Bobby Jindal
- Thread starter tmare_IHB
- Start date
O
Oscar_IHB
Guest
[quote author="tmare" date=1235640114]Boy, this guy got some bad press today. He's been alluded to a few times on the boards today, so I'd like to hear some views. Aside from horribly bad acting and some crazy GOP pimping to be their version of Obama, I didn't really think he had anything bad to say. Any views?</blockquote>
He's a really smart guy... who failed to deliver lines into a camera. He skipped the GOP convention to ride out a hurricane with the rest of Louisiana so he could be on top of the emergency response. He could be the next great Conservative politician, provided he can gain support among the social conservatives. I was mildly surprised that he wasn't chosen over Palin, but I am glad he wasn't involved in any of that mess.
He's a really smart guy... who failed to deliver lines into a camera. He skipped the GOP convention to ride out a hurricane with the rest of Louisiana so he could be on top of the emergency response. He could be the next great Conservative politician, provided he can gain support among the social conservatives. I was mildly surprised that he wasn't chosen over Palin, but I am glad he wasn't involved in any of that mess.
tmare_IHB
New member
I really liked his comments about the situation with the Sheriff during the hurricanes (although it wasn't quite as eloquent and clear as it could have been). This is the same type of crap we deal with in education. Field trips outside of school like the fishing trip my husband used to take with several students and their parents have been all but eliminated due to crazy amounts of paperwork. If you ever wonder what happened to something good at school, you can bet it's due to liability and paperwork. My husband is supposed to submit a request with a few paragraphs of a rationale 6 weeks in advance with all insurance paperwork for anyone who is going to drive (including parents who are only driving their own kids). I guess it gives people jobs, but most teachers have just given up. I can definitely relate to conservative views regarding having a top heavy government and the loss of common sense.
no_vaseline_IHB
New member
<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
As further sign of the imminent Apocalypse, I'm with David Brooks.
I don't have a problem with Gov. Jindals delivery, but rather, the content of his speech. When you get David Brooks calling you a ?nihilist? this has a different value than a lump like me, but it further validates my recent contention that the current GOP is full of Mini-Hoovers, Dixicrats, and obstructionists.
I am confident Gov. Jindal can get the job done, but the party has to come up with some viable solutions for the problems they created.
FWIW, I did not watch Obama's speech.
As further sign of the imminent Apocalypse, I'm with David Brooks.
I don't have a problem with Gov. Jindals delivery, but rather, the content of his speech. When you get David Brooks calling you a ?nihilist? this has a different value than a lump like me, but it further validates my recent contention that the current GOP is full of Mini-Hoovers, Dixicrats, and obstructionists.
I am confident Gov. Jindal can get the job done, but the party has to come up with some viable solutions for the problems they created.
FWIW, I did not watch Obama's speech.
No_Such_Reality_IHB
New member
Jindal was a little rough.
The content, while technically correct, does somewhat have the reflection of Republicans holding their breath and stamping their feet due to the lack of details and relevant proposals.
Not anymore-so, however, then President Obama's glossy rhetoric and scant details.
How much of the hubbub is due to the media infatuation with Obama is probably the bigger story. The media is actually beginning to scare me with the complete free pass that Obama is having and the media gang piling on anyone raising a counter-point.
The content, while technically correct, does somewhat have the reflection of Republicans holding their breath and stamping their feet due to the lack of details and relevant proposals.
Not anymore-so, however, then President Obama's glossy rhetoric and scant details.
How much of the hubbub is due to the media infatuation with Obama is probably the bigger story. The media is actually beginning to scare me with the complete free pass that Obama is having and the media gang piling on anyone raising a counter-point.
O
Oscar_IHB
Guest
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235641803]As further sign of the imminent Apocalypse, I'm with David Brooks.
I don't have a problem with Gov. Jindals delivery, but rather, the content of his speech. When you get David Brooks calling you a ?nihilist? this has a different value than a lump like me, but it further validates my recent contention that the current GOP is full of Mini-Hoovers, Dixicrats, and obstructionists.
