Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class?
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 440 (611165)
04-06-2011 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by xongsmith
04-05-2011 4:40 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
Do Berserker Mass Murderer families have a right to brainwash their children to believe as they do? (See the Silver People.)
Do Fascist families who love Hitler have a right to brainwash their children to believe as they do?
Do those weird peculiar religious sects have a right to brainwash their children to believe as they do?
Do Republican families have a right to brainwash their children to believe as they do?
Does any family have the right to brainwash their children to believe as they do?
Yes, on all accounts.
But that's what Public Education is for...
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by xongsmith, posted 04-05-2011 4:40 PM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2011 1:22 PM Jon has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 197 of 440 (611176)
04-06-2011 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Jon
04-06-2011 12:54 AM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
Politely, Jon, I disagree. The parent's right to raise their child is not absolute, and people have a human right to avoid being abused and harmfully brainwashed.
Children are not the chattel property of their parents, and society's need to have competent and effective human beings is greater than the individual's privilege to produce tiny versions of themselves.
Obviously the definitions are doing a lot of the heavy lifting, here. But, no, "berserker mass murderers" don't have the right to raise little brainwashed murderers of their own. Racists don't have the right to raise little racists. People have a right not to be harmfully brainwashed by their own parents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 12:54 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Rahvin, posted 04-06-2011 1:57 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 200 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 2:24 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 198 of 440 (611177)
04-06-2011 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by crashfrog
04-06-2011 1:22 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
Racists don't have the right to raise little racists.
I'm sorry, but that's just not true. It might be your moral ideal, but it in no way is reflected in reality. It is not illegal to be a racist, nor is it illegal to teach one's children racist ideals. It's not illegal to teach one's children lies of any sort.
Racism falls under freedom of speech. People are always allowed to believe and speak according to the dictates of their own conscience, even when those beliefs are demonstrably wrong, and even when those beliefs are harmful to society, so long as they do not actively encourage violence or other lawbreaking.
We might find it extremely distasteful, but the harm done to society even by racism is overshadowed by the harm that would be done if we stripped the right of free speech - imagine a world without the freedom of speech where political power rested in the hands of (insert any faction opposed to your personal views here). We've seen societies like that. We don;t need a world with One Imperial Truth officially sanctioned by the government - the proper weapon against reprehensible beliefs and speech is more speech, not taking kids away from their parents and confirming some idiot's anti-government conspiracy theories.
So yes, parents do have the right to raise little racists, or little Christians or Jews or Nazis or Republicans or Democrats or voodoo practitioners or Satanists or atheists or wiccans or just about anything else, regardless of how distasteful or ethically objectionable you or I or anyone else might find some of those beliefs. This isn't 1984, we don't have thought police.
It's damned near impossible to avoid imprinting the parent's values onto children they raise anyway. That's just how the developmental process works.
You can override parental rights when a parent commits real abuse, not simply teaching ideas that you disapprove of, no matter how strongly or how correctly you disapprove. To do otherwise serves to chill free speech for everyone.
Very few forms of speech are not protected. You can't teach your kids to go out and commit murder, or to play with matches at gas stations. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded area that's not actually on fire.
But you can tell your children that Santa Claus exists, or that they should worship Satan, or that (insert race here) aren't really people. And the reason is that, regardless of how badly that can harm the children, the alternative is worse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2011 1:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2011 2:09 PM Rahvin has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 199 of 440 (611179)
04-06-2011 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Rahvin
04-06-2011 1:57 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
It might be your moral ideal, but it in no way is reflected in reality. It is not illegal to be a racist, nor is it illegal to teach one's children racist ideals. It's not illegal to teach one's children lies of any sort.
I don't know what it's like where you live, but here in the US membership in racist organizations, a history of racist demonstrations, involvement in racially-motivated violence - all can be grounds for termination of parental rights.
So yes, parents do have the right to raise little racists, or little Christians or Jews or Nazis or Republicans or Democrats or voodoo practitioners or Satanists or atheists or wiccans or just about anything else, regardless of how distasteful or ethically objectionable you or I or anyone else might find some of those beliefs.
