posted 12-12- 01:51 PM               

A U.K. school district has listed “lying” as a disability. Also listed as a disability is the inability to spell correctly.

Los Angeles high school administrators, not wanting to offend anyone, have taken to naming multiple valedictorians. Granada Hills High had 44 this year, Chatsworth High 31, Cleveland High 20, Monroe High 17 and North Hollywood High 10.

Authorities in Kashmir, India have banned the word “widow” in official records, saying the word adds to the woman’s depression. They say they’ll use the expression “wife of late” instead.

Because of complaints, Harrods’s Department Store in London began offering “politically correct” Nativity sets, including one for lesbian couples, with Joseph appearing as a woman.

In Japan, 37 wildlife display facilities have removed any creatures whose popular names, such as “dwarf penguin” or “blind eel” might be considered “discriminatory”.

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charged Conrail with Violating the Americans With Disabilities Act when it refused to employ as a train dispatcher a person with a heart condition that causes blackouts. Said the EEOC: “While consciousness is obviously necessary to perform train dispatcher tasks, it is not itself a job function.”

The Scottish Fire Service Fairness and Diversity Forum has urged the dropping of the word “firefighter” because it is “too aggressive.”

posted 12-12- 08:12 PM               

Even that label, communist, has the new definition of "sharing collective of like-minded enlightened non-individualistic symbiotic inhabitants".

Cult has also taken this definition (especially in Los Angeles).

Whatever.

If I continue to worry about these issues, I won't be able to achive any of my selfish goals.

But, "Better dead than Red" (probably written by a communist) still softly resonates with me. It is unfortunate that we all are becoming a darker shade of pink every day. However, I have nothing left to fight collective thought any more.

posted 12-13- 08:18 AM               

Oh boys, when you grow up (taste of 50´s-70´s)...
We live in a world with many realities. Here in Brazil, the "Situation" - equivalent at the USA "Republicans" - are a lot of Son-of-a-B... They enrich at cost the poverty of majority from people here.
We have no choice, or we take a political position more "socialist" or no way out from that social chaos. (You never see people on the streets eating trash. Or not?)
Remember, the World is not only the USA - land of opportunities (for some).

posted 12-13- 04:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry+:
Said the EEOC: “While consciousness is obviously necessary to perform train dispatcher tasks, it is not itself a job function.”

---

Since more and more commercial airliners have class 3 avionics (they can takeoff, land and fly by themselves), does that mean that inspite of my epilepsy (sorry, seizure disorder) I should be allowed to pilot a plane?

Someone should tell these people that their stupidity is showing.... (It was good for a laugh though....)

posted 12-13- 08:13 PM               

This is like saying that Conservatism is akin to Fascism. Not accurate. Not true.

posted 12-13- 08:25 PM               

As usual, you are trying to attribute the decisions and actions of a few fools to Liberal in general. In truth, what you really have is a bunch of unrelated and anecdotal headlines about stupid decisions made by stupid busy bodies in various places around the world.

You will find no Liberals here who agree with any of those decisions. What should that tell you? That your list of headlines has nothing to do with Liberalism.

posted 12-13- 09:31 PM            

would YOU tell her that her pussy stinks?

Would you just dabble around it while you hold your breath and try not to gag? Would you just wimp out and say 'I can't do this.' Would you tell her to wash that nasty thing because it stinks. Or would you not want to offend her and commence to licking?

posted 12-13- 09:53 PM               

Whats so hard about that?

I always tell people the truth, and yes peoples feelings do get hurt.

Then I ask them if they would rather I lie to them. They always say no.

posted 12-13- 11:04 PM               

Of course, but that wasn't the point of your original post. The point of your original post was to "post something that illustrates the stupidity of the left". Are you trying to convince us that most people on the Left would agree with any of the decisions cited in your post? If you are, you are deluding yourself.

posted 12-14- 03:21 AM               

I see... Liberals across America have joined together in the great campaign/conspiricy to get Liberals in positions of power in...

- Some school district in the UK
- A Los Angeles highschool
- Kashmir, India
- Harrod's Department Store Management
- A Wildlife Display Facility somewhere in Japan
- The Scottish Fire Service

>Just because you're embarrassed by the antics of your fellow liberals, don't tell me they aren't representative of the whole liberal mind set.

