Trying to understand the Tea Party

1…5678911»

Comments

  • aerial
    aerial Posts: 2,319
    aerial wrote:
    scb wrote:
    aerial wrote:
    This is the best rant I have seen in a while.....
    I don't want government to oversee the raising of my child ...thats all I am trying to say....

    But is there ANY circumstance under which you think it's reasonable for the govrnment to oversee the raising of anyone else's child?

    Yes ...in the case of true child abuse or neglect.....
    scb wrote:
    But without governmental oversight... how would anyone know or be able to identify what exactly constitutes true abuse or neglect? There need to be rules, guidelines and standards. How about the example I was making earlier? According to your beliefs and standards... Is it neglect if you don't send your child to school?

    Is it neglect if your child doesn't have health insurance and therefore you do not bring your child to the doctor when he or she appears to be mildly ill?

    Why is education more important than healthcare? Why is it ok to use your tax dollars to make sure every child has access to an education but not that every child has access to adequate healthcare?

    Why do you go over the top with your questions.....of course about 98% of parents want there children to go to school........ and rules, guidelines and standards are pretty much common sense
    No I don’t believe raising children should be governed by politicians.....I believe it’s the parents responsibility. Though I do believe there are SOME parents that do abuse children and when they are reported the authorities will step in......
    My tax dollars have been going for others health all my life....
    I don’t want to be MADE to purchase health care....Look there are clinics that take low or no income families...and that is good...there is no one that has gone without healthcare unless that was there choice....
    But what exactly do you consider MILDLY ill?
    “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    aerial wrote:
    I never said it was black and white.....

    Sorry; I thought your (and others') point was that the government is CLEARLY sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong. So do you believe it's not black and white and there's a huge, debatable, gray area?
    aerial wrote:
    suspected physical harm... mental abuse, or leaving a young child home alone are a few acts I would define as child abuse...
    If I saw a child getting a spanking I would not call....

    How should the government clearly distinguish between spanking and physical abuse, in a way that won't inspire anyone to feel that his/her rights as a parent are being violated?

    How should the government define mental abuse, in a way that won't inspire anyone to feel that his/her rights as a parent are being violated?

    How should the government determine at what age a child is old enough to be left alone, in a way that won't inspire anyone to feel that his/her rights as a parent are being violated?
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    aerial wrote:
    aerial wrote:
    scb wrote:
    But is there ANY circumstance under which you think it's reasonable for the govrnment to oversee the raising of anyone else's child?

    Yes ...in the case of true child abuse or neglect.....
    scb wrote:
    But without governmental oversight... how would anyone know or be able to identify what exactly constitutes true abuse or neglect? There need to be rules, guidelines and standards. How about the example I was making earlier? According to your beliefs and standards... Is it neglect if you don't send your child to school?

    Is it neglect if your child doesn't have health insurance and therefore you do not bring your child to the doctor when he or she appears to be mildly ill?

    Why is education more important than healthcare? Why is it ok to use your tax dollars to make sure every child has access to an education but not that every child has access to adequate healthcare?

    Why do you go over the top with your questions.....of course about 98% of parents want there children to go to school........ and rules, guidelines and standards are pretty much common sense
    No I don’t believe raising children should be governed by politicians.....I believe it’s the parents responsibility. Though I do believe there are SOME parents that do abuse children and when they are reported the authorities will step in......
    My tax dollars have been going for others health all my life....
    I don’t want to be MADE to purchase health care....Look there are clinics that take low or no income families...and that is good...there is no one that has gone without healthcare unless that was there choice....
    But what exactly do you consider MILDLY ill?

    While I would love to take credit for GTFLYGIRL's excellent post, you are incorrect in attributing it to me.
  • aerial
    aerial Posts: 2,319
    GTFLYGIRL wrote:
    aerial wrote:
    KDH12 wrote:
    20-30 years ago bacon and hot dogs were better for you

    the production of food in this country has changed so drastically over the lat several decades there are a lot of things that I won't eat


    but I am sure that you don't want the government messing with your food production either
    Food production is totally diffrent than raising a child...