No, they don't. Parents certainly have the right to say racist things. But they have no right to expect that others won't try to communicate egalitarian speech to their children, they have no right to insulate their children from society so as to preserve the sanctity of their racist message, and they have no right to expose their children to the violence and danger inherent in racist movements.
Sorry, Rahvin, but they absolutely do not. If you send your kids to Stormfront Summer Camp, the state may come in and move them into foster care. Having swastika tattoos can be a basis for losing custodial rights. Training your child to take part in the upcoming race wars is liable to result in jail time for you.
This isn't 1984, we don't have thought police.
No, we have actual police, who are empowered to intervene when the rights of individuals are threatened, for instance the right of a person not to be dangerously brainwashed by their parents into a violent and harmful ideology.
You can override parental rights when a parent commits real abuse
Brainwashing is certainly real abuse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Rahvin, posted 04-06-2011 1:57 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by subbie, posted 04-06-2011 2:26 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 202 by Rahvin, posted 04-06-2011 3:08 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 440 (611182)
04-06-2011 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by crashfrog
04-06-2011 1:22 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
The parent's right to raise their child is not absolute
Good thing I never said it was.
People have a right not to be harmfully brainwashed by their own parents.
And, of course, you'll be the one to decide what's 'harmful brainwashing', eh?
But they have no right to expect that others won't try to communicate egalitarian speech to their children, they have no right to insulate their children from society so as to preserve the sanctity of their racist message, ...
Like I said already, that's what Public Education is for.
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2011 1:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2011 5:36 PM Jon has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 201 of 440 (611183)
04-06-2011 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by crashfrog
04-06-2011 2:09 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
I don't know what it's like where you live, but here in the US membership in racist organizations, a history of racist demonstrations, involvement in racially-motivated violence - all can be grounds for termination of parental rights.
I'd be most interested to see citations to cases where that has happened.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2011 2:09 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 202 of 440 (611188)
04-06-2011 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by crashfrog
04-06-2011 2:09 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
I don't know what it's like where you live, but here in the US membership in racist organizations, a history of racist demonstrations, involvement in racially-motivated violence - all can be grounds for termination of parental rights.
Sorry Crash, but I'll need evidence here to support your assertion. Racism, while despicable, has long been upheld as a free speech matter, and it's simply not possible to prevent children from being influenced by their parents. If KKK members have children who are not immediately scooped up by CPS, I don't see how your assertion can be true. And the UCLA would have an absolute field day with the free speech violation inherent in stealing someone's children for having an unpleasant set of beliefs.
You'd have to be raising the children with specific violent overtones, actively encouraging violence as opposed to "merely" spreading racist views.
Brainwashing is certainly real abuse.
You keep using that word, abuse. I don;t think it means what you think it means.
The way you're using it, treating "brainwashing" as real abuse, it applies far too universally. Childhood development makes normal childhood education from parents indistinguishable from brainwashing - they believe anything their parents tell them and actively seek to please their parents instinctually. The only differentiating factor between "brainwashing" and normal childhood learning would be down to the subjective acceptability of the beliefs being passed on - which treads very clearly into free speech. Raising a child in any religious environment is akin to "brainwashing," yet the courts certainly don't view that as abuse.
No, they don't. Parents certainly have the right to say racist things.
...which means they have the right to raise their children to be racist, since one immediately proceeds to the other without further action. If you grow up with a racist daddy, you're very likely to grow up racist yourself.
But they have no right to expect that others won't try to communicate egalitarian speech to their children,
True and false. Parents do have the right to limit their children's contact with the outside world. See home schooling. I agre it's most often not a good idea and harms the child, but plainly they have the right to do it anyway - "rights" are not limited to expressions of those rights that you or I would personally agree with.
they have no right to insulate their children from society so as to preserve the sanctity of their racist message,
Curiously, religious people have the right to do exactly that with regard to their religious indoctrinations; what differenciates religious speech from racist speech other than the specific message? If parents can send their kids to Jesus Camp and teach them that Harry Potter is the devil and that Muslims are evil and that the outside world is sinful and wicked and home school them away from the evil public school system, and they can do all of this perfectly legally, how is it that you believe that a family performing the exact same actions but with a more specific racists message as opposed to a theocratic message would not be protected?
and they have no right to expose their children to the violence and danger inherent in racist movements.