I am confident Gov. Jindal can get the job done, but the party has to come up with some viable solutions for the problems they created.
FWIW, I did not watch Obama's speech.</blockquote>
If there is anyone that is completely qualified to tell the Democratic Congress and it's President to go screw, it is Bobby Jindal. David Brooks is an open and unabashed Obama supporter and asking him about any opposition is like asking Al Gore about global warming; you are only going to get one viewpoint and no objectivity. Jindal is a conservative Republican in a state that has elected exactly THREE Republican governors in the last 131 years. He's not Trent Lott, he's not an obstructionist, he's just not buying the BS that has been coming out of Washington because his state has been stewing in it his entire life. If he believes that is the wrong way to spend billions of tax dollars in Louisiana, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Especially because what we have seen come from Obama is more of the same things they were pushing in the 60's and 70's.
I don't have a problem with Gov. Jindals delivery, but rather, the content of his speech. When you get David Brooks calling you a ?nihilist? this has a different value than a lump like me, but it further validates my recent contention that the current GOP is full of Mini-Hoovers, Dixicrats, and obstructionists.
I am confident Gov. Jindal can get the job done, but the party has to come up with some viable solutions for the problems they created.
FWIW, I did not watch Obama's speech.</blockquote>
If there is anyone that is completely qualified to tell the Democratic Congress and it's President to go screw, it is Bobby Jindal. David Brooks is an open and unabashed Obama supporter and asking him about any opposition is like asking Al Gore about global warming; you are only going to get one viewpoint and no objectivity. Jindal is a conservative Republican in a state that has elected exactly THREE Republican governors in the last 131 years. He's not Trent Lott, he's not an obstructionist, he's just not buying the BS that has been coming out of Washington because his state has been stewing in it his entire life. If he believes that is the wrong way to spend billions of tax dollars in Louisiana, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Especially because what we have seen come from Obama is more of the same things they were pushing in the 60's and 70's.
freedomCM_IHB
New member
I only have one piece of evidence to begin to inform my opinion of him, which is: he sold his soul (figuratively) for the GOP.
He was at harvard as a biology major, but since returning to LA and getting into politics, he has "renounced" evolution and now espouses "creationism" or whatever the xtian rejection of evidence is called these days.
He was at harvard as a biology major, but since returning to LA and getting into politics, he has "renounced" evolution and now espouses "creationism" or whatever the xtian rejection of evidence is called these days.
O
Oscar_IHB
Guest
[quote author="freedomCM" date=1235645511]I only have one piece of evidence to begin to inform my opinion of him, which is: he sold his soul (figuratively) for the GOP.
He was at harvard as a biology major, but since returning to LA and getting into politics, he has "renounced" evolution and now espouses "creationism" or whatever the xtian rejection of evidence is called these days.</blockquote>
Got a link?
He was at harvard as a biology major, but since returning to LA and getting into politics, he has "renounced" evolution and now espouses "creationism" or whatever the xtian rejection of evidence is called these days.</blockquote>
Got a link?
green_cactus_IHB
New member
[quote author="freedomCM" date=1235645511]I only have one piece of evidence to begin to inform my opinion of him, which is: he sold his soul (figuratively) for the GOP.
He was at harvard as a biology major, but since returning to LA and getting into politics, he has "renounced" evolution and now espouses "creationism" or whatever the xtian rejection of evidence is called these days.</blockquote>
He thinks "Intelligent Design" should be taught alongside the theory of evolution.
"Secondly, I don't think students learn by us withholding information from them. Some want only to teach intelligent design, some only want to teach evolution. I think both views are wrong, as a parent." [Bobby Jindal]
He also passed legislation that punishes certain sex offenders with (chemically) castration.
Good luck with that ...