Using your logic, I could very well lump every Conservative out there together with the likes of Timothy McVeigh, Clayton Wagner, David Duke, The Klu Klux Klan, etc. But, I won't do that. Why? Because it's not accurate and it's not fair to say that the words and actions of those few morons speak for all Conservatives everywhere. Is it too much for us to ask you to extend the same fairness to Liberals?

Once again, there are kooks on both sides. I don't know why I have to explain this so many times.

posted 12-14- 08:40 AM            

It's a conspiracy!! A liberal conspiracy I tell you!! LOL

posted 12-14- 12:46 PM               

JT,

Get used to going over it again and again, I did. Many folks on both sides of the fence think it's just fine to characterize the extremeists on the other side as that side's norm, but then take extreme umbrage when the other side does the same to them. Just look at many of the posts above!

I am a bleeding heart liberal and I agree with nothing in the original post. All of the things in it are ridiculous. I have plenty of reasonable conservative friends who I can have reasoned political debate with. Unfortunately, the same is not true in the wider political arena, which is best characterized by misrepresentation and name calling. Combined with voter apathy, this is what's killing our political systems.

For every idiotic "liberal" thing above, one could certainly list comparable idiotic "conservative" things, the local school board banning many classic books (this one often goes both ways, conservatives offended by some, liberals offended by others) and trying to get creationism taught in public schools for a start.

posted 12-14- 12:52 PM               

Nice try JT, but we aren't talking about extremist whackos like McVeigh or the KKK who are condemned by both ends of the spectrum. These PC actions are taken by mainstream liberals in positions of power in mainsteam society - school boards, politicians, etc., with the support of their liberal constituants. Fortunately they don't always succeed: like the school board which tried to remove the "God Bless America" sign in front of a school after 9/11. The local parents rose up and defeated that one....at least for now. The liberal ACLU is going after that one, just like they have offered free legal advice to any Middle Eastern person who is questioned by the FBI. It's just not PC to them to question anyone who fits the profile of a criminal, unless that profile says you are white, then you are on your own. What a joke.

posted 12-14- 02:05 PM               

Highschool administrators, department store managers, wildlife display administrators, and Scottish firemen have constituants? Gosh, I wonder if I have constituants too?

Oh wait... the head of the EEOC. He probably has constituants. Oh wait... that office is run by a Presidential Appointee. Close enough I guess.

"Maintstream liberals" made these decisions? Hmmm... let's test that theory out. If there are any Liberals out there who agree with any of the decisions listed in Jerry's original post, please speak up now.

{sound of crickets}

posted 12-14- 02:19 PM            

Well, technically, that's a seperation of church and state issue, one of the principals that this country was founded upon. (You know, the whole Church of England tyranny in the 1700s). It doesn't have anything to do with liberalism. The school board is elected to represent the community and maybe some members of the community:

a) don't believe in God
b) believe in the seperation of church and state

Just because you don't feel that we should have 'God this' and 'God that' hanging from governmental and state buildings, doesn't make you a liberal or PC either. A lot of people fear a government that is associated with religion. (ie. The drunk driver that is currently our president)

"The liberal ACLU is going after that one, just like they have offered free legal advice to any Middle Eastern person who is questioned by the FBI."

And what's wrong with that? The government should still follow the laws of reasonable search and seizure and the 5th Amendment. Granted, we are technically in a 'war', but you can't slam the ACLU for doing their jobs. If I was an Arab-American I would pretty fucking scared if I was detained and questioned by the FBI. Is the government providing legal counsel to people that it is is detaining? It goes both ways..the FBI is trying to do it's job and so is the ACLU. Some of our rights as Americans are being slowly taken away out from under us. Tag them as liberals, but someone has to stick up for our basic rights. I personally don't agree with a lot of what the ACLU does as well, but I won't mock them for doing their job.

posted 12-14- 04:22 PM               

DanW,

Well said about the separation of church and state. As an atheist, I for one have felt excluded by "God Bless America" springing up everywhere, but I would not dream of trying to stop individuals and non-governmental organizations form displying such things. It's their way of expressing themselves and more power to them for it.