Not all racists are violent, crash. Most, even, are not, which is why we haven't actually had race wars and only a tiny minority of racists are currently in prison.
Please present some evidence that racist parents are not allowed to raise racist children. You'll need specific legislation or court decisions (that weren't later overturned by higher courts) showing that membership in a known hate group or the passing of racist views onto a child is grounds for termination of parental rights even in the absence of incitement to commit violence or other actual crimes (since we both agree that incitement to commit violence is a crime).
Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2011 2:09 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2011 6:23 PM Rahvin has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 203 of 440 (611229)
04-06-2011 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Jon
04-06-2011 2:24 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
Good thing I never said it was.
Oh, so you're willing to countenance limits to a parent's right to indoctrinate their child; you just don't think that indoctrinating their child to be a mass murderer runs up against that limit. Is that about it?
And, of course, you'll be the one to decide what's 'harmful brainwashing', eh?
Why would I have anything to do with that determination?
Like I said already, that's what Public Education is for.
I didn't understand it the first time you said it, since not every child enjoys a public education. Can you elaborate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 2:24 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 6:49 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 204 of 440 (611241)
04-06-2011 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Rahvin
04-06-2011 3:08 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
Sorry Crash, but I'll need evidence here to support your assertion.
Here's a Canadian example:
quote:
A Manitoba court has ruled that a couple won't be able to keep their two children because of racist beliefs that were taught in their household.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100211/custody_100211
Closer to home:
quote:
"Father Shall Not Use Profanity or Racial Epithets in the Boys' Presence or Within Their Earshot":
That's from a Delaware Family Court order that came out in 2002, JJ.W. B. v. K.A. B., 2002 WL 31454072 (Del. Fam. Ct.), but that I just came across. If the father used such words in violation of the court order, he would be subject to criminal prosecution for contempt (though practically speaking it seems likelier that the court would further reduce his visitation time with the children).
http://volokh.com/posts/1247177815.shtml
quote:
An appeals court in New Jersey has denied Deborah and Heath Campbell custody of their three young children, Adolf Hitler Campbell, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell. (Honszlynn Hinler is meant to honour Heinrich Himmler, the Reichsfuhrer of the SS.)
http://familyjustice.wordpress.com/...-parents-lose-children
In this case, custody was ultimately retained by the racist parent, but only because the other parent had his own history of abuse and alcoholism. The court ultimately did not have to rule on the legitimacy of seeking sole custody due to racism of the custodial parent:
quote:
There was bitter custody battle Friday in a Valley courtroom with two young white supremacists at the center of it all. The twins have gained national attention for their hate-filled concerts.
The parents of the Gaede twins have been in a bitter custody dispute. The girls' father thinks they are being poisoned by their mother, a self-professed white seperatist.
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?id=4231273
The founder of racial terrorism group "National Vanguard" lost custody of his children due to his racism and association with the white supremacy group:
quote:
(Strom's former wife Kirsten) Kaiser said she was contacted the same month by Elisha Strom, the outspoken neo-Nazi activist who Kevin married after losing custody of his children to Kaiser and returning from Minnesota to live on the Alliance compound in 2000.
http://www.splcenter.org/...ssues/2007/spring/family-matters
Racism, while despicable, has long been upheld as a free speech matter
As I've said, parents have all the right to exercise free speech that they like. But they don't have the right to force a child to be subject to that speech. You simply don't have the right to say anything you want to your own children - verbal abuse is as much grounds for loss of custody as physical abuse.
If KKK members have children who are not immediately scooped up by CPS, I don't see how your assertion can be true.
