Land of the free?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

"A high school teacher in Brick, NJ pulled a chair from under a student after the student refused to stand for the national anthem. The school suspended one student for filming the incident, but has yet to punish the teacher."

[Background story]
[ ]


Discuss.

[ChadTower]

While you can't put your hands on a student... were I a teacher, any student who refused to stand for the national anthem would be ejected from my classroom immediately.

[Dartful Dodger]

Before Windows and Mac, I was in 7th grade I rewrote a Basic Black Jack game to display curse words instead of numbers on the school's computer in the library.  A fellow student told on me and I could not use the library for the rest of that year, and my whole eight grade year there.

Discuss.

[quarterback]

While you can't put your hands on a student... were I a teacher, any student who refused to stand for the national anthem would be ejected from my classroom immediately.

I doubt you would be a teacher for very long

[Sephroth57]

While you can't put your hands on a student... were I a teacher, any student who refused to stand for the national anthem would be ejected from my classroom immediately.

I doubt you would be a teacher for very long

lol i 2nd this, i cant see chad tower teaching anything.. =p

[quarterback]

While you can't put your hands on a student... were I a teacher, any student who refused to stand for the national anthem would be ejected from my classroom immediately.

I doubt you would be a teacher for very long

lol i 2nd this, i cant see chad tower teaching anything.. =p

Maybe teachin' how to open up a can o' whoop ass! 

[nipsmg]

Actually, I agree with ChadTower to some extent.

If the parents of the child indicated he was not to do so for religious beliefs, etc. then I would comply.  However, if some jackass kid was basically just trying to be a hardass, he'd either stand up and show some respect, or get sent to the principal's office.  Pure and simple.

--NipsMG

[GGKoul]

"A high school teacher in Brick, NJ pulled a chair from under a student after the student refused to stand for the national anthem. The school suspended one student for filming the incident, but has yet to punish the teacher."

[Background story]
[ ]

When I was in public school.

[Shape D.]

[ ]


Discuss.

That is by far the worst cinematography I have seen in my life. Who was the fool pointing the camera at the lights the whole time.  You  know theres someting wrong with kids today when they can't even point a camera properly. I would suspend him too, poor quality video like that deserves a reaction like that.

I would have suspended the set designer too.

[CCM]

I think most kids today are smart-mouthed jackasses that have no respect for anything.   That's why:

1)  I will never have kids, and
2)  I could never be a teacher

[walls83]

To hell with those kids.  I wish that teacher had shoved that flag up his ass..

[Dexter]

Will be interesting to hear the reason he stayed seated. Hopefully he refuses to recognise a flag that so many atrocities are carried out under.

I read through the comments part of that link Mr. C, theres some navy genius trying to be a hard man. Heres some of his comments...

"Your disrepectful friends can't SUE ANYONE. They are PUNKS. If you didn't stand for the National Anthem on a military base, we'd take you out back and beat the crap out you."

"You can't do squat. I know people like you...you are the first to run away when a REAL MAN puts you in your place."

"The PUNK that cursed at the teacher should be sent to a National Cemetary to dig the graves of solidiers that have served or have been killed. You're a bunch of spoiled PUNKS that deserve a kick in the balls and a 1-way ticket to MARINE BOOT CAMP and the FRONT LINES IN IRAQ!"

No wonder the invasion of Iraq was such a 'success' with quality people like this in the US armed forces boosting the 'hearts and minds' policies.

The best though, is another poster who posted the words to the village people song "in the navy". I haven't laughed as much in days. Can just imagine Private Hardmans face when he saw that ROTFLMAO!!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

That is by far the worst cinematography I have seen in my life.

I know you may be joking, but just in case...

I believe the video was shot from a camera phone, which the student was trying to hide from view. He wouldn't have been able to aim using a viewfinder. Thus, bad shots.

It seemed like the whole thing was a setup.

The friends of the kid who didn't stand have stated that this teacher has reacted violently in the past, they wanted to capture his behavior on film. Now, while I'm fully aware that these kids may be disrespectful jack-asses to him in the past, the teacher has no right to force the kid to stand. He can sit if he wants to and shouldn't have to give a reason. Bravo to the kids for standing up to his thuggery. I would support my child in doing the same.

Saying that every person should be forced to stand at attention during the anthem, irregardless of their desire not to do so, is nothing short of fascism. Plain and simple. We are not communist China, we are not North Korea, we are not Soviet-era Russia, or Nazi Germany.

I am, personally, confident enough in the founding ideals of this country that I'm not afraid of people choosing to sit out.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

To hell with those kids.  I wish that teacher had shoved that flag up his ass..

It's comments like this that make me want to burn a flag for spite. Bravo on your violent tendencies and continued support of child abuse!


mrC

[quarterback]

To hell with those kids.

[Shape D.]

I Dont understand how anyone could blame the teacher. This child was clearly a terrorist. All sitting there, and not participating, terrorist.

Now I ask you all What kind of a person would not participate in the national anthem.

Answer: TERRORIST

I highly suggest the Bush administration look into this situation and by all means necisary destroy  the terrorist insurection.

[ChadTower]

I would eject him for the duration of the National Anthem.  I would do it basically because if he's not going to participate he can leave.  I would also give him the option of leaving the room voluntarily and returning when it is over.  Should he refuse, he is simply doing it out of disrespect.  I would not tolerate disrespect of the flag in my classroom.  I have too many relatives who have died to protect what that flag represents, many of them not even American citizens at the time.

Sure, the kid has the right to make a political statement.  That's called conscientious objection.  He also has the responsibility to deal with the consequences, and the consequences of that in my classroom would be leaving the room during the anthem.

Too many idiots today seem to want to be like the civil rights leaders of the 50s.  Not enough idiots today seem to remember that those people, while their cause was just, were willing to face the consequences of their disobedience.  Disobediance comes with a price, those unwilling to pay that price should shut the eff up and stay obediant.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Disobediance comes with a price, those unwilling to pay that price should shut the eff up and stay obediant.

Jesus H. Christ, that is one scary, twisted statement.


mrC

[ChadTower]

It's not twisted at all.  Had that kid's father taught him to be a man, the kid would have known that disrespect is NOT the way to protest.  You don't disrespect a flag, you refuse to join in and leave so as not to spit on the graves of millions of men and women.  One can protest intelligently.  Intelligent protest gains an audience.  Stuff like this gets you dumped on your ass.

Granted, the teacher is wrong for placing hands on the kid.  There is no excuse for that and the teacher should also accept consequences for doing so.

BTW, Jesus has nothing to do with an incident in a public school.  Haven't you already covered that?

[missioncontrol]

He knows what he did was wrong because he wants his last name withheld.....

The kid disrespected his country and disrespected the teacher...

[ChadTower]

Look... a man (or teenage male) who has been raised properly knows there are some things you simply do not do to another man.  You don't slap him, you don't spit on him, you don't talk about his family, and you don't disrespect his flag.  These are all things that are wrong and will provoke a potentially violent response in a proud man.  You don't do those things unless you're willing to fight.  I know not many parents raise their kids properly (or at all) anymore, but wow it depresses me that an entire generation of men are out there who simply don't understand basic honor.

[fredster]

There is no excuse for that teacher, that's unacceptable.

If the kid was sincere in his belief, that's one thing. But if he was being disruptive, that's another.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

BTW, Jesus has nothing to do with an incident in a public school.  Haven't you already covered that?

lol. Yes. Most definitely.

You don't disrespect a flag, you refuse to join in and leave so as not to spit on the graves of millions of men and women.

I doubt this teacher would have accepted that option. How would his walking out have been percieved as any less "disrepectful". I've been to church several times recently (for funerals), and as a confirmed Catholic who is now Atheist, I stay seated during communion. I don't have to "walk out" of church. At the same time, I'm able to respect the practice *without* disrespecting Jesus or God.

I also disagree w/ you that refusing to adhere to nationalistic jingoisms like anthems and flag-waving somehow inherently equates w/ spitting on graves. In fact, people died DEFENDING our right to refuse to stand. Our freedoms *include* a right to protest & free expression.

mrC

[ChadTower]

They did die to protect the right to refuse to stand.  That is correct.  What I am seeing here, though, is a kid who refused to stand in order to provoke the teacher, not to protest with sincerity.  The teacher was wrong, and he got the provoked reaction he wanted, but the kid's actions had no root in nobility either.

The whole situation is unfortunate.  Clearly the incident was staged or they wouldn't have had a way to record it.  Neither side is in the right.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

but wow it depresses me that an entire generation of men are out there who simply don't understand basic honor.

Let me get this out of the way, I disagree with the direction this nation is heading. It's no secret I have no love for it's current administration. I disagree w/ a lot of the actions taken in America's name. However, I would stand for a national anthem because I hold in my heart an understanding of what *I* believe America should stand for. I respect it's positive achievements in the past, as well as it's potential for further achievement in the future.