When the state does it, it's a whole other matter as you said. I have often thought that the religious community should be far more frightened of mixing religion and government. In the end, many of them are far more threatened if the state religion ends up being a sect to which they don't belong.

First you put a moment of silence in school . . .

Then you put in a generic Christian prayer (Sorry non Christians) . . .

Then you put in a generic Prodestant prayer (now the Catholics, etc. are out) . . .

Then it's a Baptist prayer, etc., etc.

People need to think a lot more before they start down such slippery slopes no matter how well intentioned their initial motives.

posted 12-14- 04:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JT:
>These PC actions are taken by mainstream liberals in positions of power in mainsteam society - school boards, politicians, etc., with the support of their liberal constituants.

Highschool administrators, department store managers, wildlife display administrators, and Scottish firemen have constituants? Gosh, I wonder if I have constituants too?

Oh wait... the head of the EEOC. He probably has constituants. Oh wait... that office is run by a Presidential Appointee. Close enough I guess.

"Maintstream liberals" made these decisions? Hmmm... let's test that theory out. If there are any Liberals out there who agree with any of the decisions listed in Jerry's original post, please speak up now.

{sound of crickets}

---

By "constituants" I mean supporters....those who put these people in charge, allow them to remain in charge and let them get away with all this thought control crap. It sure as hell didn't come from the Right, so what does that leave us JT? While you and your fellow bleeding hearts may not agree with everything they say, I sure as hell don't see any uprising among the liberals to curtail it. All the complaints are coming from the right and center. I'm not hearing you say those who make these dumb decisions should be removed.

posted 12-14- 04:56 PM               

You need to study history and the Constitution more Dan. I would think your school teacher mother would have done a better job. The principle (a principal is your mother's boss) upon which we were founded is that we can not have a state supported church, like the Church of England. There is nothing in our history nor the Constitution which says there can't be a government expression in the belief in or acknowlegement of a God. Look at your money, it says "In God We Trust". The US Congress sang "God Bless America" on the steps of the Capitol Building after 9/11...why doesn't your ACLU go after them? Each session of Congress begins with a prayer. The President of the US takes his oath of office with his hand on the bible. Why isn't any of this challenged? It's because none of it contributes to the creation of a state supported church. None of it is a government endorsement of any particular religion. That is what seperation of church and state really means.

Liberals have just interpreted it to include even a mention that there might be a God. Unless of course, if you are Muslim. Many schools in this country have set aside places for Muslim students to pray during the day as their religion requires. Why doesn't the ACLU stop this? Why is it only Christians aren't permitted to pray in school?

It doesn't have anything to do with liberalism. The school board is elected to represent the community and maybe some members of the community:

a) don't believe in God
b) believe in the seperation of church and state

The key word here is "some". Because a handfull of extremist athiests have a seizure when they see the word "God" in public, the majority who don't care one way or the other have to be denied the right of expression.

posted 12-14- 05:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanW:

And what's wrong with that? The government should still follow the laws of reasonable search and seizure and the 5th Amendment. Granted, we are technically in a 'war', but you can't slam the ACLU for doing their jobs. If I was an Arab-American I would pretty fucking scared if I was detained and questioned by the FBI. Is the government providing legal counsel to people that it is is detaining? It goes both ways..the FBI is trying to do it's job and so is the ACLU. Some of our rights as Americans are being slowly taken away out from under us. Tag them as liberals, but someone has to stick up for our basic rights. I personally don't agree with a lot of what the ACLU does as well, but I won't mock them for doing their job.

---

And just what is the ACLU's job? Why are they so hell bent on defending for free a bunch of non-citizens? Aren't there enough US citizens in need of free legal advice? We aren't talking about Arab-American's here Dan. The list of people the FBI has drawn up to question are young middle-eastern males on temporary visas who arrived here since January 2000. The exact profile of ALL of the 9/11 terrorists. Just who is the ACLU trying to protect? I didn't see them offering free legal aid to people interviewed during the Timothy McVeigh or Unibomber investigations.