He was at harvard as a biology major, but since returning to LA and getting into politics, he has "renounced" evolution and now espouses "creationism" or whatever the xtian rejection of evidence is called these days.</blockquote>
He thinks "Intelligent Design" should be taught alongside the theory of evolution.
"Secondly, I don't think students learn by us withholding information from them. Some want only to teach intelligent design, some only want to teach evolution. I think both views are wrong, as a parent." [Bobby Jindal]
He also passed legislation that punishes certain sex offenders with (chemically) castration.
Good luck with that ...
green_cactus_IHB
New member
Also the fact that he flat out lied about that Disneyland to Vegas train doesn't bode too well ... he is not setting himself up to be a serious candidate. Although he is much better in a one-on-one situation.
Is the GOP ready to swear in someone by the name of Piyush Jindal who is by their definition an "anchorbaby"??? I don't know if he can win over that fringe of the party.
Is the GOP ready to swear in someone by the name of Piyush Jindal who is by their definition an "anchorbaby"??? I don't know if he can win over that fringe of the party.
no_vaseline_IHB
New member
[quote author="Oscar" date=1235644949]David Brooks is an open and unabashed Obama supporter and asking him about any opposition is like asking Al Gore about global warming; you are only going to get one viewpoint and no objectivity. </blockquote>
David Brooks, the former editor of The Weekly Standard, an unabashed Obama supporter?
He's one of a fistful of intellectuals the GOP has left - and he speaks truth to the establishment, which is tough to swallow.
For review:
<a href="http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDZhZGY4YTBiYTU2ZmYzMmM3NDQ3N2IwMTFhMjBkZTM=">http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDZhZGY4YTBiYTU2ZmYzMmM3NDQ3N2IwMTFhMjBkZTM=</a>
<blockquote>"I saw Republicanism rise and now I've seen it fall," Brooks continued. "It's become intellectually exhausted, incurious and the party is getting narrower and narrower. So the people who used to feel that they're Republicans no longer do." </blockquote>
At least Brooks is calling a spade a spade and not making petty excuses, but I digress.
How about Charles Krauthammer? Is he an Obama apologist? Or Juan Williams? They nailed him on style points. I think they are wrong - the style doesn't matter. Just like in English class, <em>content </em>matters. The GOP needs to find better content, and focus less on packaging.
David Brooks, the former editor of The Weekly Standard, an unabashed Obama supporter?
He's one of a fistful of intellectuals the GOP has left - and he speaks truth to the establishment, which is tough to swallow.
For review:
<a href="http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDZhZGY4YTBiYTU2ZmYzMmM3NDQ3N2IwMTFhMjBkZTM=">http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDZhZGY4YTBiYTU2ZmYzMmM3NDQ3N2IwMTFhMjBkZTM=</a>
<blockquote>"I saw Republicanism rise and now I've seen it fall," Brooks continued. "It's become intellectually exhausted, incurious and the party is getting narrower and narrower. So the people who used to feel that they're Republicans no longer do." </blockquote>
At least Brooks is calling a spade a spade and not making petty excuses, but I digress.
How about Charles Krauthammer? Is he an Obama apologist? Or Juan Williams? They nailed him on style points. I think they are wrong - the style doesn't matter. Just like in English class, <em>content </em>matters. The GOP needs to find better content, and focus less on packaging.
no_vaseline_IHB
New member
[quote author="Oscar" date=1235645743][quote author="freedomCM" date=1235645511]I only have one piece of evidence to begin to inform my opinion of him, which is: he sold his soul (figuratively) for the GOP.
He was at harvard as a biology major, but since returning to LA and getting into politics, he has "renounced" evolution and now espouses "creationism" or whatever the xtian rejection of evidence is called these days.</blockquote>
Got a link?</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1214544197127670.xml&coll=1">http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1214544197127670.xml&coll=1</a>
<blockquote>Science law could set the tone for Jindal
Is it a promoter of academic freedom, or a 'Trojan horse'?Friday, June 27, 2008 By Bill BarrowCapital bureau
BATON ROUGE -- Gov. Bobby Jindal attracted national attention and strongly worded advice about how he should deal with the Louisiana Science Education Act.