    Wait. Honestly. Are you saying that the government SHOULD be involved in overseeing food production in the country... but should stay out of taking care of innocent children that are unable to advocate for themselves?

    You dont believe that it's the responsibility of the governing bodies to set laws of the land to protect the most vulnerable of it's citizen's? (Because we all know there are many parents that are either unable to or just plain DON'T always look out for the best interests of their children.)

    How can you theorize that it is NOT the responsibility of the government to serve as advocates for the children of its nation?
    You may look at them as children of the nation....I look at them as MY children...I put the roof over there head I pay for there food and put clothes on there back...(lol you have me sounding like my dad now)
    Advocating is fine....I don’t want the government using tax payers money and the time to create stupid laws such as forcing me to make my child wear a helmet....nor do I want them governing the way I raise my child.......

    Off subject:
    Here is another example of Washington and there ignorance
    They passed a law saying cigarette company’s can no longer use “light” or “ultra light” on cigarette packs....do they think Americans are so stupid, that they really think they will get less cancer because it is described that way?....what a waste of tax payer money to pass such an ignorant law....
    “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
  • aerial
    aerial Posts: 2,319
    aerial wrote:
    aerial wrote:
    scb wrote:
    But is there ANY circumstance under which you think it's reasonable for the govrnment to oversee the raising of anyone else's child?

    Yes ...in the case of true child abuse or neglect.....
    scb wrote:
    But without governmental oversight... how would anyone know or be able to identify what exactly constitutes true abuse or neglect? There need to be rules, guidelines and standards. How about the example I was making earlier? According to your beliefs and standards... Is it neglect if you don't send your child to school?

    Is it neglect if your child doesn't have health insurance and therefore you do not bring your child to the doctor when he or she appears to be mildly ill?

    Why is education more important than healthcare? Why is it ok to use your tax dollars to make sure every child has access to an education but not that every child has access to adequate healthcare?

    Why do you go over the top with your questions.....of course about 98% of parents want there children to go to school........ and rules, guidelines and standards are pretty much common sense
    No I don’t believe raising children should be governed by politicians.....I believe it’s the parents responsibility. Though I do believe there are SOME parents that do abuse children and when they are reported the authorities will step in......
    My tax dollars have been going for others health all my life....
    I don’t want to be MADE to purchase health care....Look there are clinics that take low or no income families...and that is good...there is no one that has gone without healthcare unless that was there choice....
    But what exactly do you consider MILDLY ill?
    scb wrote:
    [While I would love to take credit for GTFLYGIRL's excellent post, you are incorrect in attributing it to me.
    my bad ...I was trying to answer all and mixed it up...
    “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    aerial wrote:
    Why do you go over the top with your questions.....

    Your mis-quote makes it difficult to tell who you are overgeneralizing about here.
    aerial wrote:
    of course about 98% of parents want there children to go to school........ and rules, guidelines and standards are pretty much common sense
    No I don’t believe raising children should be governed by politicians.....I believe it’s the parents responsibility. Though I do believe there are SOME parents that do abuse children and when they are reported the authorities will step in......

    What I hear you saying is that you don't want the raising of YOUR children (and the children of people like you) to be governed by politicians, but you think the government should step in for the other people whose ideas about raising THEIR children is different from your idea of common sense.

    Because the issue isn't about those "98% of parents [who] want there [sic] children to go to school" - it's about the other 2% who have different beliefs. Should the government require education for the children of that 2%? And, if so, then if 51% of the parents in this country believe spanking a child is child abuse, should YOU be banned from spanking your children?
    aerial wrote:
    My tax dollars have been going for others health all my life....
    I don’t want to be MADE to purchase health care....Look there are clinics that take low or no income families...and that is good...there is no one that has gone without healthcare unless that was there choice....
    But what exactly do you consider MILDLY ill?

