Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Vladimir Lenin meets MSNBC & your local University « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20089
Online
#15 : April 09, 2013, 02:37:06 PM

No - these are not OUR children.  They are the children of their parents who are influenced by others.  The family unit is a  subset of an overall society that has rules and mores - hopefully

No - whole communities do not own the family's children.  The children are members of a family, and again the family unit is a subset of an overall society.

Breaking up the family unit to create ownership of a child via a communal setting is inconsistent with the family unit. 

As for what Ms. Clinton offered - I believe she was establishing contributions a "village" makes toward the development of a family's children - rather than ownership. jmvho

so was the professor. It's highlighted in green.  I think your comments above are right on, but they have little or nothing to do with the point the professor was making, even if not well made.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20089
Online
#16 : April 09, 2013, 02:50:22 PM

Part of the problem with having a VERY PARTISAN political system dominated by loud voices on the fringe is that those loud voices NEED issues like this one to further their own agenda (relevance, survival, profits etc) and so the LOUD VOICES become the reality, particularly with a society that relies very heavily on second hand summaries of the news.  Here's a perfect example of a LOUD VOICE changing the reality further his own agenda:

"LIMBAUGH:
You need your yard mowed, what do you do? You go knock on the door down the street and say, "Your kid that you don't own, I do today for the next hour. Your kid's gonna mow my yard, and then after that my trash needs taking out, and after that I need somebody to go to the grocery store for me. My kid's tied up, so I'm claiming your kid." How does this work? What is the practical application? What she is saying, Melissa Harris-Perry, what she is saying here is as old as communist genocide. But, the fact that it is said in America on a cable news channel, and is considered fairly benign is what has changed.  What's changed is that people believe this. This isn't that big a deal anymore. That's what's changed, folks."


Come on people . . . I can relate to many of the ideas discussed by Limbaugh, but if you cant see this ^^^ fear mongering as misplaced, self-serving nonsense . . . it might be time to take a step back.
: April 09, 2013, 02:53:04 PM VinBucFan

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7091
Offline
#17 : April 09, 2013, 03:00:34 PM

No - these are not OUR children.  They are the children of their parents who are influenced by others.  The family unit is a  subset of an overall society that has rules and mores - hopefully

No - whole communities do not own the family's children.  The children are members of a family, and again the family unit is a subset of an overall society.

Breaking up the family unit to create ownership of a child via a communal setting is inconsistent with the family unit. 

As for what Ms. Clinton offered - I believe she was establishing contributions a "village" makes toward the development of a family's children - rather than ownership. jmvho

so was the professor. It's highlighted in green.  I think your comments above are right on, but they have little or nothing to do with the point the professor was making, even if not well made.

The scary thing is Vin that she was talking in terms of the collective and not the community. Again, it could all be a poor choice of words as CBW says, but it demonstrates a mind set and we have already seen how this Govt will behave for the "common good."

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#18 : April 09, 2013, 03:16:24 PM

No - these are not OUR children.  They are the children of their parents who are influenced by others.  The family unit is a  subset of an overall society that has rules and mores - hopefully

No - whole communities do not own the family's children.  The children are members of a family, and again the family unit is a subset of an overall society.

Breaking up the family unit to create ownership of a child via a communal setting is inconsistent with the family unit. 

As for what Ms. Clinton offered - I believe she was establishing contributions a "village" makes toward the development of a family's children - rather than ownership. jmvho

so was the professor. It's highlighted in green.  I think your comments above are right on, but they have little or nothing to do with the point the professor was making, even if not well made.

The scary thing is Vin that she was talking in terms of the collective and not the community. Again, it could all be a poor choice of words as CBW says, but it demonstrates a mind set and we have already seen how this Govt will behave for the "common good."

All a "collective" is is a group of entities that are motivated by a common issue or interest, or work together on a specific project to achieve a common goal. When referring to a specific project, i.e. public education, the use of the word collective is more accurate than "community", because a community is simply a group of people living in close proximity to one another or share a common culture or heritage. A community of people may not necessarily be working towards a common goal, but a collective denotes a group of individuals working towards a common goal. You guys sure do scare easily. The cold war is over, fellas.


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46214
Offline
#19 : April 09, 2013, 03:42:20 PM

No - these are not OUR children.  They are the children of their parents who are influenced by others.  The family unit is a  subset of an overall society that has rules and mores - hopefully

No - whole communities do not own the family's children.  The children are members of a family, and again the family unit is a subset of an overall society.

Breaking up the family unit to create ownership of a child via a communal setting is inconsistent with the family unit. 

As for what Ms. Clinton offered - I believe she was establishing contributions a "village" makes toward the development of a family's children - rather than ownership. jmvho

so was the professor. It's highlighted in green.  I think your comments above are right on, but they have little or nothing to do with the point the professor was making, even if not well made.
One owns - the other contributes.  Poor selection of words - each reader will decide.  Poor timing if a misstatement - oh yea...