Jindal ignored those calling for a veto and this week signed the law that will allow local school boards to approve supplemental materials for public school science classes as they discuss evolution, cloning and global warming.
The state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education will have the power to prohibit materials, though the bill does not spell out how state officials should go about policing local instructional practices.
</blockquote>
These guys have an agenda, but the cites are sound:
<a href="http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/10/15/222041/63">http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/10/15/222041/63</a>
As a Catholic who opposes abortion, I'm really offended by the whole concept of Intelligent Design.
He was at harvard as a biology major, but since returning to LA and getting into politics, he has "renounced" evolution and now espouses "creationism" or whatever the xtian rejection of evidence is called these days.</blockquote>
Got a link?</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1214544197127670.xml&coll=1">http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1214544197127670.xml&coll=1</a>
<blockquote>Science law could set the tone for Jindal
Is it a promoter of academic freedom, or a 'Trojan horse'?Friday, June 27, 2008 By Bill BarrowCapital bureau
BATON ROUGE -- Gov. Bobby Jindal attracted national attention and strongly worded advice about how he should deal with the Louisiana Science Education Act.
Jindal ignored those calling for a veto and this week signed the law that will allow local school boards to approve supplemental materials for public school science classes as they discuss evolution, cloning and global warming.
The state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education will have the power to prohibit materials, though the bill does not spell out how state officials should go about policing local instructional practices.
</blockquote>
These guys have an agenda, but the cites are sound:
<a href="http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/10/15/222041/63">http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/10/15/222041/63</a>
As a Catholic who opposes abortion, I'm really offended by the whole concept of Intelligent Design.
green_cactus_IHB
New member
Teaching Intelligent Design has a place - it's called Sunday School.
O
Oscar_IHB
Guest
Brooks is all about Obama, regardless of what he's writen in the past. He may be a conservative in mind, but that doesn't (and hasn't) stopped him from jumping on the Obama Love Train. And now he defends the administration.
Jindal hasn't renounced science in favor of creationism. He signed a bill that allowed local school boards some latitude in what they want in their curriculae, specifically allowing supplemental materials to be added, not replacing, to what is already taught. In the seventh grade I was taught all about the different political philosophies in the world, including monarchism, facism, and communism... should those classes have been skipped because the idealogy supporting them has proven to be BS? In the 6th grade we spent an entire semester on Greek mythology, where I learned far more about ancient Greek religion than I have since learned about any of the Christian variations. Why is it academically sound to teach 6th graders about a womanizing god like Zeus but unsound to teach them about Jesus?
And yes, I think the mainstream GOP is ready to support someone with a funny name for national office. Let's face it, the Republican party is split along two lines that seem to be at odds with each other: the rural gun-toting redneck exemplifies one part, and the big business, country club patricians. Jindal has already won over the gun-toting rednecks in his own state, so I don't think his name or skin color is going to be a problem within the GOP. The money will not support Sarah Palin at the top of the ticket, Romney's own faith works against him in comparison to Jindal, and Huckabee isn't going to run well against a sitting Governor from the South.
Jindal has flaws, but as a conservative, I want to see more of him on the national stage. If he's willing to go to the mattresses over Federally-mandated programs that go unfunded after two years of "stimulus", then I'm willing to give him my support.
Jindal hasn't renounced science in favor of creationism. He signed a bill that allowed local school boards some latitude in what they want in their curriculae, specifically allowing supplemental materials to be added, not replacing, to what is already taught. In the seventh grade I was taught all about the different political philosophies in the world, including monarchism, facism, and communism... should those classes have been skipped because the idealogy supporting them has proven to be BS? In the 6th grade we spent an entire semester on Greek mythology, where I learned far more about ancient Greek religion than I have since learned about any of the Christian variations. Why is it academically sound to teach 6th graders about a womanizing god like Zeus but unsound to teach them about Jesus?
