NCclimber

And John Scopes should have just quit if he had issues with the curriculum.

If the reaction is 100% negative that is a red flag that something is very wrong with the administration. If the people that elected them are reacting poorly they should be concerned. There has always been a response from the opposing party, but having a "panel of speakers" as a follow up is new.

I think the point Mr. Stein was making was that ALL the coverage was negative. Has it always been the norm for news anchors to immediately critique the President's performance after his SOTUA. I seem to recall a number of addresses that the media gave a recap of the speech, without analyzing his performance. NPR is an interesting beast. Their basic top of the hour news is pretty good, although I do recall back in '04 listening to about 5 minutes of Kerry's day on the campaign trail, followed by "Today, President Bush gave a speech in Sioux Falls. Next on NPR..." I think what gives NPR the lefty label is that on their other programs, where the topic has political implications, they consistently lean left. Often, it's a matter of omitting keys points of a story. I sit there waiting for them to address that big ole fly in the ointment,... but the segment ends, giving the listener a particularly one-sided take. I still think you can get objective reporting in this country. It's just a lot harder than it used to be.

So, what you're saying is that it's near impossible to get objective reporting in this country. Instead we should trust foreigners to give an even take on what's going on here. Is that about it?

Oh please. Google the mans name and find out how much noise he can make. I did. I did a google news search for "frosty e. hardiman" and got ONE reply. A regular google search produced none. So I removed the middle initial and got seven results. WOW Indisputable FACT that he is a madman? LMAO Free speech applies to everyone. Or are you saying that only people you agree with should have a say in their children's education?

I guess you missed the part about the teacher failing to follow "school board rules that require her to seek written permission to present "controversial" materials in class." Or do you think there's no controversy around man-made global warming?

1) You said "very loud noise". This man sent out a single e-mail. The thing is... free speech is a two way street. 2) Other popular "bandwagons" - racial discrimination, gender discrimination, etc. 3) By getting an expert to craft some accurate-sounding pseudoscience, then claiming that not presenting it represents supression of free speech. Where was the expert here?

Which of the above actually apply to this situation? Do any of them?

More from the article.

Off on a tangent, I think the quality of our leaders (especially the political ones) is a reflection of our society and our society's values.

You don't need science if you have the Bible. And Clinton lied about getting a blowjob. Threads over. You can go home, now.

Obviously, she's not looking very hard.

One big difference is there are numerous Islamic societies that embrace these "barbaric" practices, whereas, I don't think there are any Christian ones. Is Amish considered "Christian"? What about Mormon? Blues, Dave Does Mormons or Amish say "convert, pray to their god or die"? "Women can not drive, can be raped, are married into servitude"?

Do you have anything more than a distorted take on the remarks of one person from three years ago to support your concern? If so, I'd love to heard about it. Here is one a little more current>http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3356103,00.html"Israel is in the greatest danger it has been in since 1967. Prior to '67, many wondered if Israel would survive. After '67, Israel seemed military dominant, despite the '73 war. I would say we are (now) back to question of survival," Gingrich said. He added that the United States could "lose two or three cities to nuclear weapons, or more than a million to biological weapons." Gingrich added that in such a scenario, "freedom as we know it will disappear, and we will become a much grimmer, much more militarized, dictatorial society." Thanks. It certainly sounds like Newt, as well as Mitt Romney, are saying this is a particular threat that we want to avoid at all costs. Not exactly the same as Amazon's claim about "the right will have its wet dream".

You seem to overlook that our system has forced the Administration to abandon a number of its suspect practices. All you seem to see is a slippery slope to Fascist Dictatorship. I have too much faith in our system to entertain such notions. The Dems control both Houses of Congress. I don't think the White House has as much power as many people fear.

One big difference is there are numerous Islamic societies that embrace these "barbaric" practices, whereas, I don't think there are any Christian ones.

I don't like it, but family coattails have gotten a huge number of people, of all parties, elected to office throughout the history of the US. Nice, long tradition going all the way back to the Adams family. But looking at the Presidents of the last 60 years, I only see two who rode family coattails to the White House.

Me, Royd. Who is the 3rd supposed right wingers? Looking at the search results for smarmy, it is fairly obvious I use it on a semi-regular basis. The fact that Royd also used is clear evidence that it's officially a Lush rimjob, ultra-rightwing, neo-con buzzword. Or at least I could see you reaching that conclusion. DURRR Oh yeah, I know I haven't heard Rush this year. I might have caught a few minutes of him in 2006... maybe.

It must have been a word Lush Rimjob used because its now been used by 3 Right Wingers this week in SC alone.. Which THREE supposed right wingers are you talking about? chirp, chirp. Who is really surprised?

Quack Quack Quack.......waddle waddle waddle. Okay. If you're incapable of seeing the site for what it is, how about directing me to where the case is made that "It will only take one major attack with ANY form of WMD or bio weapons...the right will have its wet dream just handed to them."? Where specifically is the case made?

Something like 80% of the inhabitants of Southern California live within 100 miles of the Mexican border. I wonder why. Is that like saying 80% of the people who live within 120 miles of the Mexican bordern live within 100 miles of the Mexican border? Anyway, I always considered LA part of Southern California.

It's clearly an ultra-Lefty website, with a whole bunch of information (which mostly looks like crappy analogies). I'm sure "somewhere" on that site there is some information on how we are clearly headed towards a right-wing controlled, marshall law situation. I just didn't feel up to looking through that massive pile of bullsit, to possibly find compelling bit of info.

Lovely website. I checked out the user guidelines for its forum. Here's a little gem.

Do you have anything more than a distorted take on the remarks of one person from three years ago to support your concern? If so, I'd love to heard about it.

I posted about 10 instances showing where you do in fact spout right wing rhetoric incessantly. and if it makes noises like a duck and waddles along like a duck... it aint no fucking eagle... What are you talking about? I call BULLSHIT!!! Perhaps we can get Billvon to revive it so you can prove your claim. Until then, I still maintain your claim is BULLSHIT! You've never produced a single one of my posts where I take a neocon position. More bullshit.