New program to curtail unruly behavior
- Thread starter Wildcard
- Start date
invention_45
New member
Pointer: I'd like to know how what I said constitutes "jumping to conclusions".
As for not reading the entire thread, guilty as charged. I skim'em, and if they're a little too off-topic (keep your eyes on the fine) I skip'em.
I was responding the original post itself and to the comments of a couple posts I did read.
First, I gotta comment on the "with us or agin' us" attitude you espouse as a conservative.
Regardless of how you read me, I'm not a conservative nor a liberal. I believe everybody should be free to do what he wants so long as it doesn't affect other people negatively. "Affecting other people negatively" does NOT include offending the delicate sensibilities of busybodies. I'll spell it out. It means not physically harming another or taking of his property or unduly restricting his freedom. You know, like the document says...life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. The further away from believing this a person is, the more "un-American" he is. There's no arguing this, unless you are willing to dismiss the documents upon which the founding fathers based our nation. And if you are willing to do that, it sort of shoots any 2nd amendment arguments you might want to make.
Examples: I don't care if you are stumbling drunk on the street. It isn't my business until you use it as an excuse to get in my face or attack me. I don't care if you use drugs. Just stay in your houses or clubs and out of traffic when you're on'em. I don't care how many guns you have. Just don't threaten me with'em and don't shoot them in the air on Independence Day. You want to use a prostitute? Fine by me. I never used one, never will. But there aint no victim there. Other than the delicate sensibilities of busybodies.
You might ask "what about the indirect costs to me of behavior I don't like?" You don't want to pay higher insurance/medical costs because of my old college buddy's AIDS or drug addiction. Fair enough. I don't want to pay for your grandma's diabetes complications because she won't take her medicine or smoking-induced lung cancer. So let's don't get into indirect harms, shall we? We could drop the idea of sharing medical costs entirely, for all old and disabled (for any reason) people. I'd love it, right up to the day I got a major illness. Then it wouldn't be so much fun. So, personally, I am happy enough covering these indirect costs, just like I'm happy enough paying what it takes to keep the street lights on and the emergency services rolling. And I don't want laws that try to stop behavior just to reduce those costs, at the price of scrubbing my rights to life, liberty, and pursuit.
If you do to a victim what you wouldn't want done to you, you should be punished. If you do it again, you should be more severely punished. You. Not somebody else who didn't do it. The punishment should fit the crime. I am in favor of the death penalty when the crime warrants it as long as there's NO doubt about guilt.
My thinking in these matters has not changed since I was 12 or so, and I'm 52 now. Call it not-conservative if you want. Call it liberal if you want. I don't care.
Now I'll start back toward the original issue, the punishment of somebody for somebody else's crime (the fine).
In case you don't know already, I'll tell you a little something. Long before the 60's you hate so much, even with all the tract houses lined up in neat rows with nice lawns, there was such a thing as child abuse. Lucky for me, I wasn't subjected to it. Just so you know, dad was from the deep (and I do mean deep) south and I was not unacquainted with the more painful uses for a belt. I didn't consider that to have been abuse at the time and I still don't.
But real abuse (broken bones, cigarette burns, shaken baby) resulted in laws being written to try to stop some of it. Since I don't want kids being seriously injured by (insane, drunk, drugged, stupid) parents, I support the basic laws in that area. I hereby declare that, if I have anything to say about it, you aren't going to do these things, even to your own kid.
Like a lot of laws, they got overzealously interpreted in courts and some mutated into new laws. The newer ones, at least in Dade County, create a maze of rules as to what you can and cannot do to a child for punishment. So your direct control over your child has become fairly restricted.
When you take control away from a parent, and then fine them for not being able to exert control, that's wrong. It's analogous to taxation without representation.
Add to that, cane as I might, no $103 (nor $500, for that matter) falls out of her pants pockets. I would have tried to stick my debit card in somewhere, but I'm sure there's a law against that too.
Furthermore, a kid who's run away from home isn't there to beat on or otherwise (chores) extract the money from. I'd be flailing at thin air.
So, the first order of business was to try to get the kid back in the house. Not knowing where she was, I enlisted any help I could get. DCF, police, judge. Keep in mind that I let her stay in jail a day more than she had to be there when she was found. I did not bail her out. She knows I have a strict no-bail policy. The jail just wanted me to come and pick her up (as did she). If you don't believe in doing some things with the help of the "guvmint", then next time you have to defend your home, please don't call 911...leave the lines open for the rest of us.