And yes, I think the mainstream GOP is ready to support someone with a funny name for national office. Let's face it, the Republican party is split along two lines that seem to be at odds with each other: the rural gun-toting redneck exemplifies one part, and the big business, country club patricians. Jindal has already won over the gun-toting rednecks in his own state, so I don't think his name or skin color is going to be a problem within the GOP. The money will not support Sarah Palin at the top of the ticket, Romney's own faith works against him in comparison to Jindal, and Huckabee isn't going to run well against a sitting Governor from the South.
Jindal has flaws, but as a conservative, I want to see more of him on the national stage. If he's willing to go to the mattresses over Federally-mandated programs that go unfunded after two years of "stimulus", then I'm willing to give him my support.
no_vaseline_IHB
New member
[quote author="Oscar" date=1235689775]Brooks is all about Obama, regardless of what he's writen in the past. He may be a conservative in mind, but that doesn't (and hasn't) stopped him from jumping on the Obama Love Train. And now he defends the administration.
Jindal hasn't renounced science in favor of creationism. He signed a bill that allowed local school boards some latitude in what they want in their curriculae, specifically allowing supplemental materials to be added, not replacing, to what is already taught. In the seventh grade I was taught all about the different political philosophies in the world, including monarchism, facism, and communism... should those classes have been skipped because the idealogy supporting them has proven to be BS? In the 6th grade we spent an entire semester on Greek mythology, where I learned far more about ancient Greek religion than I have since learned about any of the Christian variations. Why is it academically sound to teach 6th graders about a womanizing god like Zeus but unsound to teach them about Jesus? </blockquote>
Because Jesus is a topic for religion or history or philosophy. NOT science.
Nova did a program recently on Intelligent Design. The whole program is worth watching, but they showed how in the Dover case the ID crowd had effectively tried to angle shoot the system and turned "creationism" into "intelligent design" - including early versions of textbooks where they called ID creationism.
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html</a>
The whole Intelligent Design argument is a trojan horse for cultural Conservatives to inject <em>thier</em> particular brand of religion into public schools. I don't have time to dig it up, but I find it really disturbing because this same group is the one who got religion excluded from public schools in the first place because they were worried about the influx of Catholics.
In another way, it's to see faith as an excuse for bad science. For centuries Jesuits built the fundamentals of modern science, and somehow found a way to do so without abandoning their faith.
<blockquote>And yes, I think the mainstream GOP is ready to support someone with a funny name for national office. Let's face it, the Republican party is split along two lines that seem to be at odds with each other: the rural gun-toting redneck exemplifies one part, and the big business, country club patricians. Jindal has already won over the gun-toting rednecks in his own state, so I don't think his name or skin color is going to be a problem within the GOP. The money will not support Sarah Palin at the top of the ticket, Romney's own faith works against him in comparison to Jindal, and Huckabee isn't going to run well against a sitting Governor from the South.
Jindal has flaws, but as a conservative, I want to see more of him on the national stage. If he's willing to go to the mattresses over Federally-mandated programs that go unfunded after two years of "stimulus", then I'm willing to give him my support. </blockquote>
I think Jindal is fine as an individual. The problem is the message, not the messenger.
Jindal hasn't renounced science in favor of creationism. He signed a bill that allowed local school boards some latitude in what they want in their curriculae, specifically allowing supplemental materials to be added, not replacing, to what is already taught. In the seventh grade I was taught all about the different political philosophies in the world, including monarchism, facism, and communism... should those classes have been skipped because the idealogy supporting them has proven to be BS? In the 6th grade we spent an entire semester on Greek mythology, where I learned far more about ancient Greek religion than I have since learned about any of the Christian variations. Why is it academically sound to teach 6th graders about a womanizing god like Zeus but unsound to teach them about Jesus? </blockquote>
Because Jesus is a topic for religion or history or philosophy. NOT science.