    I think everyone knows that's not true.
  • GTFLYGIRL
    GTFLYGIRL NewYork Posts: 788
    Why is education more important than healthcare? Why is it ok to use your tax dollars to make sure every child has access to an education but not that every child has access to adequate healthcare?
    aerial wrote:
    Why do you go over the top with your questions.....of course about 98% of parents want there children to go to school........ and rules, guidelines and standards are pretty much common sense

    Why is that question over the top? It's a pretty direct question... why do you value the education of children in this country so much more than their health and general well-being?
    aerial wrote:
    I don’t believe raising children should be governed by politicians.....I believe it’s the parents responsibility. Though I do believe there are SOME parents that do abuse children and when they are reported the authorities will step in......

    yeah. ok. whatever. Do you truly not see the role of government, or for that matter the role of any governing body of any institution, to ensure that children are protected? Do you not see the responsibility of lawmakers to make and enforce laws and standards for PROTECTING AND ADVOCATING FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE UNABLE TO PROTECT OR ADVOCATE FOR THEMSELVES??
    aerial wrote:
    ...there is no one that has gone without healthcare unless that was there choice....

    It is now becoming apparent that you and i live in two VERY different worlds.....
    aerial wrote:
    what exactly do you consider MILDLY ill?

    appears to be mildly ill was the question. APPEARS TO BE...
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    aerial wrote:
    Off subject:
    Here is another example of Washington and there ignorance
    They passed a law saying cigarette company’s can no longer use “light” or “ultra light” on cigarette packs....do they think Americans are so stupid, that they really think they will get less cancer because it is described that way?....what a waste of tax payer money to pass such an ignorant law....

    Do you not believe in truth in advertising requirements either?? :?
  • aerial
    aerial Posts: 2,319
    scb wrote:
    aerial wrote:
    I never said it was black and white.....

    Sorry; I thought your (and others') point was that the government is CLEARLY sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong. So do you believe it's not black and white and there's a huge, debatable, gray area?
    aerial wrote:
    suspected physical harm... mental abuse, or leaving a young child home alone are a few acts I would define as child abuse...
    If I saw a child getting a spanking I would not call....

    How should the government clearly distinguish between spanking and physical abuse, in a way that won't inspire anyone to feel that his/her rights as a parent are being violated?

    How should the government define mental abuse, in a way that won't inspire anyone to feel that his/her rights as a parent are being violated?

    How should the government determine at what age a child is old enough to be left alone, in a way that won't inspire anyone to feel that his/her rights as a parent are being violated?
    I just feel it's common sense..
    How about a panel of grown abused children make those calls...
    I feel I know about child abuse since I was abused from 5 to age 14...in just about every aspect..
    so in a personal way I can see how ignorant not wearing a helmet is when trying to equate it to child abuse or neglect ...
    “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
  • aerial
    aerial Posts: 2,319
    scb wrote:
    aerial wrote:
    Off subject:
    Here is another example of Washington and there ignorance
    They passed a law saying cigarette company’s can no longer use “light” or “ultra light” on cigarette packs....do they think Americans are so stupid, that they really think they will get less cancer because it is described that way?....what a waste of tax payer money to pass such an ignorant law....

    Do you not believe in truth in advertising requirements either?? :?

    It does not mean less cancer it means less taste...
    “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
  • GTFLYGIRL
    GTFLYGIRL NewYork Posts: 788
    aerial wrote:
    scb wrote:
    aerial wrote:
    Off subject:
    Here is another example of Washington and there ignorance
    They passed a law saying cigarette company’s can no longer use “light” or “ultra light” on cigarette packs....do they think Americans are so stupid, that they really think they will get less cancer because it is described that way?....what a waste of tax payer money to pass such an ignorant law....

    Do you not believe in truth in advertising requirements either?? :?

    It does not mean less cancer it means less taste...

    yes. many people believe that... and fyi. i think you missed scb's point about truth in advertising requirements....

    I believe both scb and I get that it does not mean the cigs are any less deadly... but many people do not.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    aerial wrote:
    Off subject:
    Here is another example of Washington and there ignorance
    They passed a law saying cigarette company’s can no longer use “light” or “ultra light” on cigarette packs....do they think Americans are so stupid, that they really think they will get less cancer because it is described that way?....what a waste of tax payer money to pass such an ignorant law....