That being said, you just can't DEMAND people respond the same way as you. Sitting during the Anthem is a viable form of protest. Stating otherwise is "dictating"...that's *not* why people died for that flag.

What I am seeing here, though, is a kid who refused to stand in order to provoke the teacher, not to protest with sincerity.  The teacher was wrong, and he got the provoked reaction he wanted, but the kid's actions had no root in nobility either.

EDIT (On preview): We are 100% in agreement on this. I had imagined there was more to this than what we were seeing, as well.


mrC

[fredster]

So what we have here is a setup designed to snap a hothead teacher.  This isn't a freedom issue, it's just a convient ploy, Right?

One dispute between a teacher and a student. Just becuse the school didn't fire the teacher at once surprises you?  It's not over yet. Let's see how it plays out.

And you know MrC, there are dozens and dozens of reverse cases of schools not being patriotic.  Look at this one, http://hq.protestwarrior.com/?page=/featured/PHS/PHS.php

What's the difference here? Well, there was no chair.

[Crazy Cooter]

lol.

I swear I started this whole thing when I was a kid.

[GGKoul]

And you know MrC, there are dozens and dozens of reverse cases of schools not being patriotic.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You can't open peoples eyes to lies if you're not in the room... Pride can make people blind.

Brilliant! See Cooter, you aren't so crazy after all. 

mrC

[ChadTower]

CT, consider what he was doing a "sit-in".  You can't open peoples eyes to lies if you're not in the room... Pride can make people blind.

People who "sit-in" in public buildings were arrested for trespassing during the civil rights movement.  It still happens today.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

And you know MrC, there are dozens and dozens of reverse cases of schools not being patriotic.  Look at this one, http://hq.protestwarrior.com/?page=/featured/PHS/PHS.php

I've read through the link. It really isn't a good counter example. "Operation Tiger Claw"?? Is that linked in any way to "Talon News"??

You do know that the "Protest Warriors" provoke violence in their protest, right? They've often waded into peaceful anti-war protesters, mock and scorned them, and provoked negative responses so they can cry "foul", "look how violent the leftists are!!"

Well, at the inauguration, several Protest Warriors rightfully got their asses kicked for being such thuggish morons. 

Anyhow, the entire experiment you linked to, ignores the fact that NO STUDENT or POLITICAL AFFILIATION is allowed to blanket a school in propaganda if it begins to interfere with school operation. When I was in H.S. I did the same thing, but with liberal messages. They were promptly taken down. I didn't whine about it like these "noble" Protest Warriors either. I understood that it wasn't allow.

The case, (Tinker v. Des Moines), which they refer too, allows the school to deliberate on a case by case basis. It isn't a broad mandate for free expression. Schools still have rules, you just can't post anything you want all over school grounds. This example you've provided is just another case of the sensationalist Protest Warriors trying to provoke a response that fits their agenda.

From the majority opinion in the case:
"The Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools."

...

"Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained . . ."

In other words, as I mentioned above, it's up to the school. *However*, they cannot prohibit the speech, unless it's deemed to interfere with "the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school", the Protest Warriors actions did just that, as counter-protests began to form, and confrontations began between students, and the flyers were removed.

mrC

[Shape D.]

http://hq.protestwarrior.com/?page=/featured/PHS/PHS.php

Hey that kids a terrorist too.

[walls83]

It doesn't bother me that he didn't stand for the flag.  That's his right.  but those kids need some disciplined I don't mean literally shoving the flag up his butt.  But how much does the teacher need to yell and tell them to be quite(while their laughing at him thinking ya whats he going to do we will sue his ass).  Kids have it way to easy these days.  "LOOK MOM THE TEACHER PULLED A CHAIR OUT FROM UNDER ME!"  I'm being abused.  BLAH BLAH BLAH.  We got spanked in my schools growing up.  I have no sympathy for that kid.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

We got spanked in my schools growing up.  I have no sympathy for that kid.

Do you have kids? If so, do you support the idea of public H.S. teachers spanking them?

mrC

[ChadTower]

I did too, but it wasn't public school and it wasn't in the US, so it's an invalid comparison.

[walls83]

They couldn't just spank us whenever they wanted to.

[ChadTower]

I don't remember ever getting hit for misbehaviour, but I was probably hit for being left handed every school day from ages 3-5 or 6.

[missioncontrol]

We got spanked in my schools growing up.

[ChadTower]

First teacher that slaps my son for being lefthanded gets carried out on a stretcher after I get there.  I guarantee you that.  I HATED school and teachers and everything to do with it because of that.

[RetroJames]

http://hq.protestwarrior.com/?page=/featured/PHS/PHS.php

Smart kid to be sure, but what was his point?

[ChadTower]

Whether or not he had a point, I admire is articulation and writing skills, assuming he wrote this.  I know professional writers who cannot write like this.

[RetroJames]

http://hq.protestwarrior.com/?page=/featured/PHS/PHS.php

Smart kid to be sure, but what was his point?

I though about these two cases last night and came to the realization that they are very much  the same.

In each, one or more kids decided to act out against what they felt were oppressive environments.

In one it was a possibly overbearing and dictatorial teacher, in the other it another teacher who apparently makes her political beliefs known to the class, let's say for the sake of argument she is overbearing in her assertions.

Both groups of students essentially setup the teachers. 

In one, a student refused to stand for the pledge of allegiance knowing this would get a rise out of the teacher.  They also filmed the fun.

In another, the students posted flyers containing content they knew they would most likely get a rise out of their teacher.  They took photos of the fun.

My contention is that each of these has very little to do with issues, i.e. freedom of speech, religion, or oppresive political diatribe.  This has very much to do with the basic human, and especially teenage, desire NOT to be told what to do.   

Teenagers also have a great penchant for being jerky and I would tend to throw both of these groups of students in the same bucket. 

Neither actually addressed thier specific concerns appropriately IMHO.  The students in the pledge video could have (assuming they didn't) talk to the teacher, parents, prinicple, etc).  The students with the flyers might have confronted the alleged "left-leaning" teacher and voiced thier opinion that her opinion was too prevalent in class.

Another similarity is that each were kind of spitting on those who have paid dearly for protesting truly unreasonable opression.

I tend not to believe the guy in the video really has a concrete opinion one way or the other about reciting the pledge, and the kid with the protest warrior flyers was not trying to say something specific with the content of those flyers.  He was just putting them up to cause a stir, and probably impress his friends in school or online.

</$0.02>

[crashwg]

I tend not to believe the guy in the video really has a concrete opinion one way or the other about reciting the pledge, and the kid with the protest warrior flyers was not trying to say something specific with the content of those flyers.  He was just putting them up to cause a stir, and probably impress his friends in school or online.

I am not aware of any laws that state one has to prove their reasons for protest.  The only thing that matters in these cases are constitutional rights.

The student has the RIGHT not to stand for the pledge.
According to the US Suppreme Court, students have the RIGHT to voice their political opinions in school.  [Tinker vs. Des Moines]

And most importantly of all, a teacher has NO RIGHT to pull a chair from under someone!  Anywhere other than a school and nobody would even be questioning it...  Imagine for one second that someone where to pull a chair from bellow a police officer or the president of the United States, I guarantee you that that person would be thrown to the ground, arrested, tried and convicted of assault!  A student of a public highschool has all the same rights as them and should be treated just as respectfully.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Whether or not he had a point, I admire is articulation and writing skills, assuming he wrote this.

The Protest Warriors are a large group of Conservative holligans. It's more than likely this kid didn't write this stuff, nor plan his "operation" without the help of numerous highly skilled, right-wing politicos. It seems to me to be a staged event meant to further the organizations claims about "liberal bias" in school.

I also wonder why you'd claim that the teacher in the video was "set up", since the kids provoked him in order to get it on video, yet you won't bat an eyelash at these Protest Warriors, who've obviously staged an event, and provoked the school in order to get photos and post it all over the web? Would you agree that this seems like a setup as well?

I know professional writers who cannot write like this.

Even some that are in the WH press corp, moonlighting as male escorts!!

mrC

[RetroJames]

Whether or not he had a point, I admire is articulation and writing skills, assuming he wrote this.

The Protest Warriors are a large group of Conservative holligans. It's more than likely this kid didn't write this stuff, nor plan his "operation" without the help of numerous highly skilled, right-wing politicos. It seems to me to be a staged event meant to further the organizations claims about "liberal bias" in school.

I also wonder why you'd claim that the teacher in the video was "set up", since the kids provoked him in order to get it on video, yet you won't bat an eyelash at these Protest Warriors, who've obviously staged an event, and provoked the school in order to get photos and post it all over the web? Would you agree that this seems like a setup as well?

I know professional writers who cannot write like this.

Even some that are in the WH press corp, moonlighting as male escorts!!

mrC

Who me?

