assembly that parents would attend so they weren't trying to hide anything.

    Saying shit like, "The logic of both of you is laughable at this point. Do you give credit to your education for that?" is always bravado and used to cover up your cowardly ways and hide you actual intentions.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Guys, guys...

    My main gripe I guess is that these people are taking the doctrine of Venezuela to indoctrinate the kids.

    At least in Venezuela they are aware of what is being taught and collectively are attempting to do something about it. In our schools people like this are being sneaky cockroaches. At least Chavez has the balls to tell the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dan,

    Please tell me, since our government remains a Constitutional Republic, what is wrong within that context, with some of us promoting programs that address Human Need over Corporate Greed?

    Please, tell me what is wrong with that?

    ReplyDelete
  26. It's 3:00 AM Sept. 28 in California. Are you still there, or has the brimstone already fallen?

    ReplyDelete
  27. But again, Dan, this happened under Bush. Was it Maoist then? Were Bush's people being "sneaky cockroaches"?

    Kids praising Bush

    Or is it cos he's black?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hey Dan,
    Are you observing any incoming brimstone yet? :)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Oranges- I'll put on my Dan hat, if no one minds:

    [zilchDan] If you look at earlier threads, Oranges, you will see that I have already rebuked Bush. [/zilchDan]

    Dan- it's now quarter after six, Sodom time. Have you scanned the skies?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Stan say:

    *edit -- I misspelled 'Hussein'; I apologize.

    You might call it "misspelling". I wonder what Allah calls it.

    Dan, hey:

    Still uncrisped? It's 8:15.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Still uncrisped? It's 8:15.

    I think you're off by an hour, Z -- it's currently 9:24 in California.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  32. ...or maybe I just didn't see your comment an hour ago...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well, Stan, it's now 9:30 in Sodom. You can probably see a glow in the sky off to the West, can't you?

    ReplyDelete
  34. All is quiet here in Cali but there are plenty of hours left in the day.

    What really chilled me to my bones is what he said Friday.

    And I quote (Stan)

    "Anon wrote-
    //Alls well in SF.

    BTW, You will need to have left already for Israel is you are really going there.//"

    Dani'El replied: "I'm not going by plane.
    I'll be in Israel in a flash, so no problem.
    The chariots of God are swift as lightning.
    Literally."

    What did he mean by that? I hope he is OK. I will be wondering for years on that one. I need questions answered. Dare I ask if he is going to off himself? I sure hope not. Do we call the police?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Orange,

    First welcome. Second, Bush would still be included in this garbage at the schools but I haven't heard the song. Did they sing a religious song and replaced God or Jesus with Bush? No? Then maybe not the same. Worship is the key here, not praise or cheering.

    Oh and BTW my mom is black. :7P

    ReplyDelete
  36. Today is Yom Kippur, it varies by date from year to year, like Easter. It just happens to be on the 28th this year.

    It actually straddles 2 days. It started at sunset last night and ends at sunset tonight.

    Where are you Dani'El?

    Today is my kid's b-day also. He is 3!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Did they sing a religious song and replaced God or Jesus with Bush? No? Then maybe not the same.

    Dan, I've told you repeatedly: This wasn't done in the video, either.

    They did not sing a religious song, and they did not replace god or Jesus with Obama. The relevant lyric was treated as a quote of Obama (it is unclear whether it was treated as a direct quote or as a paraphrasing), and aside from Obama's alleged statement, had nothing to do with the "religious song" in question.

    Also, as I have told you, the song the children in the video end up singing is sung to the tune of The Battle Hymn of the Republic (sans chorus), which is exactly the same situation in which Jesus Loves the Little Children is sung -- it is sung to the tune of the Civil War ditty, Tramp, Tramp, Tramp, the Boys are Marching.

    Represent the situation honestly or kindly STFU.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dare I ask if [El Dani] is going to off himself? I sure hope not. Do we call the police?