The $500 fine did nothing to help this situation, only causing me to have yet another fight to fight on top of the discipline situation. The fine, by the way, came after I had been to the school at least 5 times over the skipping situation. I was doing everything the counselors were suggesting, and still a fine.
In the end I didn't pay the fine. I guess I "appealed" it and won, though I doubt any lawyer would recognize the process as that. The judge, after the yelling match I mentioned, seemed to realize I was trying to do right and ordered I didn't have to pay.
You might think I'm bitter over all this. Nope, it was part of the job. I'd rather it have gone smoother. What I'm aggravated about is the idiocy of the fine.
For the most part, she's turned several good corners. I had a considerable hand in that, with the help of the "system", but only after chewing their posteriors till I got that help. Even my ex-wife's brother, who hates my guts, calls me a good father. She's now in college (sorry for the jealous among us who'd call that a "college-weenie"). Just like I did, she's paying for it herself.
So, to recap. Idiot parents seriously injure their kids, causing laws that restrict even reasonable corporal discipline. Then the school board, probably cheered on by the very same idiots, impose a fine for said inability to control.
And to oppose this twisted situation seems un-American. Sheesh!
As for not reading the entire thread, guilty as charged. I skim'em, and if they're a little too off-topic (keep your eyes on the fine) I skip'em.
I was responding the original post itself and to the comments of a couple posts I did read.
First, I gotta comment on the "with us or agin' us" attitude you espouse as a conservative.
Regardless of how you read me, I'm not a conservative nor a liberal. I believe everybody should be free to do what he wants so long as it doesn't affect other people negatively. "Affecting other people negatively" does NOT include offending the delicate sensibilities of busybodies. I'll spell it out. It means not physically harming another or taking of his property or unduly restricting his freedom. You know, like the document says...life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. The further away from believing this a person is, the more "un-American" he is. There's no arguing this, unless you are willing to dismiss the documents upon which the founding fathers based our nation. And if you are willing to do that, it sort of shoots any 2nd amendment arguments you might want to make.
Examples: I don't care if you are stumbling drunk on the street. It isn't my business until you use it as an excuse to get in my face or attack me. I don't care if you use drugs. Just stay in your houses or clubs and out of traffic when you're on'em. I don't care how many guns you have. Just don't threaten me with'em and don't shoot them in the air on Independence Day. You want to use a prostitute? Fine by me. I never used one, never will. But there aint no victim there. Other than the delicate sensibilities of busybodies.
You might ask "what about the indirect costs to me of behavior I don't like?" You don't want to pay higher insurance/medical costs because of my old college buddy's AIDS or drug addiction. Fair enough. I don't want to pay for your grandma's diabetes complications because she won't take her medicine or smoking-induced lung cancer. So let's don't get into indirect harms, shall we? We could drop the idea of sharing medical costs entirely, for all old and disabled (for any reason) people. I'd love it, right up to the day I got a major illness. Then it wouldn't be so much fun. So, personally, I am happy enough covering these indirect costs, just like I'm happy enough paying what it takes to keep the street lights on and the emergency services rolling. And I don't want laws that try to stop behavior just to reduce those costs, at the price of scrubbing my rights to life, liberty, and pursuit.
If you do to a victim what you wouldn't want done to you, you should be punished. If you do it again, you should be more severely punished. You. Not somebody else who didn't do it. The punishment should fit the crime. I am in favor of the death penalty when the crime warrants it as long as there's NO doubt about guilt.
My thinking in these matters has not changed since I was 12 or so, and I'm 52 now. Call it not-conservative if you want. Call it liberal if you want. I don't care.
Now I'll start back toward the original issue, the punishment of somebody for somebody else's crime (the fine).
In case you don't know already, I'll tell you a little something. Long before the 60's you hate so much, even with all the tract houses lined up in neat rows with nice lawns, there was such a thing as child abuse. Lucky for me, I wasn't subjected to it. Just so you know, dad was from the deep (and I do mean deep) south and I was not unacquainted with the more painful uses for a belt. I didn't consider that to have been abuse at the time and I still don't.
But real abuse (broken bones, cigarette burns, shaken baby) resulted in laws being written to try to stop some of it. Since I don't want kids being seriously injured by (insane, drunk, drugged, stupid) parents, I support the basic laws in that area. I hereby declare that, if I have anything to say about it, you aren't going to do these things, even to your own kid.