[quarterback]

So, did everybody hear the followup?  It wasn't a camera-phone (as was reported), there was also 10-minutes of tape PRIOR to the other tape that shows these kids antagonizing the teacher, there's also extensive video footage of these kids destroying property (christmas decorations etc) in people's yards/on their houses with baseball bats and the day before this incident, the kids saran wrapped another student to his desk/chair. 

[RetroJames]

Corey Zappo is one of two students suspended following the incident. When we interviewed him yesterday he admitted that he brought his videocamera into the class knowing that he and his friends would get a rise out of Mantel.

Corey Zappo, High School Student: "So we just knew he was going to flip out because he frequently did and my friends and I thought it would be kind of funny to catch it."

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_030205_classroomoutburstfollow.html#

[DrewKaree]

I also wonder why you'd claim that the teacher in the video was "set up", since the kids provoked him in order to get it on video, yet you won't bat an eyelash at these Protest Warriors, who've obviously staged an event, and provoked the school in order to get photos and post it all over the web? Would you agree that this seems like a setup as well?

I'm more intrigued that you believe him to not "bat an eyelash", when he's stated both instances were either regretful or wrong on both sides.

I'm also highly intrigued that you're saying Chad is "claiming that the teacher in the video was "set up", since the kids provoked him".  It reads as if you're questioning those "claims", yet you had this to say regarding his comments:

What I am seeing here, though, is a kid who refused to stand in order to provoke the teacher, not to protest with sincerity.  The teacher was wrong, and he got the provoked reaction he wanted, but the kid's actions had no root in nobility either.

The whole situation is unfortunate.  Clearly the incident was staged or they wouldn't have had a way to record it.  Neither side is in the right.

EDIT (On preview): We are 100% in agreement on this. I had imagined there was more to this than what we were seeing, as well.

mrC

He "showed you the light", brutha.  You sound a bit cheesed at that.

Don't worry, soon the brainwashing will kick in and you'll see the light. 

The farce is strong in you, I can feel it. 

I'm sure the line will be long in volunteering to drive it out of you 

[ChadTower]

If that followup is true, then really this is more a case of some punks who need a foot to the ass and a teacher who just hit the line of his ability to restrain himself.  There's a real problem in my community with kids committing crimes and videotaping themselves doing it.  This sounds a lot like that.

Last summer a bunch of kids broke into a Salvation Army holding yard that was full of household goods that were going to the needy and their thrift stores.  They proceeded to demolish half the yard.  While in progress, some off duty Policemen were golfing on the course that happens to abut the storage yard.  The police chased the kids down and arrested them.  Two of the parents then sued the Police for wrongful arrest and persecution.  Alas, the kids had videotaped not only their actions in the storage yard but also a series of vandalisms (including antisemitic graffiti) that had occurred over the preceding week that had been unsolved.  Let's just say the parents dropped their suits quickly.

The followup really makes it sound like these kids are one of those groups.

[Crazy Cooter]

The teacher in the vid was setup I'm sure, but if he can't handle it... why is he a teacher?

IMO, there's no reason a teacher (or any professionsal) to raise their voice at a job.

[ChadTower]

The teacher in the vid was setup I'm sure, but if he can't handle it... why is he a teacher?

That would work in an ideal world where parents do their jobs.  Too many kids, boys especially, just don't get taught basic respect at home.  Crappy fathers, absent fathers, no male figure around to teach them how to become a man.  These are the type of boys who really DO need to be yelled at, slapped around, shown the hard way the consequences of that type of behaviour BEFORE they end up killed or in jail.

Everyone wants to weep about the declining quality of children but it all starts with the people who were supposed to have taught them the things they don't know.

[Dexter]

Point is, you can't expect schools to raise your children for you. Their role is to educate, the burden of disciplining has to ALWAYS lay with the parents in the first instance. Otherwise, how do you define the line between discipline and physical abuse?

This teacher is apparently easily riled, so much so that the students knew they could get a reaction out of him and capture it on video. Would you want an adult with such a short fuse teaching your child?

[ChadTower]

He may not be a short fuse.  He may be constantly pushed near the edge by these particular idiot kids.  A person only has so much temper.  It's not excusable to snatch the chair but the kids definitely deserve much of the blame.

Then again, he could be a short fuse who needs to be fired.

I didn't mean to say that it is the school's job to teach these kids the things their parents are not.  I was pointing out the problem inherent in the fact that these kids are not being raised properly and unfortunately the number of improperly raised children increases with each generation.

[Dexter]

Agree, the parents need to smack them upside the head. A fairly new problem here is that of both parents having to work full time due to the high cost of living and not being able to devote enough time to raising their kids.

[ChadTower]

That's not just there, it's here too.  MOST kids here who have two parents have both parents working.  Alas, I think too many people create that situation themselves.  You don't have to drive a pair of 40k SUVs and have a 2500sqft house, but if you have those things, you'd better have two incomes to pay for it all.

I think the feminism movement really screwed women in this regard.  It used to be before, a woman was expected to stay home and raise the kids.  That was too limiting, so the womens' lib movement got them the ability to go out and get an education and a career.  It didn't tell them, though, that it's not realistically possible to have both at the same time.  There just isn't enough time to raise the kids properly AND be in the workplace with a real career.  Women today seem to think they HAVE to do both and it's just not possible to do them both properly at the same time.  It always seems to be the children that pay the price, too.   I think the solution is probably a combination of more men staying home and women coming to the common sense realization that you can have your career, and you can raise your kids,  but one's primary focus needs to be one or the other, not both.

[quarterback]

The teacher in the vid was setup I'm sure, but if he can't handle it... why is he a teacher?

IMO, there's no reason a teacher (or any professionsal) to raise their voice at a job.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I'm also highly intrigued that you're saying Chad is "claiming that the teacher in the video was "set up", since the kids provoked him".  It reads as if you're questioning those "claims", yet you had this to say regarding his comments:

I *did* agree with Chad's "claim"...but that still means it's just a claim. My agreement w/ Chad doesn't make the claims any more solvent. We didn't know the whole story at the time (although there's been follow up recently).

My response was to Chad praising the Protest Warrior kids literacy, while seemingly ignoring the correlation between their actions and these "anthem kids" actions. Chad often claims to be impartial, or centrist in his beliefs. I don't feel that is a fair self-assessment. As such, since I prefer to argue w/ people on an even playing field, I like to point these things out. It's only fair, I declare my biases, you know where I stand.

If I remember correctly, Drew, you too made the same sort of claims about being an unbiased centrist thinker. Who here, now, would take that at face value? It's fine that you're a conservative, and it's fine that Chad seems to support a conservative agenda as well. However, it just doesn't seem fair to hide behind the claim of being 'fair and balanced' when you've got such an obvious slant to your thinking. (This isn't pot-kettle either, see my sig for self-parody)

I was, and still am, curious as to whether he feels the PW's acted in an appropriate manner, as he has been quick to condemn left-leaning individuals, while letting right-leaners off scott-free. To me it's another demonstration of his potential bias.


mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

I *did* agree with Chad's "claim"...but that still means it's just a claim. My agreement w/ Chad doesn't make the claims any more solvent. We didn't know the whole story at the time (although there's been follow up recently).

We did know the whole story at the time. 

Facts:
kid doesn't stand for the pledge.
Different kid video tapes it.

The whole story was obvious.

If the story was:
The teacher had a hidden camera taping the kid stealing from the teacher's desk.

The whole story to that would be obvious too.
A student was stealing from the teacher, so the teacher set u pa camera to catch him in the act.

Your reaction to this scenario is also obvious.
You would be upset that the teacher wasn't respecting the kid's privacy.

I do not take your posts seriously because you do not seriously think before you post.

[ChadTower]

I don't remember ever saying I was unbiased or centrist.  In fact I remember as recently as yesterday saying specifically that my views fall either left or right depending on the issue.  The only thing I can remember saying that was even close was that I think things through and make what I consider rational assessments. 

[RetroJames]

I was very bored last night and read a few of the PW kid's posts on PW.  He is a real piece of work.  He is well-spoken and articulate, but some of his content leaves a great deal to be desired IMHO.  I am really trying to be charitable here as well.

[daywane]

We got spanked in my schools growing up.

[daywane]

http://hq.protestwarrior.com/?page=/featured/PHS/PHS.php

Hey that kids a terrorist too.

at one point in time or another all kids are 

[daywane]

I love how everone blames the parents. Not to long ago (a few months)
a woman overheard her daughters phone call, she picked up the other line.
The brat was making a drug deal. The mother stopped the phone call. She then called the police. The Mother was arested for invading the teens privacy.