    I also hope this is not the case, and while I am concerned for his well-being, I see no reason to think self-termination will be an issue. Even if I did, however, I don't have near enough information to be helpful to the police, were I inclined to seek their assistance. What would you tell them? Look for a Messianic Jew who lives in a building with several homosexuals, some crackheads, and some drug dealers, who lives near Folsom street?

    I suppose if you have more specific identifying information, action may be more warranted, but if that's all we've got, it's a wild goose chase.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dani'El has explained a couple times that what he meant by that chariot stuff is that he would be transprted to Israel by God just before the fireworks began and that he would be assuming a position of Godly authority in Irael.

    He's not going to off himself.

    ReplyDelete
  40.      "He's not going to off himself."
         Don't bet on it. He may decide that he cannot live in a world in which his prophecy failed. He has said multiple times that he refuses to consider event the possibility that he is wrong. Can you really predict how he will face the reality?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Ovblivs,
    "Can you really predict how he will face the reality?"

    I'm certain he knew his prophecy wouldn't happen. This is his game. You'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Now I bloody remember!

    I was intending to post this.

    Brayton agrees with me and you that singing songs to anyone is bad. He points out something interesting though:

    But while they're right in their objections, they're also hypocrites. There's no need to search for historical analogs in China or the Soviet Union. All Steele had to do was look at President Bush a mere three years ago when he was being serenaded by a group of school children singing a song praising him for, of all things, his quick and effective response to Hurricane Katrina.

    How much did the people on the right complain about that?

    I suspect Dan may have, along with maybe a few people on Rapture Ready, but other than that, I'm dry.

    Nevertheless, this nonsense is nothing new to Obama and is not the end of the world, even if it should be stopped.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Shit! Oranges beat me to it.

    Ok, consider my post a reminder then.

    ReplyDelete
  44. (About daniel) Some arsehole posted something on his blog about false prophets deserving death.
    Which pisses me off.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I cannot say which is creeper children singing songs praising Obama or children singing songs praising Bush.

    Both are destructive to those kids. Praising liars cannot be a good thing for anyone.

    At least the kids can be reached now and the vial of secrecy, behind closed doors, of such things are revealed.

    Exposing the Vatican for their mass pedophilia ring, exposing Michael Jackson for the same, exposing Ted Haggard, exposing teachers for pedophilia and indoctrination are all good things.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Gorth,
    I don't see anything like that on Dani'El's blog.
    I may be missing something.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Froggie:

         It was "hyperqube" on the "last straw" thread.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I don't get it. Was this post a joke, or were you serious, Dan?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Monkey,

    "were you serious, Dan? "

    Are you serious?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Well, it's Tuesday even in slug-a-bed California, and no one is crisped, as far as I know. I hope Dani is all right, or as all right as possible, given his circumstances. I don't know any way of finding out- I don't have his address either. I'm worried too, but what can we do?

    I will agree with Pvblivs: I don't think we have enough information to make an informed guess about what's going on with Dani right now.

    Dani, if you are reading this, you will know that there are people who care about you. Please get in touch with someone. Take care, Scott

    ReplyDelete
  51. Hey Dan, it's ten in the morning! Time to get up! Do Christians always take so long to get out of bed? I've been up for thirteen hours already, since six! Why should I become a Christian, if it just makes me lazier than I already am?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Hey Zilch,

    That's no fair. Are you watching?

    No I have a routine and my kids get to have the computer in the morning. You know that homeschooling thing. Sometimes it for the 4 year old to play Portal (his favorite) He will be wring code by the time he is 12 I will guess.

    [base 64] SGUgaXMgb3VyIGxpdHRsZSBnYW1pbmcgZ2VuaXVzIA==

    I get online usually just before or after lunch. Friday I did pass a kidney stone, so I did think my world was ending soon. Maybe Dani was right after all, I thought. I never in my life had so much pain that it made me puke like I did Friday. They compare it to giving birth to a child, I now have even more respect for Patty.

    Ouch!! whew.

    ReplyDelete
  53. My brother has had a couple of kidney stones, and he said the same thing. Amazing how something so small can cause so much pain. Ouch.

    Portal is pretty cool.

    I guess no one here has heard from Dani yet. I hope he's all right.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>