On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:58:26 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


"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.

Anytime you have a home situation where the primary care giver has to
abandon their duties to their children in order to earn money, that
allows the child to run amok without the proper guidance from an early
age. If they don't learn boundaries early on, it will become
increasingly more difficult to apply them later.

Day-Care centers are not in business to teach discipline, they are
only there to make sure the child doesn't kill itself, and to see to
their basic care.


Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:58:26 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


"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.

Anytime you have a home situation where the primary care giver has to
abandon their duties to their children in order to earn money, that
allows the child to run amok without the proper guidance from an early
age. If they don't learn boundaries early on, it will become
increasingly more difficult to apply them later.

Day-Care centers are not in business to teach discipline, they are
only there to make sure the child doesn't kill itself, and to see to
their basic care.



Actually it goes beyond that.......there is a direct correlation between the
biological father being absent from the home and increases in anti social
behavior.....crime, dropping out of school, promiscuity, etc., even in the
mother is a stay at home type.


Dave

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:58:26 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


"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.

Anytime you have a home situation where the primary care giver has to
abandon their duties to their children in order to earn money, that
allows the child to run amok without the proper guidance from an early
age. If they don't learn boundaries early on, it will become
increasingly more difficult to apply them later.

Day-Care centers are not in business to teach discipline, they are
only there to make sure the child doesn't kill itself, and to see to
their basic care.



Actually it goes beyond that.......there is a direct correlation between
the biological father being absent from the home and increases in anti
social behavior.....crime, dropping out of school, promiscuity, etc., even
in the mother is a stay at home type.

You're absolutely right. This is a perfect reason for you to write to your
president and explain to him, in the simplest terms possible, that he should
stop sending (mostly) fathers to their death just to satisfy his
pathological need for war, and his video game view of life.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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
m...
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

See what happens when you assume things? The news story I heard said kids
were being tossed into medium & high security cell blocks with 35 year hold
hard core criminals. There IS no supervision in places like that, unless
someone gets a homemade knife stuck into them in the shower.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:03:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

You mean she? I found that insult to be crass, unprofessional and all
so endemic with the bitterness that has become the democratic party.


If you say "I never said
that", but there is video footage showing you saying those things MANY
TIMES, that's not explained away by a memory lapse, or because you're a
really busy person.

I didn't see any video during the hearings. Of course I had to get
work done, so I could 've missed that.

Einstein, I'm not talking about video of the hearings. I'm talking about the
fact that Rice and other players deny they've made bold (and, in retrospect,
criminal) claims about reasons for the war, but they were recorded by video
cameras saying those things.

Once again, you have to be careful of context. Two very similar
statements can mean different things. Boxer was playing semantics and
context games with Condi, driven by seething bitter partisanship.

I see the democrats are still playing the part of obstructionist.
They're going to slow down the inevitable nomination of Rice as S.O.S.
just because they can.

Actually, I'm glad they're acting like the spoiled bitter children
that they are. The more they show off these sour grapes in public, the
more the voters will turn against them at the polls. Tom Daschle
learned that lesson.

Dave

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:09:26 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:42:50 -0500, DSK wrote:


OK, so we have *not* caught him then... and President Bush has failed to
catch the biggest threat to the United States since WW2.

Dave Hall wrote:

Correction: SO FAR he has failed to catch OBL. Tomorrow is another
day.

Yep, I reckon ol' Bush is gonna catch that Osama Bin Laden guy ay day
ow... the fact that we have no real effort underway, and that President
Bush announces glibly that he doesn't care... yep, any day now...


Did it ever occur to you that by down playing the hunt for Osama, and
getting the ever nosy eyes of the press turned away, that maybe OBL
will drop his guard enough that he'll surface just long enough for one
of our special ops groups to snag him?


Is there any bulldork coming out of the Bush mis-administration that you
will not accept? Or any rationalization about the Bush
mis-administration's failures that you will not promote?

Absolutely. Bush should never have signed or even promoted that
prescription drug plan. That's an albatross around the necks of the
taxpayers...

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:09:26 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:42:50 -0500, DSK wrote:


OK, so we have *not* caught him then... and President Bush has failed
to
catch the biggest threat to the United States since WW2.

Dave Hall wrote:

Correction: SO FAR he has failed to catch OBL. Tomorrow is another
day.

Yep, I reckon ol' Bush is gonna catch that Osama Bin Laden guy ay day
ow... the fact that we have no real effort underway, and that President
Bush announces glibly that he doesn't care... yep, any day now...


Did it ever occur to you that by down playing the hunt for Osama, and
getting the ever nosy eyes of the press turned away, that maybe OBL
will drop his guard enough that he'll surface just long enough for one
of our special ops groups to snag him?


Is there any bulldork coming out of the Bush mis-administration that you
will not accept? Or any rationalization about the Bush
mis-administration's failures that you will not promote?