Who's in the KKK, Rahvin? Be specific.
Given that the KKK, for obvious reasons, keeps its membership secret can you see why there might be an explanation for how children of KKK members fail to receive CPS protection besides a sweeping right of parents to abuse their own children?
You keep using that word, abuse.
Abuse of a child, as defined by the California code of justice:
quote:
Physical Abuse
Citation: Penal Code 11165.6; 11165.3
Child abuse or neglect includes:
Physical injury inflicted by other than accidental means upon a child by another person
Willful harming or injury of the child or the endangering of the person or health of the child
Unlawful corporal punishment or injury
Willful harming or injuring of a child or the endangering of the person or health of a child means a situation in which any person willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon, unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the child to be placed in a situation in which his or her person or health is endangered.
The Centers for Disease Control defines psychological/emotional abuse as follows:
quote:
Psychologically abusive behaviors may include blaming, belittling, degrading, intimidating,
terrorizing, isolating, restraining, confining, corrupting, exploiting, spurning, or otherwise
behaving in a manner that is harmful, potentially harmful, or insensitive to the child’s
developmental needs, or can potentially damage the child psychologically or emotionally (Barnett,
Manly, and Cicchetti 1991; McGee and
Wolfe 1991a, b).
Parents do have the right to limit their children's contact with the outside world.
That is incorrect. Isolation of a child from contact with others is defined above as child abuse by the CDC. Home school laws don't provide for a right of parents to abuse their children, I'm glad to say.
"rights" are not limited to expressions of those rights that you or I would personally agree with.
Right are limited to those things that don't infringe on the rights of another person. Children, being people, have their own rights, including the right not to be criminally abused by their own parents. Where that is occurring, the government is empowered to step in, potentially with the result that the parents lose custody of their children. The right of parents to parent is not absolute, Rahvin.
Both of those example definitions clearly include emotional/mental abuse, by which racist brainwashing certainly applies.
You'll need specific legislation or court decisions (that weren't later overturned by higher courts) showing that membership in a known hate group or the passing of racist views onto a child is grounds for termination of parental rights even in the absence of incitement to commit violence or other actual crimes (since we both agree that incitement to commit violence is a crime).
You'll see that I've provided several such examples, above. In one case, a parent lost custody merely because his child appeared at school with racist imagery drawn on her arms in Sharpie; in another case, the founder of "National Vanguard", a white supremacist hate group, lost custody of his children due entirely to his views and associations. Good thing, since he turned out to be a pedophile as well (though that was not a factor int he custody hearing, as he'd not yet been caught.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Rahvin, posted 04-06-2011 3:08 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 7:01 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 210 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-06-2011 7:18 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 218 by Rahvin, posted 04-06-2011 7:48 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 440 (611242)
04-06-2011 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by crashfrog
04-06-2011 5:36 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
Oh, so you're willing to countenance limits to a parent's right to indoctrinate their child
No, I'm not. But I also don't think that the parents' rights to raise their child are absolute.
Why would I have anything to do with that determination?
How would this determination be made? What would be harmful and what would be harmless?
... since not every child enjoys a public education.
And that's the first problem with 'public education' in the U.S.: it's not public.
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2011 5:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2011 7:52 PM Jon has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 206 of 440 (611243)
04-06-2011 7:01 PM


Can't resist
marc9000 writes:
From here on I'm only replying to Taq in this thread - he seems to be the only one on the Democrat side that's interested in a meaningful discussion.
Sorry, just a few;
MESSAGE 181
crashfrog writes:
Thomas Jefferson is exactly the example of a parasite who lives off the labor and utility of other people. That's what slavery means, you incredible gob-shite.
It’s always interesting how discussions about current events / growth of government / and personal liberty involving liberals of today make a beeline for a few of the U.S. founders that owned slaves, as if the U.S. isn’t really about personal liberty because of it. The U.S. had dozens of founders that didn’t own slaves, and slavery in the U.S. was under attack from the moment the U.S. was created. Did you know that slavery didn’t originate in the western world, that it was a worldwide affliction for centuries before the U.S. was founded? Did you know that western civilization was the first to destroy slavery, and set the tone for it to be destroyed in many other places around the world? It may not have been done by Jefferson, but it was done by the ideology of liberty that he had a hand in promoting.
