Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XIV

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by moraldeficiency

Honestly, and I'm just going to throw this out there, parents have way too many rights in regards to their children. I've seen parents demand their children with severe mental disabilities be jammed into standard schooling with other kids, dragging those kids down and putting their own children in impossible situations. The allowance to drug the hell out of a kid is ludicrous. And there are far too many morbidly obese children who are told it's ok because that's just who you are.

Not saying yay UN by any means but people screaming parents rights need to get over it. Parents have far too much leeway to devastate their children because they think, no matter what doctors, scientists, psychologists or common sense tell them is best, they and they alone should be the sole deciding factor in everything in their children's lives. Mom and dad don't always know best, there are some simple and basic ideas which should override a parent's wants and if they disagree? Well then they really shouldn't be responsible for a human life to begin with.

You can actually thank Bush's baby...."No Child Left Behind" for this little nugget.....

[Fading]

The problem with dictating how much rights the parent has vs the government over a child is that it's a slippery slope. I agree that some ppl are such lousy parents they deserve to have their child taken away. Then again, I'm not entirely comfortable with giving the government more power over a persons child than the one that gave birth.

It's an extreme example, but what if it led to child care being able to take a child away because of dietary reasons (ex: soft drinks, and pizza). Or because spanking in public becomes viewed as abuse. Let alone if religious beliefs, or lack there of ever is considered a factor. There's a certain level of power I'd rather we not give to our politicians over parenting rights.

I do agree though there needs to be a line where a parent needs to be corrected. Not just with abuse, or neglect, but like mentioned with sending a mentally handicapped or special needs child to a regular public school class. Some parents really don't know/care what's best for their child, and can ruin that child's life, but we need a balanced approach that's not purely government knows best.

[moraldeficiency]

Originally Posted by Kelly

You can actually thank Bush's baby...."No Child Left Behind" for this little nugget.....

Oh, I feel the blame should go around. People say parents rights like it's this big sacred thing but really I think the child deserves some standards and rights that even the parent cannot touch. But yes, that was a silly idea, though what I particularly hate is how much parents loved it. There is nothing wrong with someone being mentally disabled, they can still have normal lives provided you don't try to force them to be "normal" in the way everyone else is. Still I blame the stigma of mental disabilities more than any one law, not enough is done to promote understanding here or anywhere else and without that understanding parents are always going to try to hide a treatable condition until it becomes a serious problem.

[moraldeficiency]

Originally Posted by Fading

It's an extreme example, but what if it led to child care being able to take a child away because of dietary reasons (ex: soft drinks, and pizza). Or because spanking in public becomes viewed as abuse. Let alone if religious beliefs, or lack there of ever is considered a factor. There's a certain level of power I'd rather we not give to our politicians over parenting rights.

If you allow a small child to become morbidly obese to the point a heart attack as a teenage is a real danger you have abused that child. Moreso than a beating actually. And why is public spanking necessary? You just cannot wait to get your kid out to the parking lot so you have to hit them in front of me in the store? I don't see why someone has the absolute need to do that in front of other people. Your child is a problem so now everyone around you has to witness this and be uncomfortable? Also a screaming child in pain is always going to draw people to help hopefully the same way a rape victim would and now you've gone and cause a public distress spectacle the same way screaming fire might which could injure others.

Religious views I agree with unless it comes down to the matter of say your child dying because you don't believe god likes antibiotics, then I think things are clear.

I just think some basic rules to assure the child's the the public's safety isn't too much to ask parents to abide by.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by moraldeficiency

If you allow a small child to become morbidly obese to the point a heart attack as a teenage is a real danger you have abused that child. Moreso than a beating actually. And why is public spanking necessary? You just cannot wait to get your kid out to the parking lot so you have to hit them in front of me in the store? I don't see why someone has the absolute need to do that in front of other people. Your child is a problem so now everyone around you has to witness this and be uncomfortable? Also a screaming child in pain is always going to draw people to help hopefully the same way a rape victim would and now you've gone and cause a public distress spectacle the same way screaming fire might which could injure others.

Religious views I agree with unless it comes down to the matter of say your child dying because you don't believe god likes antibiotics, then I think things are clear.

I just think some basic rules to assure the child's the the public's safety isn't too much to ask parents to abide by.

If you are going to go that direction then you might as well take children out of the homes of morbidly obese people.....good luck with that one.

[Schlosser85]

Frankly I think some people enjoy publicly spanking their children and showing off how "in control" they are, or something.

[moraldeficiency]

Originally Posted by Kelly

If you are going to go that direction then you might as well take children out of the homes of morbidly obese people.....good luck with that one.

If an adult wants to put themselves in terrible risk of heart attacks and strokes that's their business. If an adult wants to put a child at risk of the same things at age 11, that's completely different.

You can't compare an adult's choices with that of a child. The reason the child has less rights is so they can be protected because they don't understand the consequences of certain choices. If you're making that rationalization that adult = child in terms of decisions than all minors should just be emancipated and there should be no parent rights, if that happens then what you said makes sense.

