"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:36:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:48:44 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
As far as humanitarian horrors, last week's news reported that in
New
Jersey, kids charged with minor offenses are often placed in
maximum
security juvenile prisons while being "processed". Many end up so
traumatized that they're unable to function normally in society.
Onto
the
bombing list with New Jersey.


That's called "scared straight". It works.

Dave

It's called anal rape and sodomy.

"Scared straight" is when you take convicts into schoolhouses, etc,
and
have
them describe the horrors of prison life to the kids. It has nothing
to
do
with
throwing *accused* juvenile offenders in with convicted, sex-starved,
deviant
felons.

I'm afraid rape and sodomy may be the way Dave maintains control at
home.

Doug.

You've crossed the line.


Dave

Well, in yesterday's message, you seem to be edging toward saying it's OK
for a first time 13 year old shoplifter to be locked up with a violent
felon
who will have his way with the kid. If it's OK for someone else's kid,
then
logically, it must be OK for yours, too. That conclusion is supported by
what you said in yet another message, where you say it's OK to "run
roughshod" over your kids.

Make up your mind.

A simple apology for your uncalled for extreme allegation would be
what a real man would do.


Dave


Fine. I'm sorry. But, that won't help you out of the corner into which
you've painted yourself. If you think being raped in prison is OK for a kid
who made his first tiny mistake, then I'd like to hear what sorts of
punishment you'd approve of if YOUR kid was in the same situation. Don't
tell me "My kids wouldn't shoplift". Use your imagination.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:59:15 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
You know what's so pathetic about this subject? It was obvious to any
thinking person that troops would have to be moved from one campaign to
the other. If Bush a real leader, he wouldn't have waited until the press
was nipping at his heels to discuss this subject. No. He would've been
proactive and told the country what was going on up front, and explained
the reasoning behind it.

Doesn't matter. Even when it became glaringly obvious that George Bush Jr
doesn't have a clue, and cannot justify *any* of "his" policies and
actions in office, and the damage done by his administration is also made
glaringly obvious, he still won the election. After all, it's a popularity
contest and President Bush is a "likeable guy."

After his first election, I heard a news reporter on the radio, interviewing
young people around Columbia University, if I recall. She was wondering who
they voted for, and why. I think the theme of the story was how politically
astute the new crop of voters were. One female student responded "I voted
for Bush cause...like....they both...like seemed the same to be, but he has
cute ears".


How do you think Clinton won his first term?

According to many female acquaintances of mine, they just "loved" his
eyes...

Dave

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:51:18 -0500, DSK wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
You know what's so pathetic about this subject? It was obvious to any
thinking person that troops would have to be moved from one campaign to the
other. If Bush a real leader, he wouldn't have waited until the press was
nipping at his heels to discuss this subject. No. He would've been proactive
and told the country what was going on up front, and explained the reasoning
behind it.

Doesn't matter. Even when it became glaringly obvious that George Bush
Jr doesn't have a clue,

It's only glaringly obvious to severely biased partisans.


and cannot justify *any* of "his" policies and
actions in office, and the damage done by his administration is also
made glaringly obvious, he still won the election. After all, it's a
popularity contest and President Bush is a "likeable guy."

No, he won because the majority of the people still respect a guy who
sticks by his convictions and principles, instead of changing them
depending on which way the political wind blew.

... If people are going to receive bad news, they'd rather get it
with an explanation, I think. It shows that the bearer of the news trusts
and respects their intelligence.


But in this case, 51% of the people who voted didn't have any
intelligence. Oh well.

No, that was the 48%

Dave

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:38:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:20:10 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Dave Hall wrote:


Such as? When have we ever massacred large portions of our population?

Ask the native Americans...they'll tell you.


When you are attacked by hostile people, you will often kill the enemy
in large numbers. Once they are declared the enemy, "slaughter" is
often confused with "decisive victory"



When have we killed people for opposing the government?

Ask the families of those killed at Kent State.


The massacre at Kent State was not sanctioned by the military. It was
the result of panic.

Dave

Gee, and I thought it was the result of the military giving the idiots
live rounds.

Standard procedure. The order to fire was never given by the chain of
command.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:33:39 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

It's no coincidence that in the last generation or so of "Dr.
Spock-like" liberal upbringing where a child's need to "express
themselves" is paramount, and that maintaining their self esteem at
all costs is more important than what they do to earn it, that we have
had more trouble than ever with youth violence and underachievers.

The people I know who ran roughshod over their children have, in the
vast majority of cases, turned out much more socially adjusted kids,
who respect the rules of society, and have much less neuroses, and
other social "issues". They are also more likely to pursue higher
education and more productive careers. Those kids who were raised with
"hands off" parents, ended up, if not in the criminal justice system,
they are now working in low pay jobs, with little self respect, and
are more likely to vote for a democrat.