Nova did a program recently on Intelligent Design. The whole program is worth watching, but they showed how in the Dover case the ID crowd had effectively tried to angle shoot the system and turned "creationism" into "intelligent design" - including early versions of textbooks where they called ID creationism.
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html</a>
The whole Intelligent Design argument is a trojan horse for cultural Conservatives to inject <em>thier</em> particular brand of religion into public schools. I don't have time to dig it up, but I find it really disturbing because this same group is the one who got religion excluded from public schools in the first place because they were worried about the influx of Catholics.
In another way, it's to see faith as an excuse for bad science. For centuries Jesuits built the fundamentals of modern science, and somehow found a way to do so without abandoning their faith.
<blockquote>And yes, I think the mainstream GOP is ready to support someone with a funny name for national office. Let's face it, the Republican party is split along two lines that seem to be at odds with each other: the rural gun-toting redneck exemplifies one part, and the big business, country club patricians. Jindal has already won over the gun-toting rednecks in his own state, so I don't think his name or skin color is going to be a problem within the GOP. The money will not support Sarah Palin at the top of the ticket, Romney's own faith works against him in comparison to Jindal, and Huckabee isn't going to run well against a sitting Governor from the South.
Jindal has flaws, but as a conservative, I want to see more of him on the national stage. If he's willing to go to the mattresses over Federally-mandated programs that go unfunded after two years of "stimulus", then I'm willing to give him my support. </blockquote>
I think Jindal is fine as an individual. The problem is the message, not the messenger.
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1235649665]
Is the GOP ready to swear in someone by the name of Piyush Jindal who is by their definition an "anchorbaby"??? I don't know if he can win over that fringe of the party.</blockquote>
If you really want to slam Jindahl, you should be mentioning that he adopted the name "Bobby" from watching reruns of The Brady Bunch...
Is the GOP ready to swear in someone by the name of Piyush Jindal who is by their definition an "anchorbaby"??? I don't know if he can win over that fringe of the party.</blockquote>
If you really want to slam Jindahl, you should be mentioning that he adopted the name "Bobby" from watching reruns of The Brady Bunch...
trrenter_IHB
New member
[quote author="Oscar" date=1235689775]
Jindal hasn't renounced science in favor of creationism. He signed a bill that allowed local school boards some latitude in what they want in their curriculae, specifically allowing supplemental materials to be added, not replacing, to what is already taught. In the seventh grade I was taught all about the different political philosophies in the world, including monarchism, facism, and communism... should those classes have been skipped because the idealogy supporting them has proven to be BS? In the 6th grade we spent an entire semester on Greek mythology, where I learned far more about ancient Greek religion than I have since learned about any of the Christian variations. Why is it academically sound to teach 6th graders about a womanizing god like Zeus but unsound to teach them about Jesus?
</blockquote>
IMVHO the difference is one is being taught as history the other as Science. The History of Greece or Rome would be incomplete without teaching about the religious beliefs at the time. Beliefs that have obviosly been disproven.
I am a Christian by birth and I don't want my kids sitting in class learning about Jesus any more then I want them to learn about Mohamad or Vishnu. Because we are a religiously diverse country we should leave the teaching of religion to parents.
I can't imagine a Jewish family wanting their children to learn about Jesus.
Jindal hasn't renounced science in favor of creationism. He signed a bill that allowed local school boards some latitude in what they want in their curriculae, specifically allowing supplemental materials to be added, not replacing, to what is already taught. In the seventh grade I was taught all about the different political philosophies in the world, including monarchism, facism, and communism... should those classes have been skipped because the idealogy supporting them has proven to be BS? In the 6th grade we spent an entire semester on Greek mythology, where I learned far more about ancient Greek religion than I have since learned about any of the Christian variations. Why is it academically sound to teach 6th graders about a womanizing god like Zeus but unsound to teach them about Jesus?
</blockquote>
IMVHO the difference is one is being taught as history the other as Science. The History of Greece or Rome would be incomplete without teaching about the religious beliefs at the time. Beliefs that have obviosly been disproven.