There is many cases like this. (in one form or fashion) My wife is a house wife (has been for 15 years) I like it this way because she keeps a close eye on the kids . We have one child that fells like he can do anything and not be punished
The schools have put this in his head. He has even gone and told teachers he was spanked ( he was not) just because he felt like I should have punished his 3 year old sister over a miner scrap over a joystick.

my point don't be so quick to blame the parents all the time.  Kids can get away with alot now a day's

[RetroJames]

I love how everone blames the parents. Not to long ago (a few months)
a woman overheard her daughters phone call, she picked up the other line.
The brat was making a drug deal. The mother stopped the phone call. She then called the police. The Mother was arested for invading the teens privacy.

Do you have a link or a clipping about that case.  I am very skeptical.

[daywane]

Bill orally fox news
spelling is off but you know who I am talking about

[Crazy Cooter]

I agree parenting has taken a nose dive.  Many parents don't invest the time needed to raise their kids "right".  Part of that is due to lawmakers taking away punishment "tools" like spanking in public etc.  I saw a kid get swatted in a store and most of the people around looked shocked.  I was shocked he didn't get hit earlier.  Sometimes kids need to be taken behind the shed.

Professionals don't yell.  I work with 99% union workers (construction).  It's always been my policy that if you yell, you're gone.  It's against union policy to do that.  Only one person has ever been removed from one of my jobsites.

[quarterback]

[Crazy Cooter]

lol.

You should punish your own kids.  Not somebody elses.  That's why the teacher should have sent the kid to the principal and then the parents could have been contacted.  If the parents can't get it through the kids head on what is/isn't proper behaivior, or a teacher can't get it through his/her head on what they should do, then they need to be removed from the situation.

Expell the kid and/or fire the teacher.  Whatever the situation warrants.

[DrewKaree]

I thought it took a village?

And there's GOT to be sheds all around the village.

I can CLEARLY remember being punished by friends' parents, up to, and including, getting spanked twice for doing stupid kid stuff I KNEW I didn't have any business doing.

I'm one of those parents who ALWAYS gets called first when something happens between my kids and another kid in school, because they KNOW if there's some discipline to be laid down, I'm willing to let the school do what they feel is right, and they know by telling me first that

a)  I'll DO something about what my kids did
b)  They can tell the parent(s) of the other kid that "the parents of the other child have been told of the situation, and agree with the steps we are taking".  It gives the school a little leverage with the other parent, unless the parent could care less.

In only two instances did the other child's parent (notice the lack of an "S" on the end of that word) not agree with the school.  A friendly visit from the father of the other child resulted in a sheepish and apologetic phone call the next day to tell the principal they wished to allow the school to administer the proposed punishment.

Call it what you will, but I agree with Hitlery that it takes a village.  The problem is that our "villagers" have started to isolate themselves from the rest of the village when they couldn't even handle their own hut.

[quarterback]

You should punish your own kids.

[DrewKaree]

I find it a bit suspect that you say you work on a construction site and haven't had to raise your voice to get someone's attention.  You must work on the quiestest construction sites in the world.

[RetroJames]

Bill orally fox news
spelling is off but you know who I am talking about

Now I'm very skeptical...

Any links to the text of the news story would be appreciated.  Thanks

[daywane]

Bill orally fox news
spelling is off but you know who I am talking about

Now I'm very skeptical...

Any links to the text of the news story would be appreciated.

[quarterback]

Bill orally fox news
spelling is off but you know who I am talking about

Now I'm very skeptical...

Any links to the text of the news story would be appreciated.

[daywane]

I have just sent a email to his show and asked for a link.
sent to.
oreilly@foxnews.com

Bill. need a link please. i some people at a web sight not believing me about a show you did.
I don't remember the show well . A mother picked up the phone and listened in on her teenage daughters call.
She (the mother) put a stop to it.
Next thing the mother knew she was in trouble for invasion of privacy of her teen daughter.
would you please inform my doubting friends. I did a search for ( mother teen daughter drugs ) but I did not find the info at your web sight. Thanks
daywane.
PS here is the link to the sight I am talking on.

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,32892.0.html

[quarterback]

I have just sent a email to his show and asked for a link.
sent to.
oreilly@foxnews.com

Bill. need a link please. i some people at a web sight not believing me about a show you did.
I don't remember the show well . A mother picked up the phone and listened in on her teenage daughters call.
She (the mother) put a stop to it.
Next thing the mother knew she was in trouble for invasion of privacy of her teen daughter.
would you please inform my doubting friends. I did a search for ( mother teen daughter drugs ) but I did not find the info at your web sight. Thanks
daywane.
PS here is the link to the sight I am talking on.

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,32892.0.html

LOL

[RetroJames]

Bill orally fox news
spelling is off but you know who I am talking about

Now I'm very skeptical...

Any links to the text of the news story would be appreciated.

[DrewKaree]

This is the story you're referring to.  I believe you're recalling O'Reilly's example he brought up, which is why you were having a hard time finding it.

www.foxnews.com - The O'Reilly Factor Story

It fits most of the criteria you are speaking of.

I agree mom has a right to listen to her daughter's conversations if she feels the need, but I believe this story is about the police using the information mom gained by listening to the conversations to go after the person her child was hot for.  In essence, they used mom as their "wiretap", instead of getting an actual wiretap for the phone.  THAT, I do not agree with.  Tapping your phone requires a judge's order, I believe, and the police have to demonstrate their case and why they need to do this.  It leads me to believe they couldn't convince a judge to do so, and saw an opportunity.

All of that is irrelevant, though, to mom having the right to listen to conversations on her telephone and to act in her child's best interests.  That story goes beyond that scope.

[quarterback]

EDIT: DK beat me to it!  But I couldn't let all my eloquence merely be tossed into the wind...

daywane, does this sound like what you heard:

O'REILLY: All right, so if I move to Seattle tomorrow and I monitor - - and I pick up the phone and my 14-year-old daughter is on the phone with a heroin dealer, I can't bring that information to the cops, sir?

TARIO: You can bring that information. It depends how you gather it. And...

O'REILLY: I heard it on the phone just the way this woman heard it on the phone. My 14-year-old's arranging a drug deal. I can't go and testify against the drug dealer who agrees to sell her drugs? Come on. That's what this is all about.

The case that's being discussed is NOT a case of a mom being arrested for invading a teen's privacy.

[RetroJames]

I also found this snippet;

[daywane]

Bill orally fox news
spelling is off but you know who I am talking about

Now I'm very skeptical...

Any links to the text of the news story would be appreciated.

[quarterback]

Edit: Here is the case, reading it now...

[RetroJames]

Ok, so the facts are that the mother was never arrested.  Her testimony  in lower courts against the 17yr old about the phone conversation was discounted by the Wash State Supreme court.  This was done so because they found the daughter and the guy on the phone had the expectation of privacy. 

The mother was not reprimanded or prosecuted at all, she is free to use the information in her parenting pursuits.  It is just not admissable in court as testimony against the 17yr old as far as the Wash State Court is concerned.

Interesting note, the case mentions a federal privacy statute that does make exceptions for parents in that they may "consent" to the communications intercept vicariously for the minor.  The WS Supreme court noted that, but opted not to utilize it in thier decision as there is no such precedent in Wash State Law. 

If this case were pushed to the US Supreme Court, I think you might see the WS Supreme Court decision reversed.

Also interesting, the court noted that had the daughter thought that her Mom MIGHT be listening, i.e. if the expectation of privacy was removed, the testimony may have been admissable.  So tonight before you tuck your kids in, have them sign an affadavit stating that they have been so informed and understand that you may intercept any and all communications and use them as desired until they turn 18.   

- I am by nature skeptical.  I believe what I can prove.  The facts of a case can almost NEVER be transmitted in a one line blurb.  Nor can ANY news organization be trusted to get the facts right when commenting or reporting on a case.  There is just not enough time in a 3-5 min segement to provide proper background and context as well as all of the relevant facts.

Interesting case though.

[DrewKaree]

The case that's being discussed is NOT a case of a mom being arrested for invading a teen's privacy.   

In fact, the case that's being discussed is not even analagous to the 'scenario' that Bill O'Reilly's is hypothesizing about.  This is actually a good example of the truth-manipulation that O'Reilly likes to do.

You missed the gist of the transcript, and in the process, accused O'Reilly of manipulating the truth, which wasn't done.  One could say the same of your words.

The reason for the "debate":

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.

O'Reilly was speaking to the first part, addressing the idiocy of it being a CRIME for the mom to be listening to a conversation of her daughter.

directly after your quote, there was more, much more.

TARIO: But Bill, in the 25 years I've been in this business, I've never seen a prosecutor prosecute someone for this. It just wouldn't happen.

O'REILLY: OK.

TARIO: The only time it happened

[RetroJames]

And here is more about what Bill O'Reilly thinks about those pesky wiretap laws:

If you suspect your child is dealing with a criminal, a dope dealer, a mugger, a molester, you can't eavesdrop on that child's conversations. That's now the law in Washington state, which has become a model for progressive activism.