Like a lot of laws, they got overzealously interpreted in courts and some mutated into new laws. The newer ones, at least in Dade County, create a maze of rules as to what you can and cannot do to a child for punishment. So your direct control over your child has become fairly restricted.
When you take control away from a parent, and then fine them for not being able to exert control, that's wrong. It's analogous to taxation without representation.
Add to that, cane as I might, no $103 (nor $500, for that matter) falls out of her pants pockets. I would have tried to stick my debit card in somewhere, but I'm sure there's a law against that too.
Furthermore, a kid who's run away from home isn't there to beat on or otherwise (chores) extract the money from. I'd be flailing at thin air.
So, the first order of business was to try to get the kid back in the house. Not knowing where she was, I enlisted any help I could get. DCF, police, judge. Keep in mind that I let her stay in jail a day more than she had to be there when she was found. I did not bail her out. She knows I have a strict no-bail policy. The jail just wanted me to come and pick her up (as did she). If you don't believe in doing some things with the help of the "guvmint", then next time you have to defend your home, please don't call 911...leave the lines open for the rest of us.
The $500 fine did nothing to help this situation, only causing me to have yet another fight to fight on top of the discipline situation. The fine, by the way, came after I had been to the school at least 5 times over the skipping situation. I was doing everything the counselors were suggesting, and still a fine.
In the end I didn't pay the fine. I guess I "appealed" it and won, though I doubt any lawyer would recognize the process as that. The judge, after the yelling match I mentioned, seemed to realize I was trying to do right and ordered I didn't have to pay.
You might think I'm bitter over all this. Nope, it was part of the job. I'd rather it have gone smoother. What I'm aggravated about is the idiocy of the fine.
For the most part, she's turned several good corners. I had a considerable hand in that, with the help of the "system", but only after chewing their posteriors till I got that help. Even my ex-wife's brother, who hates my guts, calls me a good father. She's now in college (sorry for the jealous among us who'd call that a "college-weenie"). Just like I did, she's paying for it herself.
So, to recap. Idiot parents seriously injure their kids, causing laws that restrict even reasonable corporal discipline. Then the school board, probably cheered on by the very same idiots, impose a fine for said inability to control.
And to oppose this twisted situation seems un-American. Sheesh!
garand_shooter
+1
Your post is very well-stated...
invention_45
+1
I think the answer to this should be the kid... parents pay the judge and kid pays the parents...
What most bleeding hearts don't seem to get, is that by the time Dad hears about the kid's bad behavior the problem has already existed for a time and it has finally reached a point where the @$$ whipping is beyond necessary.
Your post is very well-stated...
invention_45
NOTE: This makes it VOLUNTARY and that's the way it should be! If the MAJORITY is in favor of LIMITED medical benefits... then so be it.
The fine did in fact serve its' purpose... it got the parents attention FOCUSED on the kid. I'm sure you are a good parent but many of your fellow parents are whimpy, whimpy, whimpy.
We disagree on a point or two here and there, but generally we are in agreement... I can declare things too... and I proudly declare you a Conservative...
Redworm
They will stop at NOTHING unscrupulous to get their way... including abusing authority, power, lying to the courts, lying to their financial supporters, and punishing whole segments of society for the actions of a few.
Isn't the ONLY way... indeed. This would lend itself to the idea that liberals are open-minded...
just more propaganda to mislead the sheeple. 
This is the typical form of propaganda from the left... They have NO INTENTION of accepting or tolerating or sustaining any other "way" than their own.
They will stop at NOTHING unscrupulous to get their way... including abusing authority, power, lying to the courts, lying to their financial supporters, and punishing whole segments of society for the actions of a few.
Isn't the ONLY way... indeed. This would lend itself to the idea that liberals are open-minded...
just more propaganda to mislead the sheeple. jesus christ, dude.
I said that physical pain is not the only way to chastise a child. I did NOT say that it should never be done nor that it doesn't work nor that I have the perfect way to rear a child. But no one can deny that in some cases it doesn't work and in other cases other methods work just as well if not better.
To think that caning or beating a child is the only proper way to raise a child is just as ignorant as believing that putting them in "time out" is the only way to punish them.
I said that physical pain is not the only way to chastise a child. I did NOT say that it should never be done nor that it doesn't work nor that I have the perfect way to rear a child. But no one can deny that in some cases it doesn't work and in other cases other methods work just as well if not better.
