Main > Everything Else
Land of the free?
quarterback:
--- Quote from: DrewKaree on March 06, 2005, 12:59:00 am ---
--- Quote from: quarterback on March 05, 2005, 11:49:18 pm ---Then maybe you can show me where I DID manipulate the truth.
--- End quote ---
Certainly.
--- End quote ---
Magnet_Eye:
I wouldn't stand for the pledge of allegiance. I am a Buddhist, and I am "supposedly" protected under the constitution to have my right to any religion I see fit, but yet the "pledge" requires a person to say "one nation under God" thanks to eisenhower.
1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Don't force feed me your beliefs. I am sick of it. I will not stand for "one nation under God"
I do value my country and believe in it, and respect it. I just wish all those ---daisies--- would stop throwing their Christianity at me.
daywane:
but we are also protected as well.
We are a Christian nation and the minority is over ruling the majority.
I bet you still like money even though it says in god we trust.
You can have your religion. So can I. Practice your religion all you want. So will I. That is our National anthum like it or not. Show some respect to the flag and worship who ever you want because the flag stands for your right to do so.
I am having my own battles over a flag
Heritage not hate.
ChadTower:
I have two sons, 5 and 3. I myself was raised in the woods of Canada, mostly by my USMC drill sergeant grandfather. Let's just say that I've seen the woodshed, behind the woodshed, and the abandoned railroad shed. I turned out just fine and barely ever spank my kids. The only times I have ever spanked them was when safety was concerned (running into the street, grabbing things off the stove, playing at the top of the stairs repeatedly).
Hillary can use the old "it takes a village" line but it's just another way to try and tell us that we need to spread the authority to deal with our kids to some sort of tribal approval process before we do anything. It doesn't take a village, it takes one strong and fair hand.
50 years ago one could trust other parents to discipline their kids for misbehaving at their house. My grandmother had no issues if an uncle or parent of a friend of one of her kids whacked them. They usually deserved it and others respected a line you didn't cross with the children of others. You could send your kids to school and trust them to be safe. You could send them to church and that was the safest place in town. You could let them play in the neighborhood unsupervised because there was always some other parents poking heads out of doors and windows to keep an eye on whatever kids were there. Hell, women of my grandparents' generation used to leave occupied strollers on the sidewalk outside of stores and it was safe and accepted.
What happens if you try those things now? You let another parent touch your kid and there's a good chance your kid ends up in the hospital because that father is an oxycontin addict. You don't keep tabs on the teachers and there's a chance the teachers are trying to have sex with the students. You send them to church and they become targets of a known, institutionally condoned sexual predator. You let them play around the neighborhood without your own supervision and someone drives by and throws them in a van never to be seen again. This is the village we live in now. Hillary can keep that village, it is going to harm my children over my cold dead body.
Spanking is not abuse. I think a lot of people need to pick up an English dictionary and read the definition of abuse. A reasonable spanking for an offense that deserves sometimes is the only way to make sure the offense is not repeated.
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: quarterback on March 06, 2005, 04:48:33 am ---Yes, you're under the impression that there is a law that makes it "a CRIME for the mom to be listening to a conversation of her daughter". That is what you've stated. Read it again. That is NOT a factually true statement.
--- End quote ---
Au contraire. Your own words will also be used against you in a court of discussion.
The law:
--- Quote ---Washington passed a law making it a crime for any person to intercept a private conversation. And a second provision saying that any evidence gathered shall not be admissible in court.
--- End quote ---
Your view of that law:
--- Quote ---The law that they're referring to is a WIRETAP LAW. It (like so many other state wiretap laws) makes it illegal for a 3rd party to listen in on anybody else's conversation without their knowledge.
--- End quote ---
Mom (3rd party) is listening in on daughter's (anybody else's) conversation without daughter's knowledge.
By your interpretation of the law:
--- Quote ---It (like so many other state wiretap laws) makes it illegal
--- End quote ---
Doing something illegal is called a crime.
Therefore, if mom listens in on daughter's conversation without daughter's knowledge, mom is committing a crime, exactly as it is laid out in the law.
--- Quote ---My mom listened to her daughter have a conversation just today, and guess what, it's NOT a crime.
--- End quote ---
If she is living in Washington, it is. It very well just may be a crime in your state too.
The law is regarding monitoring someone's private conversation. It relates to bugging someone's house, their phone, sending someone in with a recorder taped to their body. If mom is picking up the phone, listening to the daughter's conversation, that is covered under the law. Read the transcript again. The lawyer even goes so far as to distinguish between putting your ear to the door, and having your phone call monitored - LISTENED IN ON.
It's against the law, a crime. The lawyer makes a point of saying he's never seen anyone prosecuted for it, but there's a reason something's called a precedent. Just because someone isn't prosecuted for something doesn't mean it isn't a crime. I've gotten warning tickets for speeding. Does that mean I wasn't breaking the law? Not at all. It means I wasn't prosecuted for breaking a law. It was still a crime.
--- Quote ---Sure, if you ROB the bank to get the money it's a crime. But simply leaving the bank with money is NOT a crime and it'd be moronic to run around saying "They're making it a CRIME to leave the bank with money in your pocket!!!!"
--- End quote ---
Poor example. If I KNOWINGLY take money above and beyond the amount I wished to withdraw from my account, it IS a crime. Maybe you aren't the mastermind, but you'll certainly be charged as an accomplice, should they decide to call the cops.
Try it. You'll see how your example works.
In this case, mom KNOWINGLY listened in on a 3rd party's conversation.
Your very own words defined exactly how it's looked at. You seem to dislike your standard being applied to yourself in the same manner you wish to judge others. I've addressed your standard, which I see applies to the finer definition you've put forth since.
--- Quote ---Clearly I'm just from a different planet than so many other people here. In my world it's okay to sometimes raise your voice, it's not okay to punch your kid in the mouth, nobody ever had to be taken behind the shed to be disciplined and nobody ever had to take any doors off the hinges to make a point about privacy or respect
--- End quote ---
agreed on the first, agreed on the second (which wasn't ever mentioned here, re-read the post you refer to - unless we chalk that up to distorting the truth - or is that not the standard you wish to be judged by?), your methods may differ on the third - it has nothing to do with being on another planet, the fourth speaks to your differing methods as well, although misunderstanding the use of the third could easily lead to the fourth.
I'm glad I have numerous instances of your view on the third telling me they appreciate the marked difference between my children and the usual ilk. I also LOVE the discussions afterward about how my methods of raising children they praised not 2 minutes ago are now misguided and will "eventually lead to your children rebelling against you". When it happens, I'll let you know, although when they're 30, it can hardly be called "rebelling" ;D