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31614
Offline
#20 : April 09, 2013, 03:52:15 PM

I completely disagree with her position on schools, but it's odd the way her comments are being  characterized. Her comments are basically no different than "it takes a village .."   She's discussing community responsibility not community ownership.

In which case for a Political Science Professor she sucks at communication.

"We need to get away from the private notion that kids belong to their parents or their family"

Really? Just how are we supposed to interpret that? That is ownership pure and simple.

Poor choice of words, but the meaning of her statement is pretty clear. She is basically saying that society as a whole has a stake in producing educated, and well adjusted children, not just the child's parents, because society as a whole will either see the benefits or the repercussions of that investment, or lack thereof.

I agree with her.  We need more influence by the public school system and less interaction with the parents.


CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20089
Online
#21 : April 09, 2013, 04:00:05 PM

No - these are not OUR children.  They are the children of their parents who are influenced by others.  The family unit is a  subset of an overall society that has rules and mores - hopefully

No - whole communities do not own the family's children.  The children are members of a family, and again the family unit is a subset of an overall society.

Breaking up the family unit to create ownership of a child via a communal setting is inconsistent with the family unit. 

As for what Ms. Clinton offered - I believe she was establishing contributions a "village" makes toward the development of a family's children - rather than ownership. jmvho

so was the professor. It's highlighted in green.  I think your comments above are right on, but they have little or nothing to do with the point the professor was making, even if not well made.

The scary thing is Vin that she was talking in terms of the collective and not the community. Again, it could all be a poor choice of words as CBW says, but it demonstrates a mind set and we have already seen how this Govt will behave for the "common good."

All a "collective" is is a group of entities that are motivated by a common issue or interest, or work together on a specific project to achieve a common goal. When referring to a specific project, i.e. public education, the use of the word collective is more accurate than "community", because a community is simply a group of people living in close proximity to one another or share a common culture or heritage. A community of people may not necessarily be working towards a common goal, but a collective denotes a group of individuals working towards a common goal. You guys sure do scare easily. The cold war is over, fellas.

Not be outdone by Rush Limbaugh ...

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20089
Online
#22 : April 09, 2013, 04:02:23 PM

No - these are not OUR children.  They are the children of their parents who are influenced by others.  The family unit is a  subset of an overall society that has rules and mores - hopefully

No - whole communities do not own the family's children.  The children are members of a family, and again the family unit is a subset of an overall society.

Breaking up the family unit to create ownership of a child via a communal setting is inconsistent with the family unit. 

As for what Ms. Clinton offered - I believe she was establishing contributions a "village" makes toward the development of a family's children - rather than ownership. jmvho

so was the professor. It's highlighted in green.  I think your comments above are right on, but they have little or nothing to do with the point the professor was making, even if not well made.
One owns - the other contributes.  Poor selection of words - each reader will decide.  Poor timing if a misstatement - oh yea...

Again, I agree with your thoughts, including the poor choice of "collective," we only disagree on the reading in total

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20089
Online
#23 : April 09, 2013, 04:03:38 PM

I completely disagree with her position on schools, but it's odd the way her comments are being  characterized. Her comments are basically no different than "it takes a village .."   She's discussing community responsibility not community ownership.

In which case for a Political Science Professor she sucks at communication.

"We need to get away from the private notion that kids belong to their parents or their family"

Really? Just how are we supposed to interpret that? That is ownership pure and simple.

Poor choice of words, but the meaning of her statement is pretty clear. She is basically saying that society as a whole has a stake in producing educated, and well adjusted children, not just the child's parents, because society as a whole will either see the benefits or the repercussions of that investment, or lack thereof.

I agree with her.  We need more influence by the public school system and less interaction with the parents.

Kind if your specialty ... Arguing against things never said or typed.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#24 : April 09, 2013, 04:46:59 PM

No - these are not OUR children.  They are the children of their parents who are influenced by others.  The family unit is a  subset of an overall society that has rules and mores - hopefully

No - whole communities do not own the family's children.  The children are members of a family, and again the family unit is a subset of an overall society.

Breaking up the family unit to create ownership of a child via a communal setting is inconsistent with the family unit. 

As for what Ms. Clinton offered - I believe she was establishing contributions a "village" makes toward the development of a family's children - rather than ownership. jmvho

so was the professor. It's highlighted in green.  I think your comments above are right on, but they have little or nothing to do with the point the professor was making, even if not well made.

The scary thing is Vin that she was talking in terms of the collective and not the community. Again, it could all be a poor choice of words as CBW says, but it demonstrates a mind set and we have already seen how this Govt will behave for the "common good."