Dave

1) Your last paragraph describes only the people you choose to focus on.
Other than that, you have absolutely no information that allows you to
generalize outside of that small sample.

There's no reason to believe that there would be much difference in
other samplings. As I get older and talk with more people, I am still
told similar stories, from other people in my generation. I have no
reason to believe that my informal survey is not reflective of
reality.

I also have the incidents of school shootings, and school violence in
general, which has been on an increase since I was in school. In my
old high school, when I went there, the worst we ever had to deal with
was an occasional fist fight after school. Now, my old high school has
metal detectors and armed security people in the school.

This can be directly attributed to lackluster parental influence in
the child's discipline. Two working parents and day care child rearing
is probably the root of the problem.

A lot of it also is a result of single parent homes............there is
plenty of evidence out there showing that the worst way to raise a child is
in a single mother headed household, something that the guvmint has
encouraged with its liberal divorce laws and draconian child support
mentality.




2) In the next to last paragraph, you say "last generation". For the
generation or two before that, you have no way in hell of knowing how many
parents smacked their children around and how many didn't. You simply WANT
to believe in some mythical "good ole days".

I know how I, and most of my friends and other peers were raised. Our
parents demanded to know each and everything we did, where we went,
how long we would be gone, who we were with, numbers where we could be
reached at etc. We were given strict "be home by" times. The
neighborhood parents all kept an eye on the comings and goings of all
the neighborhood kids, and if they saw something "suspicious", it was
reported to the proper parent. If any of us was "out of line", we were
punished for it. I went to bed without dinner on more than a few
occasions before I wised up. When the teachers requested a conference,
the parents listened to the teacher, and took the corrective measures
to deal with their kids. They didn't become defensive and insist that
"their child couldn't possibly do that", and blame the teacher for the
issue.

Like I told you in another thread Doug, I have a fantastic memory for
what happened many years ago. I not only remember such trivial things
as my 7th grade locker combination, I also remember most of my "bad"
deeds and which punishments affected me the most. I can therefore
apply the same techniques to my kid.

My mother, not one to ever take back a punishment, once told me that
if she ever caught me smoking, that she would not sign for my driver's
license or learner's permit. From past experience, I had no reason to
believe that she was not dead serious, and I never took the chance.
Driving a car meant much more to me than looking "cool" while hanging
around with the kids who were smoking.

I had strict upbringing. It was not all "getting smacked around". But
my parents were quick to come down on bad behavior, and they followed
through for the duration, which means that if I was grounded for a
week, I didn't go out until the week was over. There was no
bargaining. Whining about it would only add more time to the
punishment. That's probably why I used to read a lot when I was kid.
There was not much else to do when confined to your room.

I learned the rule of law, and moral conduct as a result. This is
what's lacking in much of today's child rearing.


3) On a 1 to 10 "offense scale", a kid should have to reach a 9-1/2 before
he/she gets wailed on. If a parent lets loose for anything less than that,
he's a lazy sack of **** who doesn't know how to solve problems in an
assertive way that commands respect.

"Strict" parenting does not mean "wailing" on the kid for every thing
they do. Privilege deprivation is usually more effective.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:38:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:20:10 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Dave Hall wrote:


Such as? When have we ever massacred large portions of our
population?

Ask the native Americans...they'll tell you.


When you are attacked by hostile people, you will often kill the enemy
in large numbers. Once they are declared the enemy, "slaughter" is
often confused with "decisive victory"



When have we killed people for opposing the government?

Ask the families of those killed at Kent State.


The massacre at Kent State was not sanctioned by the military. It was
the result of panic.

Dave

Gee, and I thought it was the result of the military giving the idiots
live rounds.

Standard procedure. The order to fire was never given by the chain of
command.

Dave

And, the native Americans? You've chosen to ignore that question from both
Harry and I. That was officially sanctioned to the point where it was a
sport. How is that different from what Saddam did to his people?

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...


This can be directly attributed to lackluster parental influence in
the child's discipline. Two working parents and day care child rearing
is probably the root of the problem.

A lot of it also is a result of single parent homes............there is
plenty of evidence out there showing that the worst way to raise a child
is in a single mother headed household, something that the guvmint has
encouraged with its liberal divorce laws and draconian child support
mentality.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......................

Doesn't matter. Even when it became glaringly obvious that George Bush
Jr doesn't have a clue,


Dave Hall wrote:
It's only glaringly obvious to severely biased partisans.


How so? When a President gives reasons for a war... ad not a small oe
either... which turn out to be false, and true informatio was in front
of him whe he made the decsion, and his answer is to lie about the
decisio ad the info and to repeat a constatn chorus of "I never said
that" when he's on tape... I guess in your opinion, the truth is
"severely biased partisaship."



and cannot justify *any* of "his" policies and
actions in office, and the damage done by his administration is also
made glaringly obvious, he still won the election. After all, it's a
popularity contest and President Bush is a "likeable guy."