Of course, the most dangerous organization in the country the ACLU, applauds the ruling"

[emphasis mine]

Just read it...LOL...some more sunshine from Bill, I think it speaks for itself;

Now why is this happening? As with the Christmas controversy, which I explain in my column this week on billoreilly.com, there's much more to this than just a legal decision. If you study all [the] state dominated societies from the Soviet Union, to Nazi Germany, to Red China to Cuba, you will see those governments try to diminish parental power because it's easier to mold young minds when state-sanctioned values don't compete with traditional parenting.

Public schooling in America is now devoid of any moralizing or spiritual emphasis. The Pledge of Allegiance being the last holdout. So if the progressives can succeed in eroding parental influence at home, it becomes much easier to influence American children to embrace a secular point of view. That's what's going on here.

[RetroJames]

The point relates because of the provision to the law.  He's commenting on the ridiculousness of the guy being let out even though he's ADMITTED to the crime.  It's the EXACT same situation.  He's shedding light on how the law - as it's written - doesn't protect the public, it protects the criminal

Quick note, according to the WS Supreme Court case he never admitted to the crime.  He admitted to knowledge of the wherabouts of the purse but specifically stated he was not involved in the act.  He was convicted based on the testimony of a state witness who, all else aside, seems shaky at best for various reasons. 

From the Court's opinion:

Mrs. Dixon took notes from the conversation she
overheard, in which Christensen acknowledged to Lacey that he was aware
that police suspected him of the robbery and that he knew the whereabouts
of the purse, but not that he had taken part in the robbery.   Neither
Christensen nor Lacey knew of, or consented to, Mrs. Dixon listening to
their conversation.

In addition to Mrs. Dixon,
the State offered the testimony of four other witnesses, only one of whom
could identify Christensen as a participant in the robbery.  That witness,
an acquaintance of Christensen's, had agreed to testify for the State on
the same day he agreed to plead guilty to the same robbery.  He testified
that on the night of the robbery, he had been high on methamphetamine
during a meth binge but remembered Christensen being involved in the
robbery. 

[DrewKaree]

here is more about what Bill O'Reilly thinks about those pesky wiretap laws:

If you suspect your child is dealing with a criminal, a dope dealer, a mugger, a molester, you can't eavesdrop on that child's conversations. That's now the law in Washington state, which has become a model for progressive activism.

Of course, the most dangerous organization in the country the ACLU, applauds the ruling"

[emphasis mine]

Excellent emphasis.  It couldn't have been expressed better, unless you wanted to put it in CAPS. 

When the ACLU discards its selectiveness in choosing who they will defend with their might and resources, I might disagree with O'Reilly's opinion of them myself, instead of nodding in agreement with him.

Interesting, 1hooked, that "out" clause in the law. 

My kids have been apprised of MY right to listen to any conversation going on over the telephones based out of my house.  Their "right" to privacy in that area is granted in small doses the minute they pay the phone bill, or pay to have their own private line installed in my house.

Of course, they have to talk the phone company into setting up service for someone who isn't of legal age for them to go after should they decide not to pay their bill.

[DrewKaree]

Quick note, according to the WS Supreme Court case he never admitted to the crime.  He admitted to knowledge of the wherabouts of the purse but specifically stated he was not involved in the act.  He was convicted based on the testimony of a state witness who, all else aside, seems shaky at best for various reasons.

Duly noted.  I'm guessing there's more to his conviction (wrongful, it seems) than just the testimony of  a state witness. 

[Crazy Cooter]

Parents should be able to listen in on their kids.

[RetroJames]

DK,

Yeah, I thought that was kind of interesting.

[quarterback]

You missed the gist of the transcript, and in the process, accused O'Reilly of manipulating the truth, which wasn't done. One could say the same of your words.

Really?

[daywane]

This is not the case I am talking about. But it will do. My point is made with this case also.
Parents do not have the right to keep a eye on there children anymore but we are held accountable
my children are 18 yrs old , 17 yrs old, 16 yrs old and a 9 yr old ( we took a break

[daywane]

You missed the gist of the transcript, and in the process, accused O'Reilly of manipulating the truth, which wasn't done. One could say the same of your words.

Really?

[DrewKaree]

Then maybe you can show me where I DID manipulate the truth.

Certainly.  I'll use the same standard you seem to be operating under.

You're making my case for me.  You read that transcript and you are under the impression that there was some law passed that makes it illegal for a mom to listen to a conversation of her daughter.

I'm not under the impression that there was "some" law passed, the lawyer made it clear that there IS such a law, and it refers to ANY person, including mom, intercepting a private conversation.  This would include mom picking up the phone and listening to what she's hearing.  A most primitive wiretap, but it falls under the law.  You defined it as such yourself.

The law is idiotic in reference to listening to your children's telephone conversations.  I've pointed out that I don't agree with the way the information was gathered.  I've pointed out that the police work is shoddy and have AGREED with the steps normally required to do such a thing.

Stating it's a good law and intimating that I might find it idiotic without addressing my comments to the contrary - your standard views O'Reilly to be distorting the truth; using that same standard, I'd say your statement falls in that same category. 

The law as it is written IS idiotic, making listening to your children on the phone a CRIME.  I'm saying NO SUCH THING about the circumstances under which this conviction has been overturned. 

I've addressed the point of the criminal admitting to the crime, yet still being convicted of it.  Your issue might hold water if the kid's lawyer's comments were left out.  O'Reilly was corrected.  Thus far, that's the only point remotely close to "distorting the truth".  IF that is your standard for "distorting the truth", it is irrational and picayunish.

I demand points for being, if not the first, one of less than a handful of people to use the word "picayune" on this board LOL!

she pissed me off so bad once i took the door of the hinges for a week just to prove that until she gets her own house she has no privacy.

I've done that too, but for different reasons.  Good for you....I know you probably don't hear it enough!  I also have a keylogger so if I wish to know what they talk to their friends about on my computer, I can.  Saved my children from a nice little underage-drinking ticket.  My kids THANKED me for that one, and we had a nice conversation about the methods used to find that out and why we did what we did.  I have confidence that my kids will turn out fine, and will look to my wife and I for advice when raising their own children.

[daywane]

Then maybe you can show me where I DID manipulate the truth.

Certainly.

[quarterback]

Then maybe you can show me where I DID manipulate the truth.

Certainly.

[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]

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.

Au contraire.  Your own words will also be used against you in a court of discussion.


The law:

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.

Your view of that law:

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.

Mom (3rd party) is listening in on daughter's (anybody else's) conversation without daughter's knowledge. 

By your interpretation of the law:

It (like so many other state wiretap laws) makes it illegal

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.

My mom listened to her daughter have a conversation just today, and guess what, it's NOT a crime.

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.

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!!!!"

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.

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

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"

[DrewKaree]

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.

Agreed.  I also wish those "---daisies---" would stop throwing their Christianity at you.  They're doing a disservice to Christianity, and aren't following the precept set forth for speaking to you regarding their religion - if they profess to follow Christ.

[fredster]

I watch O'Reilly all the time.  I don't agree with him all the time, but you have to admit he outlines his opinions based on facts.  He may view the facts differently, but you can either agree or disagree based on what he presents. 

So if the progressives can succeed in eroding parental influence at home, it becomes much easier to influence American children to embrace a secular point of view. That's what's going on here.

What is false about that statement?  I think that's what the HITLER youth were all about.  China does that too. It's a tactic to win the hearts and minds of children right behind the backs of parents.

Is it real? Is there an organized trend to do that? Maybe in some quarters. In this case he was trying to link teacher's unions and the progressive movement again. Could be true in the yankee north, they do some wierd things up there. Maybe even on the left coast.  But not here in the South.

My son is an honor student, he works hard for his grades, he does what I tell him to do.  I haven't had to spank him but twice.  Once for lying and once for stealing. But that was very extreme.  I didn't enjoy it.  The reason he behaves so well is I am all over what he does and he and I work together so he understands what he is required to do with no question.  I don't have to yell at him.  But he's only 10, and the best is yet to come for challenges. 

This decision about that boy in Washington was assinine. I can watch and oversee any activity my son is doing in my house.  There is no question.  I like the comment above about taking the door of the kids room, I put that down in my book topics.

If I can't listen to what he says on the phone, there will be no phone.  I have the right to listen to ANY conversation in my house. Period. Even if somebody is in the house and somebody is standing at the door or connected from another country, it's in my house.

I think the wiretap laws simply state it can't be used as evidence.  I don't know if yoiu can record phone conversations and only listen to them.  They do that where I work.  If somebody calls one of my bosses, he has a recorder and listens to it.  But it's being recorded.

I have always been for parents taking the responsiblity for their children if the children screwed up. It think it's necessary. If my son does damage to person or property, they are going to come to me for the money to fix it.  If he does something illegal, then I'd have to say why he had the motive and opportunity to do that.  That's fair and right to do that.  I accept the responsiblity for my son and me.