Absolutely. Bush should never have signed or even promoted that
prescription drug plan. That's an albatross around the necks of the
taxpayers...

I would add all his education bills........if anything, he should have
eliminated the education cabinet position and gotten the feds out of the
education business, where they have no consitutional authority to be in the
first place.



Dave

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:43:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


My views on dogs and their owners is MY business, not derived from reading
what someone else said.

But it is reflective of your ability to rationally judge other
situations.


And, my definition of common sense includes respect
for my neighbors and following the golden rule. I don't leave garbage on
their property, and I expect the exact same behavior from them.

Yes, but your stated preferences for how to deal with the problem is,
at best, a bit extreme. There's nothing "common sense" about it.

Not extreme at all. Most of the time, when people call animal control, they
find out that after 3 violations, their neighbor loses their pet
permanently. The plaintiff usually lets the situation drag out for months.
If possible, I'll arrange for the scum to be caught 3 times in a week or
two, thereby hastening the removal of the dog. There's nothing wrong with
that. I'm using the existing laws, but faster than some people. If the dog
owner ****es me off, why shouldn't I **** them off, too?


Nice back peddle. That last statement would be perfectly acceptable
and an example of what you probably SHOULD do. But, you are on record
as positing that it's perfectly within your right to kill the
offending animals yourself, if you feel the circumstances warrant it,
which, according to your statements, includes stepping in a "pile".

THAT is excessive.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:43:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


My views on dogs and their owners is MY business, not derived from
reading
what someone else said.

But it is reflective of your ability to rationally judge other
situations.


And, my definition of common sense includes respect
for my neighbors and following the golden rule. I don't leave garbage on
their property, and I expect the exact same behavior from them.

Yes, but your stated preferences for how to deal with the problem is,
at best, a bit extreme. There's nothing "common sense" about it.

Not extreme at all. Most of the time, when people call animal control,
they
find out that after 3 violations, their neighbor loses their pet
permanently. The plaintiff usually lets the situation drag out for months.
If possible, I'll arrange for the scum to be caught 3 times in a week or
two, thereby hastening the removal of the dog. There's nothing wrong with
that. I'm using the existing laws, but faster than some people. If the dog
owner ****es me off, why shouldn't I **** them off, too?


Nice back peddle. That last statement would be perfectly acceptable
and an example of what you probably SHOULD do. But, you are on record
as positing that it's perfectly within your right to kill the
offending animals yourself, if you feel the circumstances warrant it,
which, according to your statements, includes stepping in a "pile".

THAT is excessive.

Dave

Not a back peddle at all. I've explained to you in the past that it would be
unsafe and impractical to terminate someone's dog, at least in my
neighborhood, unless I was lucky enough to get my hands around its neck. As
far as stepping in a pile as a reason, I'm chalking that up to differences
between you and I. I don't like sweet pickles or liver. Maybe you do. I
don't like stepping in dog ****, or the consequences and wasted time
connected with it. You apparently do, and I can accept that, although I
think it's very strange. And, you don't believe dogs can (and do) damage
gardens, but we're not going to debate that, or get into fence discussions
for the hundredth time.

You see a difference between a wild animal and a "pet". I don't, under
certain circumstances. If someone's stray dog ends up dead, or is removed
permanently by the animal control dept, and the kiddies are in tears for a
month, that's not MY problem. The adult owners are responsible. They can
explain their mistake to the kiddies.

Poke around rec.gardening for a few weeks and you might learn something.
Some animals are accepted because they do very little damage, like
squirrels. Others are on almost everyone's hit list. Mention the idea of
offing a woodchuck, mole or dog to most gardeners, and they'll say
"Well...of course. What's your question?" We love our gardens as much as
most people love their dogs. The difference is that because of the seasons,
we don't get unlimited chances to make things happen. When those chances are
lessened or completely eliminated by a stray dog who thinks your vegetable
garden is his litter box, there's only one option: Eliminate the dog one way
or the other. We already have to put up with the insane variables thrown at
us by nature. We don't need to deal with a variable that is intentional and
easily eliminated.

"JimH" wrote in message
...

I believe Hillary recently asked Democrats, including the extremists, to
move on already, accept GWB as their President and support him in any way
possible.

Folks like Krause, Gould, jps, Kanter, Basskisser et al will continue to
Monday morning quarterback and grieve over their stunning defeat in the
2004 POTUS election.

If they keep it up the Democratic party is doomed to extinction.

I see the liberals, everyone left of the Republican party today, will become
just fringe wackos. The Republican party will be taken over by moderates.
And, the rise of a conservative party. I will be a member of the new
conservative party. This will be interesting ot watch as all of the
"moderate" and "conservative' Democrats transform themselves into
Republicans.