No, he won because the majority of the people still respect a guy who
sticks by his convictions and principles

Eve when his "convictions and principles" have led to the death of 1300+
US servicemen and the maiming of 10,000+ more, a *increase* in terrorism
and danger to the U.S. and her citizens, an economy-crippling deficit,
the looting of many national assets, the severe degradation of the
environment, the slowing almost to a halt of much of the U.S. scientific
program, etc etc etc.

Bush cannot admit he made a mistake. He is incapable of honestly
reviewing his own past statements. This of course is exactly your style.
He blabbers a lot about Jesus but doesn't go to church or read the
Bible, much less actually follow it's teachings.

... instead of changing them
depending on which way the political wind blew.


Looks like he's sold his bill of goods to a large part of the U.S.
public, so he doesn't have to. However nobody can tell me 1 thig he's
done right... all Bush supporters seem able to do is rant about how
awful those dadgum libby-rulls are. That makes it OK in your humble opinion.

The fact is that the Bush Admiistratio has been a disaster on every
front. Instead of beig held accountable, they're setting new records in
deceit & secretiveness & outright denial of obvious facts.

Yup, that's big atta-boy!

DSK

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:20:07 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:36:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:48:44 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
As far as humanitarian horrors, last week's news reported that in
New
Jersey, kids charged with minor offenses are often placed in
maximum
security juvenile prisons while being "processed". Many end up so
traumatized that they're unable to function normally in society.
Onto
the
bombing list with New Jersey.


That's called "scared straight". It works.

Dave

It's called anal rape and sodomy.

"Scared straight" is when you take convicts into schoolhouses, etc,
and
have
them describe the horrors of prison life to the kids. It has nothing
to
do
with
throwing *accused* juvenile offenders in with convicted, sex-starved,
deviant
felons.

I'm afraid rape and sodomy may be the way Dave maintains control at
home.

Doug.

You've crossed the line.


Dave

Well, in yesterday's message, you seem to be edging toward saying it's OK
for a first time 13 year old shoplifter to be locked up with a violent
felon
who will have his way with the kid. If it's OK for someone else's kid,
then
logically, it must be OK for yours, too. That conclusion is supported by
what you said in yet another message, where you say it's OK to "run
roughshod" over your kids.

Make up your mind.

A simple apology for your uncalled for extreme allegation would be
what a real man would do.


Dave


Fine. I'm sorry.

My respect for you has just moved up several points.

But, that won't help you out of the corner into which
you've painted yourself.

I've done no such thing.

If you think being raped in prison is OK for a kid
who made his first tiny mistake, then I'd like to hear what sorts of
punishment you'd approve of if YOUR kid was in the same situation.

I never said that rape is OK for anyone. I only stated that putting
kids in a "real" prison setting is a real eye-opening experience, and
often scares those same kids into reforming their ways, much more so
than just listening to a former prisoner talk about it. After all,
would you rather go fishing, or listen to someone else talk about it?

But the setting has to be supervised so that the really
psychologically damaging stuff is not allowed to happen.

Dave

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:18:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


3) On a 1 to 10 "offense scale", a kid should have to reach a 9-1/2 before
he/she gets wailed on. If a parent lets loose for anything less than that,
he's a lazy sack of **** who doesn't know how to solve problems in an
assertive way that commands respect.

"Strict" parenting does not mean "wailing" on the kid for every thing
they do. Privilege deprivation is usually more effective.

Dave


YOU used the term "run roughshod over kids".

Yes, meaning a constant presence and strict discipline.

I interpret that as wailing on
them.

That was your mistake. See what happens when you assume things?

The other things you describe - wanting to know where kids are going,
who they're with, when they'll be home - those things don't fall under that
heading.

If you knew just how not involved some parents are, you wouldn't say
that.


Those things are normal, for me at least. My son's as rebellious as
any 15 year old, but I've always been able to communicate with him in a way
that eliminates anything worse than the occasional need to raise my voice so
he knows something's serious.

When your child reached the teenaged stage, your framework of
discipline should have already been set. If you have been lackluster
in punishments when they were young children, you have lost control
and there will be no way they will learn to respect or listen to you
now.

My parents were tough on me from a single digit age. My father had
his belt which used to cross my butt when I did something wrong. As I
got older, the punishments shifted to more privilege deprivation. But
I learned that when they spoke up, they were serious. I knew what
would follow, if I continued down the path I was currently on. So by
the time I was a bit older, I knew enough to stop with just a raised
voice. Further punishment was usually no longer necessary. They had
trained me well. I was never really rebellious, as I feared the
repercussions of those actions. I treasured my relative freedom, and
did not want to do anything to jeopardize that.


Maybe that's why I have such respect for law and order today.

Dave