Name me one right that is being taken away from "Americans" as you claim.

posted 12-14- 05:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanW:
I think you and Rush Limbaugh are the only ones complaining.

---

Maybe your mother has protected you from it. Or maybe, as a typical liberal, you don't pay any attention when normal people point out the stupidity of the liberal values you have swallowed.

Here are some more examples:

Officials in Ramsey County, Minnesota, banned red poinsettias from holiday celebrations following complaints that they were a symbol of Christianity. Instead, white poinsettias are to be used. An unknown dissident responded by placing red poinsettias in the St. Paul City Hall sometime after business hours.

After the Town Council of Kensington, Maryland voted to ban Santa Claus from the town's tree-lighting ceremony because it made two Jewish families feel excluded, dozens of men showed up at the ceremony in protest dressed in Santa costumes.

On November 27, 2001, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo, a case that will decide whether it is unconstitutional for students to be compelled to call out their grades in class, and thus be embarassed

At a city council meeting in Sacramento, California, council member Lauren Hammond castigated Robert Pacuinas, a Sacramento lawyer, for emphasizing a point by saying ``I think we should call a spade a spade.'' Hammond responded: ``You made an ethnically and racially derogatory remark and I hope you think about what you said. It is not appreciated. It is no longer a part of modern English. The phrase just isn't used in good company anymore.'' But in fact, the phrase is at least 500 years old, and refers to a digging implement. The Greek biographer Plutarch used a similar expression.

The British Labor government authorized a pamphlet urging teachers to ban the children's game of musical chairs on the grounds that it promotes aggression and allows the biggest and strongest children to win. The booklet's author, Sue Finch, says "Musical statutes is better because everyone wins."

If Rush and I are the only ones complaining why are there so many sources of examples? There are a lot of others who think they're crazy enough to publish.

posted 12-14- 08:34 PM               

Here in Portland,OR military spokesmen and recruiters are not allowed on school campuses to explain the job and career opportunities in the military because the liberal city fathers, like our previous President, "disdain" the military. If that's not PC mind control/censorship, what is?

posted 12-14- 10:56 PM               

I would highly recommend that if you really want to learn something, keep an eye on all of the things you cite. You will almost certainly see that they are recognized for the idiocy they are by everyone, liberal and conservative alike, and quickly wane.

Case in point, one of the oldest "those crazy liberals" items, the woman who burned herself with McDonalds coffee and sued receiving millions in compensation. We've all heard it I'm sure. Anyone who actually delved into the case found out that it was a lot more complicated than it appeared on the surface and that very quickly in the process, the damages were drastically reduced.

However, the later part of my previous paragraph serves no conservative political purpose, so you don't hear about it.

Most of us on this board live in what are technically defined as LIBERAL democracies. We would all do well to remember that and not dismiss the other sides viewpoint out of hand.

Bye!

posted 12-15- 01:22 AM               

What I don't understand is, if you and JT and other liberals recognize this PC crap for what it is, why do you keep supporting the liberal establishment which makes these dumb rules of behavior? Can't you find enough liberals with common sense?

posted 12-15- 01:02 PM            

Still a goon. You can't stereotype me as a liberal just because I think you are a paranoid dumbshit hell bent to spread your message on how bad PC is in today's world. Duh! PC is very bad, but few people give a flying rat's ass about it.

Furthermore, I have just finished studying history and the Constitution dumbass. And yes, I know how Christianity is intertwined with our government. There is an influence of religion in almost all governments in the world. Yes, you are correct about STATE SUPPORTED church. But, isn't hanging a 'God Bless America' sign in front of a fucking school pretty close to being STATE SUPPORTED? I could care less if my school or my children's school had school prayer or hung banners saying 'God Bless America' on the front of it. But apparently some do, and they pay school taxes and don't want their taxes going to teach Christian values, so they took the shit down.

Now answer this. I specifically remember you and the rest of the Limbaughs slamming our schools for being so liberal and for teachers being lazy, unionized pieces of shit. But, now, they seem to be the victims of a DIFFERENT liberal conspiracy aimed at not promoting patriotism and western Christian values. According to you, a school isn't supposed to teach values. But now they can. DO you smell the hypocrisy of your post? Are schools liberal or not?