Serious health risks are just serious health risks. If you let your child become morbidly obese or drink unpasteurized milk or any of a dozen things a parent can legally do which puts the child in mortal danger, not to mention a risk for those around them, well then you shouldn't be allowed to be a parent.

Mind you I understand the slippery slope argument to this but really let's break it down to simple terms. If you've allowed your child to be in current mortal danger with a high probability of fatality and it was something that could have been avoided through basic parenting then you should not be the final decider on a human life because you've given that up by choosing not to protect that life in the most basic and simple terms.

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I'm just checking, is this still about the Republican party?

[Marvolo]

I wasnt sure where to put this:

California Judge Thinks Rape Victims' Bodies 'Will Not Permit That to Happen'

Move over Todd Akin. Step aside Richard Mourdock. Derek Johnson has something totally ignorant to say about rape—namely that women's bodies "will not permit that to happen" if they really don't want it.

Today, the California Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously voted to admonish the Superior Court judge over statements he made during the 2008 sentencing of a man who threatened his ex-girlfriend with horrific violence before proceeding to rape her. The prosecution requested the defendant be sentenced to 16 years in prison, but Johnson only gave him six. Here's why, according to the judge himself:

"I'm not a gynecologist, but I can tell you something: If someone doesn't want to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down. The body will not permit that to happen unless a lot of damage is inflicted ..."

And this guy used to be a prosecutor in the Orange County district attorney's sex crimes unit. Seriously. He also undercut the victim's case by arguing that she "didn't put up a fight." The Judicial Performance commission's chairman Lawrence J. Simi clarifies, "The judge's remarks reflected outdated, biased and insensitive views about sexual assault victims who do not 'put up a fight.' Such comments cannot help but diminish public confidence and trust in the impartiality of the judiciary." Johnson has since apologized for the remarks. If he had to face voters anytime soon, his chances for re-election would be slim based on how Akin and Mourdock fared this election cycle. But Orange County citizens will unfortunately have to put up with Johnson for a few more years—his last six-year term ends in early 2015.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/natio...-happen/59985/

This guy should have stopped at "Im not a gynecologist".

[Anita18]

Aaaaaaaaaaa...........

[wiegeabo]

Just great. The judge broke Anita.

[Dr. Evil]

I think it's best for the Republicans to hold off on the fiscal cliff talks until tomorrow.

[Pink Ranger]

Could somebody please just tell Mike Huckabee to shut up? Like, stop making any public statement until January 31, at least. Thank you.

[Schlosser85]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

I wasnt sure where to put this:



www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/california-judge-thinks-rape-victims-bodies-will-not-permit-happen/59985/

This guy should have stopped at "Im not a gynecologist".

Where do they find these people?

[wiegeabo]

Originally Posted by Schlosser85

Where do they find these people?

Under a rock

[hippie_hunter]

Tim Scott has been chosen by Nikki Haley to replace Jim DeMint in the Senate. He will be the only African-American in the Senate.

[Thor The Mighty]

I hear GW Bush has been in the hospital for over a month and has been moved to ICU. I don't agree with his (especially his son's) policies but some things are above politics. This is a liberal democrat that hopes he gets better.


http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs...opstories.html

[wiegeabo]

So, apparently the first bill introduced in the new Congress was submitted by Bachmann to repeal 'Obamacare' in it's entirety.

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Originally Posted by wiegeabo

So, apparently the first bill introduced in the new Congress was submitted by Bachmann to repeal 'Obamacare' in it's entirety.

Which won't go anywhere because there's a Democratic Senate and President. Why do people elect dingbats like this, who waste taxpayers time by pushing through ridiculous political "gotcha" bills that serve no other purpose than to prove some petty point? Maybe I answered my own question. The constituents who elect these tea-party obstructionists are just as petty and small-minded.

[Fading]

Bacchman barely won her job back too. Wasn't it under 300 votes difference? I was hoping she'd just disappear off the political map, and news.

[Marvolo]

Didnt the Supreme Court rule Obamacare constitutional? I mean is this what we have to look forward to for the next hundred years? Dumbasses trying to repeal the same law over and over.

[Marx]

Originally Posted by wiegeabo

So, apparently the first bill introduced in the new Congress was submitted by Bachmann to repeal 'Obamacare' in it's entirety.

...the GOP has learned nothing from the election.

I also just read that Boehner was re-elected speaker.

[Marx]

...and he also cried like a baby. Again.

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by wiegeabo

So, apparently the first bill introduced in the new Congress was submitted by Bachmann to repeal 'Obamacare' in it's entirety.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


-Albert Einstein

[chaseter]

Parts of Obamacare will continue to loop back to the Supreme court. In 2 years it could be deemed unconstitutional, who knows. They can overturn their previous rulings. The birth control stuff will eventually make it up there as legal battles are still going on.