To think that caning or beating a child is the only proper way to raise a child is just as ignorant as believing that putting them in "time out" is the only way to punish them.
invention_45
New member
dang...
...how the heck did I end up a conservative?
Pointer: Thanks for taking my big diatribe the way I meant it and not as just an incitement to a battle.
garand: You might be surprised to know I agree with the rock/window scenario. Other people don't have any implied duty to work to fix my kid's situation if he does wrong. They're just victims, so if the window is broken, I owe them. The school, however, has, in my view, a duty to work with me if possible to fix the kid rather than just blindly fining me.
Speaking of parents being responsible for kids and all...
In grade school I knew a japanese girl named Seiko.
Later, when I was about 16, I was sitting on my parents' back patio and we all heard a big crash. We went out front and found a car had turned the corner 3 houses down and smacked into the rear of my mom's car, which was parked along the street. It was driven by a 14-year old kid who turned out to be Seiko's brother. He had a similarly aged passenger.
The parents came by a few days later and were all very apolgetic and offering to pay. Once that all got negotiated, the talk turned to just exactly what happened.
Turns out that the passenger had dared him to do a, and I quote, "kamakaze attack" on another car. And the first one they saw was my mom's.
...how the heck did I end up a conservative?
Pointer: Thanks for taking my big diatribe the way I meant it and not as just an incitement to a battle.
garand: You might be surprised to know I agree with the rock/window scenario. Other people don't have any implied duty to work to fix my kid's situation if he does wrong. They're just victims, so if the window is broken, I owe them. The school, however, has, in my view, a duty to work with me if possible to fix the kid rather than just blindly fining me.
Speaking of parents being responsible for kids and all...
In grade school I knew a japanese girl named Seiko.
Later, when I was about 16, I was sitting on my parents' back patio and we all heard a big crash. We went out front and found a car had turned the corner 3 houses down and smacked into the rear of my mom's car, which was parked along the street. It was driven by a 14-year old kid who turned out to be Seiko's brother. He had a similarly aged passenger.
The parents came by a few days later and were all very apolgetic and offering to pay. Once that all got negotiated, the talk turned to just exactly what happened.
Turns out that the passenger had dared him to do a, and I quote, "kamakaze attack" on another car. And the first one they saw was my mom's.
garand_shooter
New member
Invention: The duty of the school is to educate the students. The parents of the unruly children are not the victims here. The students cheated out of valuable education time due to disruption are the victims. If the purpose of the school were to babysit children while we earned a living, I would agree whole-heartedly. The school has an overwhelming obligation to the students who are there to learn.
What other method does the school have available? Suspension is viewed as a vacation by some kids, as the law requires readmittance after the suspension. (Another flaw in the public education system) I would like to see the law changed, so repeatedly disruptive kids could be removed, and not force the school to take them back, at the expense of the other kids. Cheating those who would learn, out of an education is the real crime here.
Once again, I have to lay this at the feet of the parents. Go to any public place and observe young children, out of control, getting away with anything, effectively ruling their parents. These same parents will be the ones later paying the fines. The course of action we take today determines what options we will have available tomorrow, so in effect, these parents are paying for years of poor parenting.
Pointer: Thanks for the kind words...
Lot of assumptions there.
Generally speaking, good parents end up with well behaved teenagers who grow up to be productive members of society.
But there's this little tiny thing called free will that gets in the way of good parents invariably producing good kids -- or vice versa, for that matter.
My parents were very good parents. They raised four children, blending firm discipline with loving attention. They had firm rules with predictable consequences for misbehavior, and reasonable expectations for what their kids were and were not required to do. Three of us got through our teen years with a minimum of trouble, landed jobs, got married, and are raising children of our own with only the usual bumps and bruises along the way.
My brother chose not to go that route, though. He managed to become a drunk in junior high. Lest you think that's not possible if the parents are doing their jobs, I assure you that it is possible. We went to a good private school, and Mom was home when we got off the bus. Dad was involved in our lives and we spent plenty of time together as a family.
Despite all that, my brother managed to get himself an alcohol addiction bigger than he was when he was still too young to shave. By the time he hit his mid-teens, he'd run away from home dozens of times -- once for more than six months -- and was a drug abuser as well as a drunk. He spent time in juvie for theft (stupid idiot tried to steal from KMart). He's sober these days, and has sorta-kinda turned his life around now, two failed marriages later, but he never sees his kids, doesn't have a steady job, and is pushing 40 with no plan to do anything else with his life than what he's done.
