SuperJerk

I don't think the Border Patrol is ALLOWED to do its job correctly, so joining would be a futile gesture.

Just because one person who claims to support an ideology is a liar/hypocrite doesn't mean that everyone who claims to support said ideology is a liar/hypocrite. No offense, but if your point was that this news somehow invalidates conservatism as an ideology, you're employing some very Coulter-esque logic.

Yeah, why else would there be a South Vietnamese flag on that building at Independence and Prospect? And I've seen a Vietnamese restaurant in one part of KC, closer to downtown, north of 24. Actually, the Asian population is 2% in the district (both with the student percentage and the population percentage) I should have said "relatively large". Which makes 98%. ANYHOW... Even if KCMOSD was allowed to join with the other districts, that wouldn't change how crappy Central, Southeast, and Westport are. It'd just mean that they'd have a few other schools to pull up their average without really needing to address the fundamental problems. Westport tried to break away as a charter, and was making a little progress, but got caught in a political battle which exposed its mismanagement (as if KCMSD wasn't even more mismanaged). None of this, however, explains why kids feel like they should be able to set fires, box on the front lawn, and rush the police.

I'm pretty knowledgable about the English Civil War, if you ever feel like being lectured on THAT. You got me on the places where it acknowledges slavery as a legal institution, though. Forgot about taxes and But you were trying directly to tie the comparative number of anti-slave groups in 1826 to the events of 1861, and thus ignoring all the years in between. Sorry, but I totally agree with Lincoln's choice. Having Southerners attack a US fort is plenty of reason to call up the militia. You must be reading different historians than I did, because that's totally not the consensus of opinion I'm aware of. Nice ad populum argument, by the way. Most of those problems and disagreements were caused by slavery. That's why I used the words "was seen as". Just because the South saw him as something didn't mean that he was. In the last presidential election, Bush WAS SEEN AS favoring a draft by some, even though he explicited said he did not. Do you understand my meaning now? Yes, tariffs were an issue which helped cause the war, but not a big an issue as slavery. HOWEVER, the reason the South didn't want tarriffs is because slavery made agriculture so profitable that they didn't need tarriffs to still make money. Their "right" wasn't in danger until they rebelled. Fortunately, that right was taken away after the war.

What are you saying?? That we must destroy the Catholic Church to save the Catholic Church. -=Mike If people don't like the Catholic Church's teachings, its not that hard for them to find another church where they'd be more comfortable. That's why there's Protestants, after all. And when the Church violates its own teachings --- they don't really serve a purpose. -=Mike That's not say that the Church can't change some of its teachings to some degree without violating its basic principles. Such was the case in the Counter-Reformation, which was of great benefit to the Catholic Church. Acceptance of homosexuality would violate the Church's principles. Like I said, if people have that much problem with the Catholic Church's principles, maybe its time for them to decide whether they really even want to be Catholic or not. Just because you're born into a system of beleif doesn't mean you have to participate or believe in it. You do have free will, after all.

I bet Carter and Ford are feeling really left out right now.

Odd, because if that really was the case then I'm sure we'd hear more about the ACLU's efforts to keep State and religion separate in places like China. You guys really misinterpreted my post. I was talking about the ACLU not caring about the nationality of people who are subject to US law. Of course they're not going to try to apply the US Bill of Rights to the Chinese government. I thought that was kind of a given. I swear to God, 90% of the arguements around here are over semantics.

Eddie Izzard had a joke about this back in his concert special "Circle". He said his sidekick should be named "Altar Boy".

I finished the book. Jar Jar made a brief appearance towards the end. Damn it. Immediately after finishing the book, I began watching my STAR WARS dvd. Really alters your perception of the movie once you know what really happened during Obi-Wan and Anakin's final confrontation, why the Emperor dissolving the Imperial Senate was such a big deal, and just what the hell Obi-Wan was really up to on Tatooine all those years. Also according to the book, C3PO gets his memory wiped, but R2D2 doesn't...which explains why R2D2 seems three steps ahead of him in STAR WARS.

The Annoted Screenplays book is my source as well. The line makes sense even without Vader being Anakin because we've known from the beginning that Luke's father was a Jedi Knight. I considered that Leigh Brackett's screenplay isn't exactly George's vision, but surely she would have gotten THAT detail right if she was working from his notes. I'm of the opinion that George didn't decide that Vader was Luke's father until the second draft of Empire, and that Leia was Luke's sister until Jedi was written (which explains the whole kissing thing). I think Vader assumed Yoda was dead, and that Obi-Wan had trained Luke to be a Jedi before A New Hope.

Was Steph in a movie? 'Cause it looks to me like she's already got her "SAG" card! **rimshot**

The "American" in ACLU stands for what country the organization is located in, not what nationality the organization is only supposed to care about.

Parts of the city have large Asian populations. Thanks for the stats, BTW. This was my favorite part:

At what point do we quit blaming the school? Many of the kids at these schools laugh at any and all consequences that are put in front of them. The school didn't TEACH those kids to rush the police officer, after all.

