Land of the free?

[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.