Is any of that my parents' fault? Is all of it their fault? I've never been able to convince myself that it is. And it rankles when I hear folks blame all teenage misbehavior on "poor parenting," as if children are not born with personalities of their own, and as if they are mere automatons instead of human beings with the ability to make choices despite whatever cultural or environment pressures surround them.
Nevertheless, when he was a minor child under their care, they were responsible for his behavior and they never shied away from that.
pax
Invention and Garand
You're both welcome...
There is another perspective that we should not overlook...
Over-disciplining of the children... such as long term harshness, verbal abuse, expectations far above the child's capacity, and just plain meaness...
This can lead to rebellion and confusion in the mind of the child as to forming values and principles of their own.
The biggest problem with today's children is that they have no ability to choose right, because they have been lied to by their experiences, their parents, their peers, and the liberal education systems...
They have not been taught how their government is supposed to work...
They have no idea what the Constitutional rights are, they think separation of church and state means atheism is the order of the day.
They do not know how to think...
Everything that could be construed as morally acceptible by society, is BANNED and everything that is addictive(Drugs, alcohol, porn, computer games) has the "face" of respectability.
Ill-mannered and uncivilized behavior, gang affiliations, and the belief that being offended is a capital offense, are all the result of liberal public school agendas and curriculum's as well as attitudes that they expound that life isn't valuable until after it is born or that life isn't valuable at all except that it benefits the state.
Get their attention! Cane them! It's better than letting them think their gang is more powerful than ours...
You're both welcome...
There is another perspective that we should not overlook...
Over-disciplining of the children... such as long term harshness, verbal abuse, expectations far above the child's capacity, and just plain meaness...
This can lead to rebellion and confusion in the mind of the child as to forming values and principles of their own.
The biggest problem with today's children is that they have no ability to choose right, because they have been lied to by their experiences, their parents, their peers, and the liberal education systems...
They have not been taught how their government is supposed to work...
They have no idea what the Constitutional rights are, they think separation of church and state means atheism is the order of the day.
They do not know how to think...
Everything that could be construed as morally acceptible by society, is BANNED and everything that is addictive(Drugs, alcohol, porn, computer games) has the "face" of respectability.
Ill-mannered and uncivilized behavior, gang affiliations, and the belief that being offended is a capital offense, are all the result of liberal public school agendas and curriculum's as well as attitudes that they expound that life isn't valuable until after it is born or that life isn't valuable at all except that it benefits the state.
Get their attention! Cane them! It's better than letting them think their gang is more powerful than ours...
Last edited:
garand_shooter
New member
While there are exceptions to every rule, you would be hard-pressed to convince me these children are all "exceptions".
Sorry if I hit a nerve. I meant no harm.
invention_45
New member
Pointer: You and I seem to have some deep-seated and differing views, but we seem to be able to discuss them without getting nasty and personal. I like it.
I'm a little curious about some things, and I'm not asking rhetorically. I want to know this.
The things you say society has put acceptable faces on, (drugs, alcohol, porn, video games) I'm having trouble seeing.
I think they should ALL be legal. Not because of what I saw in the movies or on TV. But I'm in science and I know how to interpret studies and statistics.
BUT...
I don't do them, and most people I deal with seem to at least shun them, certainly in excess. By that I mean my neighbors and co-workers. I don't see drugs, drinking, or porn being promoted on TV, but I don't watch a lot of it. So I wonder why you think these things have acceptable faces.
I can only imagine one thing that you might consider banned. That's God in the classroom or other government-run establishment. My reading of the constitution and what I've read about the authors convinces me they were trying to keep religion and government separate, not only keep government from controlling religion or religion controlling government.
So my view is that that isn't any more banned than it should be.
I just thought of another one. Corporal punishment at schools. When I was growing up, I never had the chance to get paddled. But I knew a few who did, and they sort of asked for it. Begged, really.
I never favored it as a blanket policy. I'd have to meet the guy doing the paddling to know if I wanted my kid to be subjected to it. And if I did, I'd want to be given veto power on an instance-per-instance basis, after getting all the facts. If that policy were in place, then I'm suddenly OK with fining parents.
In other words, I want due process. I don't want some county (that's the guvmint, you know) employee beating on my kid carte blanche.
This isn't just talk. I put my kid in a "magnet" school. It wasn't in a pretty area, but it had a good program. So I met with the principal the first week to get a feel how things would go. Among the many items we discussed was paddling of kids. In elementary school. I was informed that they would do it if need be. I told this guy I wanted to be consulted first. He replied that they didn't do that. I then explained that, while I wasn't necessarily against any paddling at all, if I came to find out she'd been paddled without my permission that there would be one more paddling pending, and it would not be administered to her.
My kid's former high school can also tell you that I am perfectly willing (though I'll admit not that happy) to take half-days off to make myself present to do it this way.
Are there other things that have been banned that you're thinking but I'm not?
I'm a little curious about some things, and I'm not asking rhetorically. I want to know this.
The things you say society has put acceptable faces on, (drugs, alcohol, porn, video games) I'm having trouble seeing.
I think they should ALL be legal. Not because of what I saw in the movies or on TV. But I'm in science and I know how to interpret studies and statistics.
BUT...
I don't do them, and most people I deal with seem to at least shun them, certainly in excess. By that I mean my neighbors and co-workers. I don't see drugs, drinking, or porn being promoted on TV, but I don't watch a lot of it. So I wonder why you think these things have acceptable faces.
I can only imagine one thing that you might consider banned. That's God in the classroom or other government-run establishment. My reading of the constitution and what I've read about the authors convinces me they were trying to keep religion and government separate, not only keep government from controlling religion or religion controlling government.
So my view is that that isn't any more banned than it should be.
I just thought of another one. Corporal punishment at schools. When I was growing up, I never had the chance to get paddled. But I knew a few who did, and they sort of asked for it. Begged, really.
I never favored it as a blanket policy. I'd have to meet the guy doing the paddling to know if I wanted my kid to be subjected to it. And if I did, I'd want to be given veto power on an instance-per-instance basis, after getting all the facts. If that policy were in place, then I'm suddenly OK with fining parents.
In other words, I want due process. I don't want some county (that's the guvmint, you know) employee beating on my kid carte blanche.
This isn't just talk. I put my kid in a "magnet" school. It wasn't in a pretty area, but it had a good program. So I met with the principal the first week to get a feel how things would go. Among the many items we discussed was paddling of kids. In elementary school. I was informed that they would do it if need be. I told this guy I wanted to be consulted first. He replied that they didn't do that. I then explained that, while I wasn't necessarily against any paddling at all, if I came to find out she'd been paddled without my permission that there would be one more paddling pending, and it would not be administered to her.
My kid's former high school can also tell you that I am perfectly willing (though I'll admit not that happy) to take half-days off to make myself present to do it this way.
Are there other things that have been banned that you're thinking but I'm not?
I'm sorry... I often say things, reserving the explanations, mostly hoping people will be able to understand anyway...
I think these things have been ALLOWED/CONDONED/EXPECTED and even RESPECTED by the weak responses we have given to them; by weak punishments; by weak understanding-the-misunderstood-excuse-making-Spockian-tune-in-drop-out-turn-on-hippy-liberals.
Perhaps... if they had been made legal 40 years ago...?
But, today the society is no longer mature enough to handle the all out chaos that would take place on the highways and in the schools etc. There are countries like the Netherlands who legalized drugs and now the State is feeding, housing. and otherwise supporting the addicts... and cleaning up the streets after them... and the majority of people have to avoid portions of Amsterdam, which city was know for at least a few centuries, as the most scrubbed city in Europe.
They are regretting and re-thinking that "can of worms".
They are accepted, to one degree or another, by more and more of society everyday... They are accepted by not being avidly rejected, they are thought of as OK for specific "situationitis" like everybody's doing it... and open use without shame or embarrassment by the upper class "suits" and yuppies in the New York City "Picante sauce", "Granola Bar", cocaine parties.
Give me a little help here, that's not such a big leap!
For what other possible reason... would religious founding fathers want to keep religion separated from government and vice-versa? Why else would they care... Again, this isn't such a great leap...
I never saw it used as a blanket policy either... it was reserved for the worst offenses committed by the most troublesome "citizens"...
Last edited:
You wanna tell me why of all things you want to punish people for video games?
Nevermind that the others ones are reserved for adults but your suggestions that things ought to be banned simply because you don't like them is as antithetical to freedom and the very thing that your precious second amendment stands for as those "demosocialists" making you pay for sex changes, abortions, and government cheese.
Would you elaborate?
You're comparing snack foods to cocaine?
To make sure that the puritan beliefs of those who feel they are on higher "moral standing" because of their faith are not imposed on anyone. Equally as important as keeping the government away from all forms of spirituality.
