Wrath of Dagon

They haven't gone anywhere, but they succeeded in being a big threat to world peace. They lead us by the nose while we dance to their fiddle, and they accomplished keeping themselves in power this long, while continually humiliating the US.

"In the opinion of some" refers to almost all agencies being compromised. That many were compromised isn't in question, as the examples show. Edit: And the "some" they refer to are historians, not some random kooks.

The discrepancy was you saying the infiltration of the government was negligible contrasted with the pervasive infiltration in the quotes. Edit: So from that, hundreds may not have been unreasonable, and of course McCarthy had no knowledge of Venona, so he was probably speculating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_papers

I love it how Calax makes an argument, then immediately contradicts himself. Yes, Slaughterhouse Five is usually read in the English class, so what? Also constant strawmanning, Intelligent Design is not part of the Texas curriculum, so what does it have to do with anything?

Nationally known for being extremely liberal. Fine, you trust your sources and I'll trust mine. And what's wrong with eliminating liberal slant? All true.

The media lies I'm seeing are really frustrating, you know they do that all the time but it's still shocking to come across actual examples. I found the proposed curriculum on line: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/social/HS_TEKS_1stRdg.pdf You can search for Jefferson for example. The links to other grades are here: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=3643

J'accuse! Certainly, and I've yet to see evidence that the new curriculum says anything to the contrary.

How is that in their best interest, and how would that give them leverage? We have to rely on them to restrain their mad dog. It wouldn't be very politic of China to threaten us with nuclear weapons, but NK can as a proxy. Enoch already explained why collapse of NK would cause problems for China, but more importantly they don't want the Koreas reunited under the South Korean system as that would be a challenge to Chinese hegemony in the region.

True, but his philosophy was altered to omit his passionate support of the separation of church and state. Do you have any evidence for this? Sure. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0031700560.html ...The curriculum plays down the role of Thomas Jefferson among the founding fathers, questions the separation of church and state, and claims that the U.S. government was infiltrated by Communists during the Cold War...Discussions ranged from whether President Reagan should get more attention (yes), whether hip-hop should be included as part of lessons on American culture (no), and whether President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis's inaugural address should be studied alongside Abraham Lincoln's (yes). ...Also contentious were changes that asserted Christian faith of the founding fathers. Historians say the founding fathers had a variety of approaches to religion and faith; some, like Jefferson, were quite secular... This is Washington Post's slant on it, with precious few specific examples. I already said the only change to Thomas Jefferson was in one single sentence listing enlightnment philosophers in the world (not American) history curriculum. When the main stream media kicks up their propaganda, they repeat each other like an echo chamber, regardless of the facts. And US government certainly was infiltrated by the Communists, like Alger Hiss. For a secular nation, the founders sure used the word "God" a lot. And again, what evidence are you basing this on? Btw, the final curriculum hasn't been adopted yet, they're still holding public hearings. We were not a nation "forged under God" until the mid-1950's, during McCarthy's reign, when congress tossed away more than 150 years of history by removing "E Pluribus Unum" (from many one) from our currency and replacing it with "In God We Trust." Those same God-loving folk decided that our original Pledge of Alligiance wasn't Christian enough, so they added the "Under God" to it at that time. I doubt the kids in Texas will ever learn that in school, however. No, the changes haven't passed yet but they are expected to. The conservatives still have the majority vote. It funny that they're so secular they began the Declaration of Independence (written by Jefferson): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[71] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Whether Jefferson was secular is very debatable, he certainly invoked God many times and considered himself a Unitarian. E Pluribus Unum is still on all the coins btw.

China has their own agenda, right now they consider it in their best interests to support NK, not in the least because it gives them leverage over the US.

I think he just has a hardon for you. This is the second thread in three days where his only contribution seems to be to call you stupid. That wasn't me.

I suggest you read up on deism before you make yourself look even more stupid. From wikipedia. How is this not a belief in God? And you're calling me stupid? You're one of the biggest, most ignorant idiots on this forum.

Even if that was true, a deist still believes in God, no? And how can the use of the word "God" be figurative exactly?

Not sure what you guys are basing that on, China is still NK's patron and the only thing keeping them afloat. No way they could get away with all their crap if it wasn't for China.

Sukov means he's a son of a bitch.

True, but that alone does not legitimize a war against them. I disagree. I believe we have a moral obligation to act and remove a regime in instances where a people are brutally oppressed. North Korea is a complex case. It's not immediately evident how we could act while minimising loss of life, but action is certainly necessary. They're under Chinese protection, and even without that casualties would be staggering, especially on the North Korean side. NK knows war is out of the question, unless they launch a full scale assault on SK.

True, but his philosophy was altered to omit his passionate support of the separation of church and state. Do you have any evidence for this? For a secular nation, the founders sure used the word "God" a lot. And again, what evidence are you basing this on? Btw, the final curriculum hasn't been adopted yet, they're still holding public hearings.

Time to cut off all aid and communication with those lunatics.

We already had a thread on this, and I would suggest the Guardian is not the most objective source on this kind of subject. For example the "sidelining of Thomas Jefferson" is a lie, he was taken out of one sentence in world (not American) history listing Enlightnment philosophers, since it was argued he wasn't an Enlightnment philosopher himself, but influenced by them.

If he's a government employee, then yes. Normally the government doesn't employ plumbers though.

That isn't quite right. Schools are in the same category as fire and police departments and hospitals. The government pays the school districts to perform a service. The reason I think it is important to understand the difference is that when a school does very poorly, the government can intervene and take over operations. This is considered about the worst thing that can happen to a school. It was part of the No Child Left Behind act. It has also proven ineffective, as the schools taken over have yet to show any improvement and struggle to attract employees. All of those are the government, including hospitals if they're public. There are different levels of government, and the examples you gave are generally at the local level. As far as First Amendment rights of students, they exist, but not to the same extent as for others. The reason being a) These are minors b) School is compulsory, so all the students are required to be there. So the school can typically regulate threatening or hostile material, but not material that is merely politically offensive.

Public schools are the government, children.

And you don't even understand what freedom of speech is, there's no point of protecting non-offensive speech. Though that's not even the issue here. The issue is people so wrapped up in their nationalistic feelings towards another country and against the US, that they find the very symbol of US offensive.

That's your interpretation. My interpretation is they were showing their national pride, just as the hispanics were showing their national pride, even if it was to the exclusion of their own country. Edit: I find your statement about the ban hard to believe, as the Supreme Court held that students still have First Amendment rights. Trying to dissuade them from expressing their views would still be a violation of their rights when done by a person of authority.