All a "collective" is is a group of entities that are motivated by a common issue or interest, or work together on a specific project to achieve a common goal. When referring to a specific project, i.e. public education, the use of the word collective is more accurate than "community", because a community is simply a group of people living in close proximity to one another or share a common culture or heritage. A community of people may not necessarily be working towards a common goal, but a collective denotes a group of individuals working towards a common goal. You guys sure do scare easily. The cold war is over, fellas.

Not be outdone by Rush Limbaugh ...

Explain how my statements are in any way akin to Limbaugh's, Vin. I'd be interested in seeing you attempt it. This is me handing you a shovel, BTW. You gonna pick it up? Of course you will...


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7091
Offline
#25 : April 09, 2013, 05:11:03 PM

No - these are not OUR children.  They are the children of their parents who are influenced by others.  The family unit is a  subset of an overall society that has rules and mores - hopefully

No - whole communities do not own the family's children.  The children are members of a family, and again the family unit is a subset of an overall society.

Breaking up the family unit to create ownership of a child via a communal setting is inconsistent with the family unit. 

As for what Ms. Clinton offered - I believe she was establishing contributions a "village" makes toward the development of a family's children - rather than ownership. jmvho

so was the professor. It's highlighted in green.  I think your comments above are right on, but they have little or nothing to do with the point the professor was making, even if not well made.

The scary thing is Vin that she was talking in terms of the collective and not the community. Again, it could all be a poor choice of words as CBW says, but it demonstrates a mind set and we have already seen how this Govt will behave for the "common good."

All a "collective" is is a group of entities that are motivated by a common issue or interest, or work together on a specific project to achieve a common goal. When referring to a specific project, i.e. public education, the use of the word collective is more accurate than "community", because a community is simply a group of people living in close proximity to one another or share a common culture or heritage. A community of people may not necessarily be working towards a common goal, but a collective denotes a group of individuals working towards a common goal. You guys sure do scare easily. The cold war is over, fellas.

I think there is a difference between "a" collective and "the" collective. You can argue she meant "a", but she emphasize the word "the". Damn, I'm sounding like Bill Clinton now.

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20089
Online
#26 : April 09, 2013, 05:18:11 PM

No - these are not OUR children.  They are the children of their parents who are influenced by others.  The family unit is a  subset of an overall society that has rules and mores - hopefully

No - whole communities do not own the family's children.  The children are members of a family, and again the family unit is a subset of an overall society.

Breaking up the family unit to create ownership of a child via a communal setting is inconsistent with the family unit. 

As for what Ms. Clinton offered - I believe she was establishing contributions a "village" makes toward the development of a family's children - rather than ownership. jmvho

so was the professor. It's highlighted in green.  I think your comments above are right on, but they have little or nothing to do with the point the professor was making, even if not well made.

The scary thing is Vin that she was talking in terms of the collective and not the community. Again, it could all be a poor choice of words as CBW says, but it demonstrates a mind set and we have already seen how this Govt will behave for the "common good."

All a "collective" is is a group of entities that are motivated by a common issue or interest, or work together on a specific project to achieve a common goal. When referring to a specific project, i.e. public education, the use of the word collective is more accurate than "community", because a community is simply a group of people living in close proximity to one another or share a common culture or heritage. A community of people may not necessarily be working towards a common goal, but a collective denotes a group of individuals working towards a common goal. You guys sure do scare easily. The cold war is over, fellas.

Not be outdone by Rush Limbaugh ...

Explain how my statements are in any way akin to Limbaugh's, Vin. I'd be interested in seeing you attempt it. This is me handing you a shovel, BTW. You gonna pick it up? Of course you will...

Your latest statement is not on the level of Limbaugh - although you couldn't resist the "scare easily" and "cold war" comment.  But that wasn't the point of my comment. My point was that you are the functional equivalent of Limbaugh, meaning you are someone way out on the fringe, hyper partisan (could not emphasize "hyper" enough) and you place your partisan credentials over honesty sometimes (just like Limbaugh).

The country needs less of people like you and Limbaugh. 

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

Cyrus

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2979
Online
#27 : April 09, 2013, 06:53:38 PM

For the most part an intelligent group of people jumping like puppets on a string. Some of you guys, especially those of you that gripe about the media, are invariably the ones that fall for this stuff over and over again. These kind of threads and reactions always leave me shaking my head.

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17497
Offline
#28 : April 09, 2013, 07:07:36 PM

CBW , the communist Rush Limbaugh.....yeah I can see that.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

Cyrus

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2979
Online
#29 : April 09, 2013, 07:12:04 PM

I see Donald Penn typed out a few vague words on Twitter this afternoon and predictably Bucs fans were certain that Revis was on a non-stop flight to Tampa.

Some people will fall for any B.S. that comes down the pike.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Vladimir Lenin meets MSNBC & your local University « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools