|
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:34:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:45:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message m... Dead is dead. Doesn't matter whether your head's cut off, or a .223 round slices open an artery in your leg and you watch yourself bleed to death. Our methods are no more civilized than theirs. We don't televise our combat killing. In fact we don't kidnap innocent non-combatents and execute them as terrorist propaganda. No. We stick them in a Cuban prison for 3 years and refuse to let them communicate with the outside world. Much less brutal. Dave It's kidnapping. Not if the person is an enemy of the state. Dave If they cannot communicate outside the prison, how do YOU know they're enemies of the state? |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... "Anyone" would not be qualified to authenticate the "official" journals. Only those who were in a position to know them. You can request copies from the library of congress. Were you assuming that historians claimed they'd quoted directly from White House diaries, and lied about it in dozens of books? No, I question whether the texts that they were quoting from were actually the real deal. That's why I brought the notion of authentication into the picture. To me, "notion" is a word meaning a weak idea, which is accurate in this case. Thank you for admitting to....well...you know. You may be making some progress here. Another simple, direct question: Are you saying you are not aware of the FACT that Nixon ordered the bombing of Cambodia, while saying it was not happening? Are you aware of it - yes or no? I was not aware that Nixon lied about it. Dave Well, now you are. Fortunately, it was discovered and verified, which caused quite a scene. Not a big enough scene evidently, as it took Watergate to bring him down. Unfortunately, a certain percentage of the voting population never changes, and is happy to believe whatever drivel their leader feeds them. |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... They said the same thing about Germany and Japan after WWII. They were wrong then and you're wrong now. Dave Here you go, Dave: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/marshall/ |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:49:34 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Yes, but I learned it as a scientific principle as part of physics. Nuclear fission could be explained as a domino effect in a very short time frame. "Domino effect" is a generic term for any sequential series of events. If you lost your job, you could say there was a domino effect which resulted in your credit rating being hosed for a period of time. "Domino theory" applied specifically to a geo-political idea. Now you are arguing semantics. No. I'm helping you realize that in trying to appear informed on the subject my mentioning its common everyday meaning, you are instead making yourself look silly. Drop it already. Considering the imperialistic nature of many communist states, we were justified in much of our concern. Many countries were pulled behind the iron curtain against their wills, and we tried to prevent it as much as possible. We did exactly the same thing, as I'm sure you recall. Think Africa, and Central & South America. Think Iran-Contra. When have we EVER taken over another country (Other than Puerto Rico) and subjugated the people to OUR rule? Where is that extra tax money? Dave Other than Eastern Europe and later, Afghanistan, the USSR did not explicitly march into countries and take over. There were a LOT of small countries in Europe that were sucked under the iron curtain, and NOT by choice. They exerted extreme influence in some places, as did we. The type of influence was a lot different. Not it wasn't. Sometimes, we did it by using legitimate private companies as surrogates, which almost completely financed the local government, thereby controlling it. That's called capitalism. They had the choice to reject these "private companies", but they would rather lose some local control, in exchange for a much higher standard of living for the people. It's a trick perfected over several hundred years by England, France, Portugal, Holland, Belgium (as in "Congo"), Spain and Italy. Trick? That's the way business is done. If your enemy is capitalism, then you start to look like a communist, and your sympathy for N. Vietnam, China, and the USSR makes more sense. A branch of Xerox in Germany or Hong Kong: That's healthy capitalism. But, when a company sets up shop in a small country, uses slave labor or maintains hideous working conditions, and pays off local officials to look the other way, that's a bit different. Here are some examples: http://www.seen.org/pages/human_rights.shtml Since you will say the source is suspect, I'll describe another for you. When I worked for PaineWebber in the late 1980s, Occidental Petroleum put an issue up for a vote at one of its stockholder's meetings. In was in the prospectus. I read it. We discussed it over lunch many times. The issue: Whether to continue using slave labor in one of the South Asia countries. Might've been Indonesia. The stockholders barely passed a resolution to stop the practice. The board of directors was split on the subject. If you think local officials were not bought & paid for, you are fill in the blank. Incidentally, if you really believe what you say about the need to fight Islamic fundamentalists, then you cannot comment negatively on Russia's foray into Afghanistan, particularly in light of what they've been dealing with lately. Ah! The ultimate dilemma. Do we side with the enemy we know, and have been fighting with for years, or do we side with the enemy we don't yet know we have? Maybe we made the wrong choice in hindsight. But we didn't know what would happen back then. That's why hindsight is always 20/20. Dave Perhaps, but some people feel we can learn from the past and have 20/50 vision in the future, rather than assume the past offers nothing to learn from. |
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. |
"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. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: I'm afraid rape and sodomy may be the way Dave maintains control at home. You think he's the willing victim? That's not very nice comments guys! Give the poor fellow a break. He may not be an intellectual star but I think he is an OK person. Jim Carter "The Boat" Bayfield |
"Jim Carter" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: I'm afraid rape and sodomy may be the way Dave maintains control at home. You think he's the willing victim? That's not very nice comments guys! Give the poor fellow a break. He may not be an intellectual star but I think he is an OK person. Jim Carter "The Boat" Bayfield I think he's an OK person too, Jim. But, I also know he's at least partially influenced by a tradition that promotes rules to live by such as "Spare the rod and spoil the child". |
Doug Kanter wrote:
Let's not forget that Germany, England, Spain and Florida have "harbored" terrorists. That qualifies these places for bombing. OK... after the radiation dies down, we can allow our new best friends the Communist Chinese to colonize and establish some nice state factories to build cheap goods for Wal-Mart. Sounds like a good business plan! 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. No no no, you don't understand. Those kids aren't enemy combatants so they have no rights or protections. Probably their parents voted Democrat. It is only right that they be tortured. Maybe the next God-fearing president will order them turned into lamp shades! DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message . .. Doug Kanter wrote: Let's not forget that Germany, England, Spain and Florida have "harbored" terrorists. That qualifies these places for bombing. OK... after the radiation dies down, we can allow our new best friends the Communist Chinese to colonize and establish some nice state factories to build cheap goods for Wal-Mart. Sounds like a good business plan! 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. No no no, you don't understand. Those kids aren't enemy combatants so they have no rights or protections. Probably their parents voted Democrat. It is only right that they be tortured. Maybe the next God-fearing president will order them turned into lamp shades! DSK Hmmm. Spare the rod.....including the ones in the prisoners' pants? Nah...it's good for those kids. |
"DSK" wrote in message
... ... there are/were ties to some Islamic terrorist groups No there weren't. Sorry, Doug, but in fact, there is a link: http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~shane/stasj...r/div/149.html |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message ... ... there are/were ties to some Islamic terrorist groups No there weren't. Sorry, Doug, but in fact, there is a link: http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~shane/stasj...r/div/149.html Now, that's Funny! Notice how he looks like Alfred D. Neuman. Jim Carter "The Boat" Bayfield |
"Jim Carter" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message ... ... there are/were ties to some Islamic terrorist groups No there weren't. Sorry, Doug, but in fact, there is a link: http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~shane/stasj...r/div/149.html Now, that's Funny! Notice how he looks like Alfred D. Neuman. Jim Carter "The Boat" Bayfield Tangentially related: Ms. Rice is undergoing quite a grilling today. Priceless. |
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 |
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:43:36 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:34:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:45:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message om... Dead is dead. Doesn't matter whether your head's cut off, or a .223 round slices open an artery in your leg and you watch yourself bleed to death. Our methods are no more civilized than theirs. We don't televise our combat killing. In fact we don't kidnap innocent non-combatents and execute them as terrorist propaganda. No. We stick them in a Cuban prison for 3 years and refuse to let them communicate with the outside world. Much less brutal. Dave It's kidnapping. Not if the person is an enemy of the state. Dave If they cannot communicate outside the prison, how do YOU know they're enemies of the state? Because our government said so. But since you think everything our government says is a lie........... Dave |
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:46:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . Well, now you are. Fortunately, it was discovered and verified, which caused quite a scene. Not a big enough scene evidently, as it took Watergate to bring him down. Unfortunately, a certain percentage of the voting population never changes, and is happy to believe whatever drivel their leader feeds them. Then there is the mirror image which are people who believe nothing that the government tells them. To listen to these people, it's a wonder our country lasted for as long as it has, and prospered as well as it has, what with all the lies, corruption and dirty dealings going on.......... Dave |
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:10:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . They said the same thing about Germany and Japan after WWII. They were wrong then and you're wrong now. Dave Here you go, Dave: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/marshall/ The Marshall plan was one of the greatest and most comprehensive policies ever put in place. Substitute the word "communism" with the word "Islamic fundamentalists" and you could apply a similar plan to the middle east today. The problem, of course, was that while in 1948 the people looked at the U.S. plan as a bold and courageous plan to bring about the greater good for the free world today, similar aspirations for the mid-east, brings cynical criticisms about the true motivation, intent and the beneficiaries of our plans. We are called "imperialists", "expansionists", "corporate raiders" etc. The seeds of socialism and communism have poisoned much of Europe and much of the left in this country. Most Europeans have the Marshall plan to thank for what they have now. Instead of being grateful, and offering to help when we once again assume the role of protector of freedom, they scoff at us, criticize us, and spit in our faces (And you wonder why so many people hate the French). You would be well advised to look at that plan and see where the similarities lie WRT today's situation. Dave |
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:21:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: There were a LOT of small countries in Europe that were sucked under the iron curtain, and NOT by choice. They exerted extreme influence in some places, as did we. The type of influence was a lot different. Not it wasn't. Sometimes, we did it by using legitimate private companies as surrogates, which almost completely financed the local government, thereby controlling it. That's called capitalism. They had the choice to reject these "private companies", but they would rather lose some local control, in exchange for a much higher standard of living for the people. It's a trick perfected over several hundred years by England, France, Portugal, Holland, Belgium (as in "Congo"), Spain and Italy. Trick? That's the way business is done. If your enemy is capitalism, then you start to look like a communist, and your sympathy for N. Vietnam, China, and the USSR makes more sense. A branch of Xerox in Germany or Hong Kong: That's healthy capitalism. But, when a company sets up shop in a small country, uses slave labor or maintains hideous working conditions, and pays off local officials to look the other way, that's a bit different. As long as the people there are not being forced to work, then you cannot call it "slave labor". Just because they are willing to take much less pay for a job than we (According to our standards) would does not make it "Slave labor". You have to remember that the economic conditions in many of these countries is so poor, that even those so-called "slave labor" wages is a major step up for many of those workers. Here are some examples: http://www.seen.org/pages/human_rights.shtml Since you will say the source is suspect, No, I believe that the core issue is valid. You can't fabricate all of this stuff. Such is what happens when greed is your motivator. But it would seem that this issue transcends either U.S. political party as the Clinton administration failed to act on it. I'll describe another for you. When I worked for PaineWebber in the late 1980s, Occidental Petroleum put an issue up for a vote at one of its stockholder's meetings. In was in the prospectus. I read it. We discussed it over lunch many times. The issue: Whether to continue using slave labor in one of the South Asia countries. Might've been Indonesia. The stockholders barely passed a resolution to stop the practice. The board of directors was split on the subject. Of course. The BOD is responsible to the shareholders for bringing increased profit. It's hard to turn down potential profit, especially when you are not directly affected by the environmental issues. If you think local officials were not bought & paid for, you are fill in the blank. Sure they were. Very few people can resist a significant jump in income and standard of living. Incidentally, if you really believe what you say about the need to fight Islamic fundamentalists, then you cannot comment negatively on Russia's foray into Afghanistan, particularly in light of what they've been dealing with lately. Ah! The ultimate dilemma. Do we side with the enemy we know, and have been fighting with for years, or do we side with the enemy we don't yet know we have? Maybe we made the wrong choice in hindsight. But we didn't know what would happen back then. That's why hindsight is always 20/20. Perhaps, but some people feel we can learn from the past and have 20/50 vision in the future, rather than assume the past offers nothing to learn from. Agreed. That's why we should look at post WWII Europe and Japan, and apply much of the same issues to the present middle east. Dave |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:43:36 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:34:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message m... On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:45:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message news:i1cnu0tiskq8s3415tfa0kus2uuq0de7g8@4ax. com... Dead is dead. Doesn't matter whether your head's cut off, or a .223 round slices open an artery in your leg and you watch yourself bleed to death. Our methods are no more civilized than theirs. We don't televise our combat killing. In fact we don't kidnap innocent non-combatents and execute them as terrorist propaganda. No. We stick them in a Cuban prison for 3 years and refuse to let them communicate with the outside world. Much less brutal. Dave It's kidnapping. Not if the person is an enemy of the state. Dave If they cannot communicate outside the prison, how do YOU know they're enemies of the state? Because our government said so. But since you think everything our government says is a lie........... Dave Oh boy..... |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:46:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message . .. Well, now you are. Fortunately, it was discovered and verified, which caused quite a scene. Not a big enough scene evidently, as it took Watergate to bring him down. Unfortunately, a certain percentage of the voting population never changes, and is happy to believe whatever drivel their leader feeds them. Then there is the mirror image which are people who believe nothing that the government tells them. To listen to these people, it's a wonder our country lasted for as long as it has, and prospered as well as it has, what with all the lies, corruption and dirty dealings going on.......... Dave Oh, I believe some of it. But I question everything, since it's my patriotic duty to do so. If people didn't do that, this country would not exist. |
|
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 |
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:57:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Jim Carter" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: I'm afraid rape and sodomy may be the way Dave maintains control at home. You think he's the willing victim? That's not very nice comments guys! Give the poor fellow a break. He may not be an intellectual star but I think he is an OK person. Jim Carter "The Boat" Bayfield I think he's an OK person too, Jim. But, I also know he's at least partially influenced by a tradition that promotes rules to live by such as "Spare the rod and spoil the child". Can you tell me (without resorting to personal insults) just why that practice is not the best course of action? 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 |
Dave Hall wrote: On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:43:36 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:34:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:45:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message om... Dead is dead. Doesn't matter whether your head's cut off, or a ..223 round slices open an artery in your leg and you watch yourself bleed to death. Our methods are no more civilized than theirs. We don't televise our combat killing. In fact we don't kidnap innocent non-combatents and execute them as terrorist propaganda. No. We stick them in a Cuban prison for 3 years and refuse to let them communicate with the outside world. Much less brutal. Dave It's kidnapping. Not if the person is an enemy of the state. Dave If they cannot communicate outside the prison, how do YOU know they're enemies of the state? Because our government said so. Damned right! And by golly, we KNOW that we must goose-step to the furor Bush. |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:57:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Jim Carter" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: I'm afraid rape and sodomy may be the way Dave maintains control at home. You think he's the willing victim? That's not very nice comments guys! Give the poor fellow a break. He may not be an intellectual star but I think he is an OK person. Jim Carter "The Boat" Bayfield I think he's an OK person too, Jim. But, I also know he's at least partially influenced by a tradition that promotes rules to live by such as "Spare the rod and spoil the child". Can you tell me (without resorting to personal insults) just why that practice is not the best course of action? 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. 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". 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. |
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." ... 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. At least that's how I would do things if were king. You didn't pick your parents right, that's all. DSK |
"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". puke |
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 |
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. 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
... 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". I interpret that as wailing on them. 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. 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. |
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com