"Why doesn't the ACLU stop this? Why is it only Christians aren't permitted to pray in school?"

You can pray wherever you want...that's freedom of religion. Setting aside class time to pray is separation of church and state. As far as praying on school grounds, well, since congress does it, then I guess that's OK too. Again, it should be another 'who gives a shit' meaningless issue. You go to school to learn, not to pray. If you want to pray, then fuck it, give them 15 minutes after lunch to pray while the rest of the kids are smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. Gee, aren't I the liberal?

"Because a handful of extremist atheists have a seizure when they see the word "God" in public, the majority who don't care one way or the other have to be denied the right of expression."

Right. If they majority doesn't care, then why are they being denied their rights? Its popular sovereignty in it's finest. (2 points if you can name the piece of legislation that led to the creation of that term - hint, it was before the civil war)

"And just what is the ACLU's job?”
www.aclu.org

'The ACLU's mission is to fight civil liberties violations wherever and whenever they occur.'

There, straight for the horse’s mouth. See, I could give a shit less about the ACLU. You, on the other hand, in your bomb shelter, seem to be extremely scared of this non-profit organization. I used it to counter your silly conspiracy theory. So what if they want to help foreigners. Should we round up and arrest all non-native Arabs and deport them or jail them just because a few of them slammed airliners into a building? Is that REALLY what you are trying to say in your second post? That we should not allow ANY Arabs into this country? Are you THAT paranoid?

"Name me one right that is being taken away from "Americans" as you claim."

Oh man...lol. Do a search of USA-Patriot Act. 'Nuff said. Ashcroft is trying to give the FBI a blank check on surveillance capabilities. But that's only against liberals and not conservative republicans.

"Maybe your mother has protected you from it. "

Awwww, are we getting personal again? She died a long time ago.

"Or maybe, as a typical liberal, you don't pay any attention when normal people point out the stupidity of the liberal values you have swallowed."

Bzzz...wrong.
1) Define 'typical' liberal. - You stereotype liberals just as I stereotype conservatives - just that I have the balls to admit it, and you live in denial.
2) As I stated before, I'm not a liberal. I just can't stand ultra-conservative dickwads like you that want to return to a racist-filled 1950's era. Remember, I wanted to nuke something on Sept 12th. Did you?
3) Ok, so where are all these 'normal' people that are complaining? All I hear is you stamping your feet like a whiney little bitch. Why haven't the masses mobilized to stomp this evil PC phenomenon? Could it be they are just too busy worrying about keeping their jobs and going about their daily lives?

Ok, big deal. You pointed out some examples. Yippee. Now let’s go on a crusade to shove Santa Claus and God down everyone's throat because it's the right thing to do.

"Also, here in Portland, the same liberal politicians refuse to let the police department help the FBI in questioning Arab non-citizens. They say it violates a state law against racial profiling even though both the State Attorney General (a Democrat) and the Multnomah County Counsel (also a Democrat) say it doesn't."

Bingo! Caught you. I saw this story. It's the Portland police chief that said he would not cooperate with the FBI because he thinks its racial profiling, and he is black. Please report the story correctly. 'Liberal politician' and black police chief are two very different people (well, maybe not to a blind idiot like yourself).

"What I don't understand is, if you and JT and other liberals recognize this PC crap for what it is, why do you keep supporting the liberal establishment which makes these dumb rules of behavior? Can't you find enough liberals with common sense?"

Uh what? So liberals can see through the stupidity of PC, but they in turn create it? Do you even know what you just said? You seriously need to work on your stereotyping skills. You act like there are only two sides to anything.....take some time to think that a lot of people actually THINK for themselves and don't live their lives the way Rush tells them to.

See, it all goes back to the smelly pussy theory. Some people will eat it, some won't. Some will tell her to wash it, some won't. Most are happy just to have a pussy to eat.