[saint]

Does your boss advise the people who call him that they are being recorded? As far as I know, recording someone without their awareness is illegal. That's why you hear "This call may be recorded for training purposes" or some such any time you call a help line. Didn't Linda Tripp get in trouble for recording her calls with Monica? I think I remember that but couldn't swear to it. Amusingly enough, that law doesn't apply (didn't apply?) to video recording, just audio. That's why they've had to enact separate laws dealing with peeping toms, people misbehaving with video cameras, etc...

Er... that's all a layman's understanding. IANAL.

--- saint

I think the wiretap laws simply state it can't be used as evidence.  I don't know if yoiu can record phone conversations and only listen to them.  They do that where I work.  If somebody calls one of my bosses, he has a recorder and listens to it.  But it's being recorded.

[fredster]

Saint,

That was my point, no he doesn't.  Think I should turn him in?

Linda Tripp used the stuff to make money, and bring down a president. That's a little different than recording a conversation with a customer.  That way he can catch them changing their tune later. He makes sure he understands what they said.

If he wants to record, it's hooked up to his phone and he punches the record button. It's right out on his desk, and he got a special hookup just for the phone / recorder connection to the company phones.

He swears by it. Says it has saved the company millions.

That's funny about the laws isn't it?  You can use emails against people, but not recordings. Wierd.

[jbox]

This thread is starting to remind me of Robin Williams:

begin: teacher picks on kid for not standing
= kids are probably pranking the teacher
= does the right to protest require a "good" reason
= kids nowdays are cowards and losers, kids in the old days had respect
= we need to be able to hit kids more often, or maybe less often
= teachers are too over-worked, parents are too lazy
= parents have it too tough, society makes it too hard
= women need to choose between a family XOR a career
= single-parent families are making kids soft
= a parent got arrested for stopping her kid from making a drug deal
= a man got convicted for admitting to a crime to his girlfriend
= a parent might get arrested for listening to their kids on the phone
= a man's conviction got overturned (even though he did it) because of a stupid law
= people are no longer allowed to not give kids a phone in their room
= claiming the law will result in certain conviction by non-lawyers is misleading
= claiming the law will result in certain conviction by non-lawyers is not misleading
= minority religions are interfering with the Christian nation and the minority is over ruling the majority
= Hitler would support what the secret secular society is up to (#3)
= is wiretapping okay if it isn't used for evidance
= companies record what you say "for training purposes"
= email vs phone calls - why the double standard
= some stupid post about what is in this thread
=

I'm breathless with anticipation. This is even more entertaining then Springer (as opposed to Verlag)...

[saint]

Someone has pointed out to me that the laws as they understand it only require *one* of the parties to know the conversation is being recorded, so I dunno. Don't think I'd turn your boss in either way though

Saint,

That was my point, no he doesn't.  Think I should turn him in?

Linda Tripp used the stuff to make money, and bring down a president. That's a little different than recording a conversation with a customer.  That way he can catch them changing their tune later. He makes sure he understands what they said.

If he wants to record, it's hooked up to his phone and he punches the record button. It's right out on his desk, and he got a special hookup just for the phone / recorder connection to the company phones.

He swears by it. Says it has saved the company millions.

That's funny about the laws isn't it?  You can use emails against people, but not recordings. Wierd.

[DrewKaree]

Just to take this totally off topic and have a laugh, I want to point out what saint said about himself.

I'll excuse the whole "need a space between words" and the grammar...it was probably hard enough to say this...

 IANAL.

You said "anal".   Hehh heheh heh yeah...shut up Butthead....no way Beavis!

[DrewKaree]

This thread is starting to remind me of Robin Williams:

Robin Williams was funny for about 15 minutes, which means his "fame time" is DONE!

How is it that his tired act of frenetic comedian is still keeping him famous and getting him laughs?

He's one of the few UNfunny famous comedians.

Howie Mandell seems to have hit a similar "wall".

[RetroJames]

Bill orally fox news
spelling is off but you know who I am talking about

Now I'm very skeptical...

Any links to the text of the news story would be appreciated.

[DrewKaree]

No sweat, it is so easy for anyone to misinterpret text I never pay any attention to stuff like that. 

What'd you just call me? 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

We got spanked in my schools growing up.  I have no sympathy for that kid.

Do you have kids? If so, do you support the idea of public H.S. teachers spanking them?

mrC

High school teachers ...spank... Yes but... only if I get my rights as a father to spank my kids when they are being brats , back

Here's an interesting little twist.

"A 6-year-old boy who often talked too much in class was suspended from 1st grade at Schaumburg Christian School last week after his mother refused to spank him."

You'd think you'd *also* have the right to not spank your kids. Go figure.
To me this is another example of a member of the "moral majority" forcing their opinions on someone else.


mrC

[fredster]

It was a private school.  They can suspend you for anything. It's not part of the public school system.  What do they do in Private Muslim Schools should be your question?  Do they suspend students because they weren't caned?

[ChadTower]

There's a Muslim high school not far from my house.  It opened shortly after 9/11 (and yes, they did have huge opposition).  I can get you their contact info if you want so you can ask them. 

[fredster]

Here's where an 8 year old was arrested for throwing a temper Tantrum.

http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=3030689&nav=23iiX637

Guess they didn't want to spank him.

[RetroJames]

No sweat, it is so easy for anyone to misinterpret text I never pay any attention to stuff like that.

[DrewKaree]

Here's an interesting little twist.

"A 6-year-old boy who often talked too much in class was suspended from 1st grade at Schaumburg Christian School last week after his mother refused to spank him."

You'd think you'd *also* have the right to not spank your kids. Go figure.
To me this is another example of a member of the "moral majority" forcing their opinions on someone else.

Thanks for giving us the story.  Seems to bolster the "sometimes your kid requires a spanking" argument.  Wait a minute, let's see what mom HAS done.

"But she can't bring herself to spank Chandler and uses alternative disciplinary measures instead, such as time-outs and taking away toys."

Bravo mom, bravo.  Seems to be working out just swell, too!  How old was this boy?  6.  Well, she's well on her way to turning out another kid like the one in the first story, it seems.

The "moral majority", of which this woman obviously felt she belonged to since she was choosing THAT school out of ALL the private schools in Chicago to send her kid to, didn't "force its opinions on someone else".  She was free to exercise HER opinion that she wouldn't do it, and to that end, when disagreeing with their opinion, removed her child from the institution.

Your story also lays out the fact that when enrolling their children, parents are apprised of the school's stance on this matter:

" At Schaumburg Christian School, a ministry of Bethel Baptist Church that serves about 1,300 preschool to 12th-grade students, "parent-administered corporal punishment" is part of the disciplinary system for pre-kindergarten through 6th-grade children. The parent/student handbook states that "When this becomes necessary, parents will be asked to administer this form of punishment."

Parents also sign a "statement of cooperation" that lists parent-administered corporal punishment among its disciplinary guidelines."

This kid was acting in a manner that in their eyes, required expulsion.  If the kid were in a public school, that's what would have happened.  The administrators of THIS school had a solution to avoid expulsion. 

The lady SHOULD be upset that her kid, as "bright as he is", was going to be EXPELLED!

The woman pays to have her child in a school where rules are different.  She pays for the right to have options available to her not available in the public school.  This includes disciplinary action.  It's not "forcing your views on someone" when they're paying you for the priveledge of alternative methods.  It's called "not understanding that other people have paid for the priveledge, and expect the school to act on their behalf for your bratty kid".

[Dartful Dodger]

You'd think you'd *also* have the right to not spank your kids. Go figure.
To me this is another example of a member of the "moral majority" forcing their opinions on someone else.

If you bothered to read about this case you'd have seen that before her kid was allowed in the school, the mother signed papers to agree to spank her kid if the school called for it.  The school didn't want to force the mother to spank the kid, so the kid was suspended.

To me this is another example of Mr C posting nonsense.

[shmokes]

It's not a case.  It's an event, reported by a newspaper.  Maybe the school came highly recommended or was encouraged by her church leader and, thinking that the corporal punishment thing would probably never actually happen to her she signed her kid up.  Maybe there's a ton of literature and information in the contract and, like the vast majority of poeple, she didn't read over everything thoroughly before signing.  It's not like she sued them.  She just pulled her kid out of that school.  I'll grant that the school's policy is legal, but nobody's contesting that.   The reason it is publicized is because the policy is so retarded, not because it's illegal.

People who spank their kids should be castrated and moved to an unpopulated island.

[fredster]

Shmokes,

You don't have kids do you?  Do you also have a degree in child psychology Dr. (Shmokes) Spock?

When you and you little lady have a child, come back and talk to us in about 10 years and tell us that.

I could say - People <DON'T> who spank their kids should be castrated and moved to an unpopulated island - Before they have children....