Of course it would have. Reagan's policies only helped accelerate what would have occurred later. The metaphor I'm used to hearing from conservatives is that the Soviet Union was on the edge, and Reagan gave it the final push. Soviet Communism was destroying itself long before Reagan came onto the scene. Reagan, the Pope, Thatcher, and Gorbachev all had roles in the Soviet Union's final collapse. If go you on an issue-by-issue basis, liberalism is alive and well. The movement lacks any strong leaders that make it a politically viable alternative, however. Conservatives are also a minority, just a more vocal and more organized one. If you conducted a poll to see who identifies themselves as "liberal", "conservative", or "moderate," you'd find none of them reaches close to 50% or more of the general public. Many conservatives look to Bush's electoral win as proof of their dominace, but the reality is that so-called red states only contain 51% of the total US population.

What are you saying?? That we must destroy the Catholic Church to save the Catholic Church. -=Mike If people don't like the Catholic Church's teachings, its not that hard for them to find another church where they'd be more comfortable. That's why there's Protestants, after all.

Are there any news articles someone can link to for more information? The only legitimate complaint I can think of would be if these guys were either abusing suspected illegal immigrants, or if they are harrassing American citizens of Mexican descent, or Mexicans who are here legally. Otherwise, I don't see anything wrong with this, other than its a shame they even need to do it.

credit: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/11349777.htm Last year I taught at a school not too far from this. Administrators kept giving kids second chances, instead of expelling them.

The South could have taken even stricted measures to cut down on slave escapes. I don't know enough about teh special circumstances of Brazil to comment further. Except for the method by which slaves would be counted under the census, the Constitution is silent on the issue. Irrelevant. The Civil War didn't start until 1861. The four slave states remained in the Union probably because they're leaders hadn't lost their damn minds the way so many other Southern leaders did. Also, it would be stupid for them to side with the South if they were opposed to "the use of force against fellow Americans" since the South were the aggressors in the first battle of the war. The South wasn't forced to secede when Lincoln was elected. They chose to because they were afraid their precious "way of life" (i.e. big plantations with rich slave owners profitting from slave labor) was endangered, as Lincoln was seen as an opponent of slavery. I'm curious to know why it is you think that the South seceded, if not for fear that the North was encroaching on their "right" to own slaves.

"Episode IV" only came into play after Star Wars became a huge hit. He wrote a lot of backstory which he thought would never see the light of day until Star Wars became a huge hit. Some of that backstory was used in the prequels, and some of it was discarded. In the Star Wars novelization from 1976, a very different version of the prequels is told in the prologue. Also, in the earliest draft of Empire, Vader wasn't even Luke's father. That kind of shows how shaky George's "I had this planned all along" argument is. Judging on what I know of the new movie, its obvious he got a lot of ideas for it from stuff he did in "Return of the Jedi."

I think that's a stretch. This is true. The North was fighting to preserve the Union. However, the Union wouldn't have been in danger if it wasn't for slavery.

In order for Lincoln to know what worked in Brazil in 1884, he'd have to have precognitive psychic powers. Lincoln's been credited with many things, but that's not one of them. Lincoln's intial goal in fighting the war was not to free the slaves, but that doesn't change that the war was foguht over slavery. The South THOUGHT Lincoln's election endangered their "institution". In the end, ironically, it was their very own seccession that caused the very thing they wanted to prevent. Yes, states' rights was a cause of the war. The states' right to let people own slaves. Yes, tariffs were a cause the war. The reason the South didn't want tarriffs is because slavery made agriculture so profitable that they didn't need slavery to still make money. Grant's fundamentally inability to understand the political causes of an important issue might also explain why he made such a crappy president. Lee fought for the South because he was loyal to his home, right or wrong. edit: This kind of intelligent discourse over an interesting topic of considerable historical significance is a primary reason why I started this thread. Even though I'm actively trying to look for flaws in differing points of view, that doesn't mean I don't want to read them. I like having my views challenged by others.

World War II was the attempt to stop that happening... it was not Hitler who started the war. I'm sorry.... Did you just say that Hitler didn't start World War II? Yikes. The war started because Hitler invaded Poland after Hitler was told not to. Therefore, Hitler started World War II. Hitler did not declare war on anyone though. Legally the war was started by Britain. And Hitler had no reason to think we'd declare war on him anyway, as we'd already warned him about Austria and Poland and everywhere else he kept threatening. At this point we're just arguing symantics over what the word "started" means. I'm more interested in talking about the Civil War and how the South seceded to preserve slavery.

World War II was the attempt to stop that happening... it was not Hitler who started the war. I'm sorry.... Did you just say that Hitler didn't start World War II? Yikes. The war started because Hitler invaded Poland after Hitler was told not to. Therefore, Hitler started World War II. At this point we're just arguing symantics, though. I'm more interested in talking about the Civil War and how the South seceded to preserve slavery.

You're wrong Morrissey. The Civil War was the south's attempt to preserve slavery (which they believed was in danger with Lincoln's election), just like World War II was Hitler's attempt to racially purify Europe. I'm with Ripper on this one. Except for the problem that the general in the Civil War who was most supportive of racial equality was Robert E. Lee. -=Mike I'm sure there were German generals who also liked Jews. Doesn't change the fact that World War II was Hitler's attempt to racially purify Europe.