MESSAGE 191
Dr Adequate writes:
Back in reality, the rest of the world does not find Americans quite so awesome wonderful that they will let any American who pleases emigrate into their countries; immediately confer on them all the privileges of citizenship such as access to national healthcare; and ensure that they automatically walk straight into a middle-class job equivalent to the one that they left behind.
I know that taking reality into account is not in your modus operandi, but to the rest of us this might partly explain why those Americans who find foreign systems admirable try to import those systems over here rather than themselves going over there.
In reality, one of the many unfortunate characteristics of liberals, is that they tend to take for granted what they’re used to in their comfortable lives. Like what the U.S is, what it’s accomplished, and what it’s like to live here, like all that is somehow natural or automatic. In reality, there is nothing automatic about the current way of life achieved in the U.S. A lot of people, with a lot of (often uncomfortable) effort made it possible for you to take it all for granted, to be impressed with those in other countries that belittle it. Your casual acceptance of ideological experimentations aren’t guaranteed to add to add to what’s been achieved in the U.S., but they do have an excellent chance of adding to dismantling much of what’s been achieved. Many countries that have national health care are generally worse off than the U.S. History shows that nations and entire civilizations have fallen from success to complete disintegration. Ever hear of the Roman Empire, ancient Chinese dynasties, or the Ottoman Empire? It’s been estimated that it was 1000 years before Europeans again achieved as high a standard of living as they had in Roman times. In reality, many Romans took their society for granted 1700 years ago, just like you take the U.S. for granted today.
MESSAGE 196
Jon writes:
Do Berserker Mass Murderer families have a right to brainwash their children to believe as they do? (See the Silver People.)
Do Fascist families who love Hitler have a right to brainwash their children to believe as they do?
Do those weird peculiar religious sects have a right to brainwash their children to believe as they do?
Do Republican families have a right to brainwash their children to believe as they do?
Does any family have the right to brainwash their children to believe as they do?
Yes, on all accounts.
But that's what Public Education is for...
YES! Public education is for the only thing not in the above list! For Democrat teachers to brainwash children into liberalism and atheism!

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 7:07 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 212 by jar, posted 04-06-2011 7:25 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 221 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2011 8:05 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 235 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-07-2011 2:17 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 440 (611244)
04-06-2011 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by crashfrog
04-06-2011 6:23 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
Crashfrog writes:
Here's a Canadian example:
quote:
A Manitoba court has ruled that a couple won't be able to keep their two children because of racist beliefs that were taught in their household.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100211/custody_100211
Closer to home:
quote:
"Father Shall Not Use Profanity or Racial Epithets in the Boys' Presence or Within Their Earshot":
That's from a Delaware Family Court order that came out in 2002, JJ.W. B. v. K.A. B., 2002 WL 31454072 (Del. Fam. Ct.), but that I just came across. If the father used such words in violation of the court order, he would be subject to criminal prosecution for contempt (though practically speaking it seems likelier that the court would further reduce his visitation time with the children).
http://volokh.com/posts/1247177815.shtml
quote:
An appeals court in New Jersey has denied Deborah and Heath Campbell custody of their three young children, Adolf Hitler Campbell, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell. (Honszlynn Hinler is meant to honour Heinrich Himmler, the Reichsfuhrer of the SS.)
http://familyjustice.wordpress.com/...-parents-lose-children
In this case, custody was ultimately retained by the racist parent, but only because the other parent had his own history of abuse and alcoholism. The court ultimately did not have to rule on the legitimacy of seeking sole custody due to racism of the custodial parent:
quote:
There was bitter custody battle Friday in a Valley courtroom with two young white supremacists at the center of it all. The twins have gained national attention for their hate-filled concerts.