It's not necessary until the child either endangers himself or others, but there are cases it's necessary.  When you get old enough to have your own, you'll see.

[Magnet_Eye]

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.

Yes and no. As my post said, the Pledge was ALTERED by Eisenhower in 1954, man! It used to NOT have "One Nation Under God" included. Nor did money have "In God We Trust", that happened in 1955.

It used to read as follows: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

Then because of the war and all in 1942 it was changed to emphasisze the USA:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

So yeah, all this "under god" crap is only the past 50 years. Our nation has been here with money and a pledge longer without the mention of god than with it.

I feel they should put it back the way it was before the Eisenhower presidency. Just my opinion, man.

 

[NIVO]

i feel cheated. A chair in the face, and no Geraldo Rivera around when you need him 

[shmokes]

Shmokes,

Do you also have a degree in child psychology...?  Blah blah....

As usual, Freddy, your argument consists of nothing but a big logical fallacy.  And as usual you rely on your old faithful (consistently ineffective, anyway) ad hominem circumstantial.  Do you really consider your position, or ability to argue it, so weak that the best you can do is claim that the person on the other side has no right to have a position yet?  WTF?  If you don't want to look like a fraud, just start pretending that these perceived circumstantial incongruitites don't exist.  Attack your opponent's positions rather than simply attacking your opponent's character or circumstances.

If it helps there are millions of people with children, including many with degrees in child psychology  , who's position parallels my own.

By the way, putting them (you?) on an island would be enough.  The castration part  is just for fun.

[fredster]

Shmokes,

There are millions of people with children who's opinion mirror's mine also. Many with degrees in Child Psychology.

I have to say that I have heard this before from people with no kids. Two couples that were heavy with child the same time we were talked about not spaking their child, or using pacifiers, quoting out of books they read, Blah Blah.  I thought the same thing.

I laughed when one of them freaked when the "paccy" disappeared and her kid started crying.  It was funny .Last I saw them about 5 years ago, they were spanking their children. They kinda forgot that position once the kids started ripping up their stuff.

You have no position on this Shmokes. You have no experience, you have only an opinion based on whatever fantasy world you live in.  Likely, you are a result of non spanking. This should be a lesson for us all.

 And here is a typical example of "baffling with BS" - Actually talking but saying nothing about something you cannot spell -

"If you don't want to look like a fraud, just start pretending that these perceived circumstantial incongruitites don't exist.  Attack your opponent's positions rather than simply attacking your opponent's character or circumstances."

Actually, One time I had a "perceived circumstantial incongruities"
I had to shave and put suave on it.  It was gone in a week or so. A little penicillin worked wonders too.

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about and yet continue to speak.  You don't have kids, so I'm afraid your opinion on this is moot.  Come back when you have children.

[saint]

Oh I gotta answer this one...

I have 3 children. 8 years old, 5 years old, and a 16 month old. I have never spanked nor do I expect that I will ever spank my children.

All modesty aside, I am repeatedly told how well behaved my children are. They are never in trouble at school. They are always respectful to adults. They know that is expected of them.

"Do not spank your children" is not the same as "do not discipline your children."

Spanking should be a last resort in my opinion. I've never had to get to that point.  My children are disciplined by my (and my wife's) tone of voice, time outs, and other non-corporal forms of discipline. It's rare that they are necessary too. Not that my children do not need discipline - they are kids after all - it's just not needed very often, and not terribly difficult when it is.

Now - I think a parent should have the right to spank their child (we will assume that it is a spank and not physically abusive).  A dear relative of mine has a child that has a stubborn streak a mile wide. Sometimes, you have to "smack the mule with a 2x4" to get his attention. .... But it's always a last resort.

What I think is sad is parenting (and I'm not attacking anyone's specific parenting here -- I don't know enough about anyone here to do so and frankly if it's not abusive it's none of my business) that has the philosophy that spanking is the first form of discipline. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is a sadly misunderstood concept. "The Lord is my shepherd. Thy rod and thy staff comfort me." ... Shepherds don't smack the sheep with the rod, they guide them with it. "Spare the rod" doesn't translate to "If you don't spank the kid" it translates to "If you don't guide/discipline the kid."  A child without discipline will go astray - not a child without a smack on the behind will go astray. Spanking isn't required. It should be the last choice in most cases.

Everyone's parenting situation is different of course. If spanking is the only way to keep your kids on the straight and narrow then do what you have to do. I just wonder how many people who are spankers have really tried any other methods first.

I'll pit the behavior of my kids against anyone else's kids anyday.

--- saint



So I don't believe spanking is always or even very-often necessary. I've seen children whose parents spanked as a regular form of discipline, and wasn't impressed that the kids were any better behaved than mine, sometimes worse.

 

Shmokes,

You don't have kids do you?  Do you also have a degree in child psychology Dr. (Shmokes) Spock?

When you and you little lady have a child, come back and talk to us in about 10 years and tell us that.

I could say - People <DON'T> who spank their kids should be castrated and moved to an unpopulated island - Before they have children....

It's not necessary until the child either endangers himself or others, but there are cases it's necessary.  When you get old enough to have your own, you'll see.

[saint]

Oh, for what it's worth. I was a spanked child. Not very often though. One time my dad was dragging me to the bathroom to spank me in a restaurant. We passed some little old ladies on a bench, and I told them "my daddy's gonna spank me." 

Boy did he get the look of death. I was a cute child.

Still got spanked though.

--- saint

[ChadTower]

It's great that your children are that way.  One of my children is a cooperative angel who never has been and probably never will be spanked.  The other... you can scream, you can take things away, you can put him on timeout, you can make him lie face down on the floor for an hour.  He still sometimes does whatever he feels like and will ignore you AS you're disciplining him.  The only way to get through to him when it really matters is a spanking.  That's it.  I've tried everything else a thousand times.  I'm not saying I abuse him, but from time to time a couple whacks on the behind will get his attention when nothing else will.

My brother, as a kid, needed to be spanked.  Oh man did he ever.  He didn't give a CRAP what ANYONE told him.  Teachers, parents, me (I'm 7 years older).  By the time he was 13, half the time the only way to get him to mind was to beat him from one side of the yard to the other.  Sometimes I had to do it myself because there wasn't a male figure there strong enough to do it other than me.  I am 100% convinced if not for some of those fights he'd be in jail or dead right now.  Some kids, boys for the most part, need it to stay in line and adhere to social rules.

[shmokes]

  Likely, you are a result of non spanking. This should be a lesson for us all.

Nope....I'm the result of spanking.  Jesus, that was an easy point to shoot down.

Perhaps you would consider parenting advice from Andrea Yates.  She had five kids.  By your standards I'd guess that puts her at least on par with you.  Hell, if you're an average American that makes her twice the parenting expert that you are.

[DrewKaree]

Oh I gotta answer this one...

I have 3 children. 8 years old, 5 years old, and a 16 month old. I have never spanked nor do I expect that I will ever spank my children

....Spanking should be a last resort in my opinion.

Nowhere, however, did you rule it out.  You simply feel it should be a last resort, and stated that you don't expect you'll do it.  You MAY change your mind in the future, circumstances depending, and therefore have enough sense to not rule it out.

It seems as if shmokes feels (and I'm assuming this due to the severity of his proposal on how to deal with parents who do it) that it cannot be done, and has stated that parents who spank their kids should be castrated and isolated on an island. 

Your oldest is 8.  Careful, that shadowy figure standing outside your window with a dull spoon is shmokes.

I think the stance of castration and isolation is way beyond rational - even if it IS simple hyperbole in an attempt to make his point.  Always saying never ignores that children have a mind of their own that your intended methods simply won't be able to address.

[saint]

Nowhere, however, did you rule it out.  You simply feel it should be a last resort, and stated that you don't expect you'll do it. 

Of course I didn't rule it out. I went out of my way to point out that I thought it was every parent's perogative, if a choice I think is too often used and in poor judgement.  I will say I think way too many people spank their kids because they think the Bible says they should, or spank when they are angry, or use an object such as a belt to smack the kid (why in the hell do you need to hit your kid harder than your open hand can handle?), or cross that line between discipline and abuse. I wonder how many people who use spanking as their primary form of discipline have even tried alternatives (did I ask that already?)...

You MAY change your mind in the future, circumstances depending, and therefore have enough sense to not rule it out.

I try rarely to say never, but I bet I never end up spanking any of my children.

[fredster]

Saint, I hope you don't either. I don't have to now. It only took a couple of times. I didn't like doing it either. Having said that, he had crossed the line I set for him very far.  He knows where the line is at now.

I wonder how many people who use spanking as their primary form of discipline have even tried alternatives (did I ask that already?)...

That is what gives it a stigma. It's too easy for some.
I believe that used often, it looses it's power completely. (sort of like the wife complaining)  Used once or twice, and threatened when necessary, it has much more psychological power.