I am a Christian by birth and I don't want my kids sitting in class learning about Jesus any more then I want them to learn about Mohamad or Vishnu. Because we are a religiously diverse country we should leave the teaching of religion to parents.
I can't imagine a Jewish family wanting their children to learn about Jesus.
trrenter_IHB
New member
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235652518][quote author="Oscar" date=1235644949]
How about Charles Krauthammer? Is he an Obama apologist? Or Juan Williams? They nailed him on style points. I think they are wrong - the style doesn't matter. Just like in English class, <em>content </em>matters. The GOP needs to find better content, and focus less on packaging.</blockquote>
The Republicans may be trying to duplicate the success Obaman had. Most focused on his style points and ignored almost everything else. The media ate it up like he was a Demigod Rockstar.
This could be a huge mistake because I really don't think you can outstyle Obama. Why would you go for a copy when you can have the original.
How about Charles Krauthammer? Is he an Obama apologist? Or Juan Williams? They nailed him on style points. I think they are wrong - the style doesn't matter. Just like in English class, <em>content </em>matters. The GOP needs to find better content, and focus less on packaging.</blockquote>
The Republicans may be trying to duplicate the success Obaman had. Most focused on his style points and ignored almost everything else. The media ate it up like he was a Demigod Rockstar.
This could be a huge mistake because I really don't think you can outstyle Obama. Why would you go for a copy when you can have the original.
tmare_IHB
New member
[quote author="trrenter" date=1235699329][quote author="Oscar" date=1235689775]
Jindal hasn't renounced science in favor of creationism. He signed a bill that allowed local school boards some latitude in what they want in their curriculae, specifically allowing supplemental materials to be added, not replacing, to what is already taught. In the seventh grade I was taught all about the different political philosophies in the world, including monarchism, facism, and communism... should those classes have been skipped because the idealogy supporting them has proven to be BS? In the 6th grade we spent an entire semester on Greek mythology, where I learned far more about ancient Greek religion than I have since learned about any of the Christian variations. Why is it academically sound to teach 6th graders about a womanizing god like Zeus but unsound to teach them about Jesus?
</blockquote>
IMVHO the difference is one is being taught as history the other as Science. The History of Greece or Rome would be incomplete without teaching about the religious beliefs at the time. Beliefs that have obviosly been disproven.
I am a Christian by birth and I don't want my kids sitting in class learning about Jesus any more then I want them to learn about Mohamad or Vishnu. Because we are a religiously diverse country we should leave the teaching of religion to parents.
I can't imagine a Jewish family wanting their children to learn about Jesus.</blockquote>
Religion is an integral part of history. There is no possible way anyone can study history seriously while ignoring the impact of religion.
Jindal hasn't renounced science in favor of creationism. He signed a bill that allowed local school boards some latitude in what they want in their curriculae, specifically allowing supplemental materials to be added, not replacing, to what is already taught. In the seventh grade I was taught all about the different political philosophies in the world, including monarchism, facism, and communism... should those classes have been skipped because the idealogy supporting them has proven to be BS? In the 6th grade we spent an entire semester on Greek mythology, where I learned far more about ancient Greek religion than I have since learned about any of the Christian variations. Why is it academically sound to teach 6th graders about a womanizing god like Zeus but unsound to teach them about Jesus?
</blockquote>
IMVHO the difference is one is being taught as history the other as Science. The History of Greece or Rome would be incomplete without teaching about the religious beliefs at the time. Beliefs that have obviosly been disproven.
I am a Christian by birth and I don't want my kids sitting in class learning about Jesus any more then I want them to learn about Mohamad or Vishnu. Because we are a religiously diverse country we should leave the teaching of religion to parents.
I can't imagine a Jewish family wanting their children to learn about Jesus.</blockquote>
Religion is an integral part of history. There is no possible way anyone can study history seriously while ignoring the impact of religion.