The parents of the Gaede twins have been in a bitter custody dispute. The girls' father thinks they are being poisoned by their mother, a self-professed white seperatist.
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?id=4231273
The founder of racial terrorism group "National Vanguard" lost custody of his children due to his racism and association with the white supremacy group:
quote:
(Strom's former wife Kirsten) Kaiser said she was contacted the same month by Elisha Strom, the outspoken neo-Nazi activist who Kevin married after losing custody of his children to Kaiser and returning from Minnesota to live on the Alliance compound in 2000.
http://www.splcenter.org/...ssues/2007/spring/family-matters
All very sad cases that demonstrate the relentless trampling of constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms by a corrupted, overbearing Government that responds to fly-by-night psychologists and pop-culture sociologists by eradicating, without any reasonable cause, the liberty most fundamental to citizens truly living under a for-the-people government: the right to speak.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : clarity

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2011 6:23 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 440 (611245)
04-06-2011 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by marc9000
04-06-2011 7:01 PM


Re: Can't resist
Public education is for the only thing not in the above list! For Democrat teachers to brainwash children into liberalism and atheism!
Of course all laws prohibit public teachers from speaking in favor of political or religious ideologies, so once again, your claim is just crap.
Many countries that have national health care are generally worse off than the U.S.
More crap; how about giving some evidence to support this?
Did you know that slavery didn’t originate in the western world, that it was a worldwide affliction for centuries before the U.S. was founded?
Who cares where it originated? What in the Hell does it have to do with anything at all?
Jon
Edited by Jon, : clarity

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by marc9000, posted 04-06-2011 7:01 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by marc9000, posted 04-06-2011 7:23 PM Jon has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 209 of 440 (611246)
04-06-2011 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Taq
04-05-2011 11:57 AM


marc9000 writes:
Yes. By slowing down the socialist policies of the Democrats.
How does that help the middle class?
It eases their burden of having to pay for those socialist policies. Despite all the political rhetoric, it’s not all that complicated. Government spending has to be paid for by the productive citizenry of that government.
Fifty years ago, how many two income families were there? Fifty years ago, how many people had to choose between healthcare and bankruptcy?
So healthcare wasn’t near the political issue 50 years ago than it is today, we can agree on that. The question is, why? There was no government health insurance then either.
Fifty years ago, how many kids had to take out a student loan that was equal to 3 years pay when they left the state funded university?
Not many, because they didn’t have near the appetite for alcohol and illegal drugs at their fraternity parties as college kids do today. They were raised under Judeo Christian morals to a much greater extent than kids today. Today it’s evolution; if it feels good do it, we weren’t endowed by a creator with any rights. If you can get routine living expenses paid for by someone else, go for it.
Fifty years ago, healthcare took up 5% of GDP, now it takes up 15%. This is just a few examples of the cost of living that strongly affects the middle class.
Cost of living? That sounds so innocent, why does the cost of living go up? Why should it? Here is a link to a few short paragraphs of how U.S. government domestic spending has gone up in the 20th century, several of those little factoids even include adjustments for inflation. Why has it been necessary? Because there are more people — because civilization is more complex? Even so, is the question of affordability not an important one?
marc9000 writes:
Because a lot of people in the U.S. don’t agree that all the details involved in those things works out for the better in the long run. If middle class living in other countries looks attractive to those on the left in the U.S., we should be seeing a mass exodus in emigration to those countries. It’s not happening.
That is a very weak argument.
Because it doesn’t have much detail about the details? The detail is out there, but it’s not going to be found at NPR, or ABC. Here is a link you won't find in the mainstream U.S. media.
marc9000 writes:
It keeps them from having to foot the staggering bill for all the unnecessary regulation that’s going on today.
So you are saying that rivers and lakes choked with cyanide from gold leeching fields is worth the trade off for wealthy mining companies getting to keep more of their money?