Shmokes,  I took my parenting advice from Parents. I take monetary advice from people with money. I take medical advice from doctors.  If I want to know how to be an jerk, I'll ask you, okay?

Drew do you think Shmokes ever went to the woodshed?

[DrewKaree]

If I want to know how to be an jerk, I'll ask you, okay?

Drew do you think Shmokes ever went to the woodshed?

That's a paraphrased Seinfeld line if ever I've heard one!

And no, he said he wasn't....and I don't think MrC will EVER have an opinion that differs from his that much that he'll feel the need to givum sum lernin'

[shmokes]

LMAO, of course castration and isolation on an island is beyond rational.  Please, for the love of god, believe that I'm kidding about that.  But the never say never bit is absurd.  I think you could, with all kinds of confidence, say that there are a great many things that you would never do to your children.

It's nothing short of comical when y'all say, "Oh....you just wait.  You say that now, cos you don't have kids.  Blah blah blah."  There are millions of parents who simply do not use physical violence on their children.  The argument might hold some water if such people were extremely rare or, perhaps, if you could show statistically that the products of such nonviolent upbringing were less well-behaved than kids from homes that employ corporal punishment.  That is simply not the case.  I can say that I won't hit my kids the same as I can say that I won't molest them.  Ever.

I can't wait for Fred's response:

"Shmokes, you say you won't molest your kids now, but that's because you have no kids.  Your opinion on the virtues of child molestation is moot.  When you have kids you'll see just how difficult it is not to molest them."   

The problem with relying on logical fallacies, Fred, is that they are so easy to shoot down.  Even when you're right you'll be undone in an argument every time if you support your opinion with faulty logic.  Spanking is always the best course of action, sometimes the best course of action, neither better or worse than alternative courses of action, or never acceptable.  It is one of those things now, and will continue to be one of those things after I have children.  My family status is irrelevant to the issue.  Even if your absurd claim that once I have kids of my own I will find the act of spanking them irresistible turns out to be true, that doesn't mean a damn thing, except that I turned out to be a bad parent in that respect.

As arrogant as I am, I would not suggest that the answer to the question of whether kids should be spanked by their parents hingest on what I decide to do with my own kids.

[daywane]

saint...
your oldest is 8?
My wife had 2 children when we met , 1yr old and 2 yrs old. I raised them as my own and still do. I do not care for the word Stepdad. I am there dad
These 2 monsters hated me at first and hated each other. I mean tossing each other out the window type hate . ( i guess there to close to age, I do not know and never under stood it) I would come home from work and the boy would have a fire under the 500 gal propain tank.
They had several spanks before 8
my youngest is 9 never had any problems like the other 2 ( I have stated I have 4 kids. He is the oldest . He is 18 and lives with my first wife. I can not really use him as a example. the most I could do to help him was pay my child support)
I really hope your kids are the exception. just be warned ...Jr high is cumming, High school RUN man RUN!!!

[fredster]

Right Daywane, it just depends on the situation.  I said I wouldn't do it either, but just cutting priviliges wasn't enough, the behavior persisted.

Shmokes, I'm always impressed with how smart you are. That was a #8, a #9a, and #10, rounded with a #12.
(Per this thread - http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,32236.0.html)

However, I suggest you should stick to expaining about things you obviously know how to do, like rip off Walmart (as you explained very well in your EA Boycott Thread). Until then, leave child rearing to the people that have children. 

If you actually do manage to have children, you can teach them to rip off other stores too!  Maybe you could show you kid how to boycott as successfully has you have.

And you could start a family business together boycotting and ripping off stores.  That would be nice.

[ChadTower]

Jr high is cumming, High school RUN man RUN!!!

Dude, I spit my drink out when I read that.  That is SO TRUE on SO MANY levels.

[DrewKaree]

LMAO, of course castration and isolation on an island is beyond rational.  Please, for the love of god, believe that I'm kidding about that.  But the never say never bit is absurd.  I think you could, with all kinds of confidence, say that there are a great many things that you would never do to your children.

I get that it's beyond rational, just like your comments regarding spanking a child and the people that feel it necessary.

There's a vast difference between spanking your child and molesting them, you know it, and it's ignorant to compare the two knowing such things.  The most illogical of people can understand the reasoning behind not saying you'll never spank your child.  I have no doubt in my mind that you'll do your best to move heaven and earth NOT to spank your child, if you have one or choose to in the future, but telling us you'll NEVER do it?  Your powers of ESP astound us, and frankly, I wish you'd start using them to divine what fredster is about to say so you can answer his next point before it's brought up.

The problem with relying on logical fallacies, Fred, is that they are so easy to shoot down.  Even when you're right you'll be undone in an argument every time if you support your opinion with faulty logic.  Spanking is always the best course of action, sometimes the best course of action, neither better or worse than alternative courses of action, or never acceptable.  It is one of those things now, and will continue to be one of those things after I have children.  My family status is irrelevant to the issue.  Even if your absurd claim that once I have kids of my own I will find the act of spanking them irresistible turns out to be true, that doesn't mean a damn thing, except that I turned out to be a bad parent in that respect.

Yet somehow you think you haven't done the exact same thing telling us that if you spank your child even once, you are a bad parent. 

As arrogant as I am, I would not suggest that the answer to the question of whether kids should be spanked by their parents hingest on what I decide to do with my own kids.

Yet you ARE arrogant enough to pass judgement on someone as a bad parent for spanking their child. 

Luckily, you live in that nice blue state where if you lose your mind and become a bad parent in the store, people won't look at you twice.  I'm betting living in Utah, you've seen it happen a few times, hey?

[Daniel270]

This is the first (and hopefully only) thread I've dared go into any sort of debate on....


I was one of those children brought up "disciplined" by a belt.  I can honestly say tho that it wasn't abuse, but true discipline.... Each time I got it (which was less than the number of fingers on one hand), I did something bad enough to merit it.   Am I a bad person?  I'd like to think not.  I've never been a bully, I've never robbed anyone, and I can honestly say I'm probably one of the nicest people anyone could get to know in person.

I do totally agree with Saint, tho.  Any form of spanking (not beatings, thrashings or whatever) should be totally a last resort.  There were times I was more "punished" by the wait to get spanked than actually getting it (there was usually an hour wait between being told I was getting one and getting one).

[shmokes]

Shmokes, I'm always impressed with how smart you are. That was a #8, a #9a, and #10, rounded with a #12.
(Per this thread - http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,32236.0.html)

However, I suggest you should stick to expaining about things you obviously know how to do, like rip off Walmart (as you explained very well in your EA Boycott Thread).

If you actually do manage to have children, you can teach them to rip off other stores too!

[ChadTower]

The amount of hominemphobia in this thread is disturbing.  Hominemsexuals are people too.

[shmokes]

Hominems should be castrated and put on an island.

[shmokes]

Damn....sorry Drew.  I replied to you too, earlier, but the thread ate my post.  I've got too much homework right now...perhaps tomorrow.

[daywane]

The amount of hominemphobia in this thread is disturbing.

[RetroJames]

The amount of hominemphobia in this thread is disturbing.

[fredster]

Even if I DO make a living ripping off Walmart, and intend to teach the tricks of my trade to my future son, it doesn't say a thing about this issue.

Yeah, you are right Shmokes.  Which thread was it you were discussing how to steal in?  Being a godless heathen, you surely don't have any reservations on it.  After all, you had to make sure you didn't write it.

As far as your logic is concerned, yes, I'm very lost.  It's a whole new level of logic.

[ChadTower]

That is some hardcore logic.  That logic is straight up ill, boy.  It's ill logic.  It's so ill, it deserves a new word... like illogical.

[Santoro]

I have not read pages 2-3 of this thread.

[DrewKaree]

The amount of hominemphobia in this thread is disturbing.  Hominemsexuals are people too.

i have to go look that up. What in the blazes is that. new word for me.
some time it suck to be a red neck.

Now that's funny,  even the spell checker came up blank on those two words

daywane, that is friggen funny!  Can I call you Clueless Joe Jackson?

JUST PULLIN' YER LEG BRUDDA!  DEMS JESS JOKES!

p.s. I told on you to your wife in that other thread....you better run now boah, you gon' git it good! 

[fredster]

And back to topic.

There was a topic here?

[ChadTower]

WTF is a class of Juvi's?

[shmokes]

That is some hardcore logic.  That logic is straight up ill, boy.  It's ill logic.  It's so ill, it deserves a new word... like illogical.

Pretty clever...

[Santoro]

WTF is a class of Juvi's?

Juvenile Delinquents.  That class was in chaos.

[ChadTower]

Ah, see to me, it looked like a hispanic slur, which was weird coming from a Santoro.  That's why I asked. 

[Santoro]

Whoa what slur does that look like, should I edit my post? 

Oh, and I am I-talian.  :-)

[Santoro]

I edited it just to be safe.