Like you said, "It's like the most important thing is that people "feel" good". Of course it is. Everyone wants to feel good. PC is making sure you don't offend other people. So you are concerned with other people’s feelings. In a weird way, your conservative argument is the same. You aren't content with just your feelings, you want to control how other people feel as well. PC and your conservative views go hand in hand. If people would just step back and worry about their own shitty lives rather than controlling the lives of others, we would be a lot better of. See, I'm anti-PC as well. I don't care about others feelings that much that I limit what I say or do. If her pussy stinks, then she needs to wash it. Maybe it would help if we all stepped back and told each other to fuck off.

So Fuck off.

posted 12-15- 01:04 PM            

Scattershot Intelligence Wiretaps
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution requires that search warrants specify the place to be searched. This provides an important privacy protection. It prevents abuses such as random searches of the homes of innocent persons based on a warrant obtained to search the home of another. In the context of electronic surveillance, the specificity requirement of the Fourth Amendment means that law enforcement officers applying for a court order must specify the phone they want to tap.

In 1986, Congress amended the wiretapping law that applies in criminal cases to allow for "roving wiretaps." If law enforcement agents could prove to a judge that a person was changing telephones for the purpose of thwarting a tap of telephone lines or Internet communications specified in the order, they could obtain a "roving" wiretap that specifies a person to be tapped, not a particular telephone. In 1998, Congress relaxed the standards for roving wiretaps in criminal cases by allowing such surveillance when the target's conduct in changing telephones or facilities has the effect of thwarting the tap -- a much looser standard than the purposeful thwarting then required by the statute. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether roving wiretaps violate the Fourth Amendment.

A roving wiretap means that law enforcement agents can listen in on any phone the target might use because he is nearby. When the target of a roving wiretap order enters another person's home, law enforcement agents can tap the homeowner's telephone. Congress attempted to lessen the possibility that law enforcement officers executing a roving wiretap would intercept the conversations of innocent persons. It required that before roving surveillance of a particular telephone line could commence, law enforcement officers must ascertain that the target is actually using the line. 18 U.S.C. 2518(12).

Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act would extend roving wiretap authority to "intelligence" wiretaps authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. These wiretaps pose a greater challenge to privacy because they are authorized secretly without a showing of probable cause of crime. However, while Section 206 extends power to engage in roving wiretaps to the intelligence realm, it does not also require that law enforcement agents must first ascertain that the target is actually using the phone to be tapped. This Section represents a broad expansion of power without building in a necessary privacy protection. It means, for example, that if a terrorist was using the Internet connection at a public library and law enforcement was using a FISA wiretap order to monitor his Internet communications, it might continue to monitor all Internet communications at that site after the terrorist left and was no longer using the computer. Surveillance could remain in place, and innocent users would have their privacy invaded.

posted 12-15- 06:37 PM               

1. "Bingo!" You did NOT catch me. You just illustrated how dumb you are and how little attention you pay to the facts. The police chief of Portland is NOT black. You can't even get the most basic facts correct.

2. Nowhere in my post did I mention Christianity. I only mentioned that a belief in God by Government as being acceptable within our Constitution. So why are you mixing Christianity in there. Is your liberal anti-Christian bias showing there Taliban Dan? You say that "God Bless America" is teaching Christian values? Hate to tell you Dan, but it's not just Christians who believe in God. Seperation of church and state refers to an organized religion, like Christianity or Judeism or Islam...not in a generic belief in a supreme being. If the school sign, or our coins, or Congress, said "Jesus Bless America" it would be unconstitutional and illegal.

3. When did I ever say that schools should be teaching western Christain values as you claim I did? Been smoking that Texas loco weed again?

4. "You can pray where ever you want"? Maybe Texas schools allow it, but not on the West Coast....unless you're Muslim that is.

5. No I'm not that paranoid, but evidently you are. How do you extrapolate my question about helping foreigners who match a criminal profile but not offering the same help to US citizens, into deporting all Arabs and closing the borders to them? Why don't you try reading what I write rather than what you imagine I'm thinking. Your puny brain is incapable of thinking at the same level as mine anyway so why try? Read my lips, not my mind.

6. I don't blame you for denying that you are a liberal. I'd be embarrassed to admit it also.

7. If you are as anti-PC as you claim, why did you spend so much time trying to debunk my position?