Choked with cyanide — evidence? Or NPR talking points? One thing we always hear from environmentalists; We have accomplished much! But much remains to be done! Considering any new discoveries or problems, what else do you expect them to ever say? Would they say; Hmm, the problem is way worse than we thought, practically no progress has been made since the EPA was founded in 1970, we have a LOT to do!! The question would then be what have you done with the billions of dollars that you’ve soaked the middle class for, for 4 decades? Or if they say; Our existence is justified, we now have everything all cleaned up! The question to that would be; then why don’t you now unfasten your lips from the sweet flowing breast of the taxpayer and go get a job in the private sector? So anyone who expects reality to change the political activity of the EPA has a far bigger trust in the rich, than anyone who trusts free markets to control the rich in the private sector.
From everything I have heard, the reduction in deisel sulfur has been a ringing success.
Yes, everything you’ve heard from the EPA, or the liberal media. The testing in my area didn’t even include diesels!
The cost of healthcare has outpaced wages. So too has the cost of education if you want to look at that as well. At one time all you needed was catastrophic coverage which is way cheaper. Now you need complete coverage because even a simple visit is a lot to pay for. This increase does not affect the wealthy that much, but it hits the middle class very hard. Countries with universal health coverage and single payer spend a lot less as a percentage of GDP as we do. Private healthcare isn't working, and yet this is the system the GOP wants to support. That doesn't make sense to me.
What doesn’t make sense to me, (and about 150 million other Americans) is how replacing competing insurance companies with one more massive government bureaucracy is going to make health care less costly. Or how the top 5% of wage earners are a bottomless pit to pay for all of it. It takes the economic activity of the middle class to fund the rich, no matter how difficult it is for the general public to understand things like $50,000,000 in stock options that liberals refer to like it’s a common, effortless, crooked thing that most Republicans do.
The big difference in what government should and should not pay for is the question; Are a free people able to supply this want or need for themselves, or does it absolutely require some type of municipal organization? Any government spending question can easily be divided into those two catagories. Can people individually deal with things like fire and police protection, foreign relations, bridge and road building? Since the beginnings of the U.S. they never have. Yet they’ve proven over the first 200 years of U.S. existence that health care IS something that free people can and should be able to provide for themselves. Once the government starts providing people with what they can provide for themselves, where does it stop? Should we have food insurance? A single payer food system? If we have single payer health insurance, why not single payer automobiles? Single payer housing? Who will determine who gets a big car vs a small car, a big house vs a small house? The same type of government agency that will soon determine who qualifies for what medical procedure? Have you ever checked into the details of the decision making process of who gets what care, how long waiting periods are etc., of government health care in foreign countries?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Taq, posted 04-05-2011 11:57 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 7:32 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 233 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2011 11:52 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 234 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-07-2011 12:11 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 236 by Taq, posted 04-07-2011 11:17 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 337 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-10-2011 1:36 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4510 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 210 of 440 (611247)
04-06-2011 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by crashfrog
04-06-2011 6:23 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
crashfrog, I totally respect you, but you're wrong.
You'll note that the cases you've cited are all (so far as I can tell) cases about custody where the courts are trying to determine parental rights in a divorce. What you don't have here are cases in which the state is coming in and just taking children away because their parents hold unpopular or even evil views. I know of other cases parents have been denied custody for being Wiccan, and I'm sure that there are also cases in which a parent who wants to raise their child as an atheist has to allow the other to take the child to church every week, get baptised, etc.
You'll also note that the controlling legal definition of abuse that you've cited (California's) only covers "unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering." The important word there is "unjustifiable." So some spanking is okay (as far as the law is concerned, anyway), but beating a child is not. Likewise, it's perfectly legal, to tell a child every night before bed that she's going to hell unless she begs Jesus for forgiveness before going to sleep. But generally speaking, you'd only be taking a child away if that parent was also putting her in a prayer closet without food or water from Friday night till Monday morning.
In the US, at least, you can think whatever you want and tell as many people about it as you can get to listen - including your children.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. - John Stuart Mill

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2011 6:23 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2011 8:28 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024