    Of course the government thinks people believe they'll get less cancer when they smoke "light" cigarettes, because research has shown that it's true:
    Public Understanding of Risk and Reasons for Smoking Low-Yield Products wrote:
    A substantial portion of smokers believe that low-tar cigarettes are less risky than Regular cigarettes. For example, a nationwide 1987 survey (Giovino et al., 1996, p. 49) found that 45.7 percent of Ultra-Light smokers, 32.2 percent of Light smokers, and 29.4 percent of Regular smokers said that low-tar cigarettes reduce the risk of cancer. Nevertheless, smokers’ knowledge about low-tar cigarettes is quite limited.
    http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/13/m13_6.pdf

    (And that's just the adults. I would bet misconceptions are worse among kids.)

    I honestly don't understand how you could possibly think no one would think this. Why else would the cigarette companies do it?? And why wouldn't people think this, since it's implied??
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    aerial wrote:
    I just feel it's common sense..
    How about a panel of grown abused children make those calls...
    I feel I know about child abuse since I was abused from 5 to age 14...in just about every aspect..
    so in a personal way I can see how ignorant not wearing a helmet is when trying to equate it to child abuse or neglect ...

    I'm very sorry that happened to you. I hope you know that no one here is trying to trivialize abuse. (I said earlier that I was trying to compare not wearing a helmet with neglect, not with abuse.)

    The problem is just that people have different beliefs and values and we must do our best with regulation to find a balance between costs (parents feeling like their rights are being violated) and benefits (protecting children). I don't NECESSARILY believe that children should be made to wear bicycle helmets. My problem is not with people's varying opinions about where the balance in regulation lies.

    My problem is with the notion that it's very obvious where the line should be drawn and that if it's not drawn in a way that exactly fits with a given person's values then the government is OBVIOUSLY fascist and trying to take away our freedom.

    Why can't people just get over their blind partisan loyalty and talking points and admit that overall, and especially when it comes to health and safety, the government, public health officials, and most supporters of any given regulation are just trying to do their best to protect the well-being of the people of this nation - especially the children? Once we can agree to that, we can begin to have reasoned, evidence-based discussion about exactly where these lines of regulation should be drawn.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    aerial wrote:
    scb wrote:
    aerial wrote:
    Off subject:
    Here is another example of Washington and there ignorance
    They passed a law saying cigarette company’s can no longer use “light” or “ultra light” on cigarette packs....do they think Americans are so stupid, that they really think they will get less cancer because it is described that way?....what a waste of tax payer money to pass such an ignorant law....

    Do you not believe in truth in advertising requirements either?? :?

    It does not mean less cancer it means less taste...
    :? :?

    I'm not sure what that statement has to do with my question.
  • KDH12
    KDH12 Posts: 2,096
    so are you saying that the government should govern everything that is outside the realm of common sense :lol:
    **CUBS GO ALL THE WAY IN......never **
  • KDH12
    KDH12 Posts: 2,096
    aerial wrote:
    KDH12 wrote:
    20-30 years ago bacon and hot dogs were better for you

    the production of food in this country has changed so drastically over the lat several decades there are a lot of things that I won't eat


    but I am sure that you don't want the government messing with your food production either
    Food production is totally diffrent than raising a child...

    oh wait did I make that comparison?


    give me a second to reread......








    nope, I did not say that......
    but he feed that nasty food to your children and/or grandchildren
    **CUBS GO ALL THE WAY IN......never **
  • markin ball
    markin ball Posts: 1,076
    scb wrote:
    aerial wrote:
    I just feel it's common sense..
    How about a panel of grown abused children make those calls...
    I feel I know about child abuse since I was abused from 5 to age 14...in just about every aspect..
    so in a personal way I can see how ignorant not wearing a helmet is when trying to equate it to child abuse or neglect ...

    I'm very sorry that happened to you. I hope you know that no one here is trying to trivialize abuse. (I said earlier that I was trying to compare not wearing a helmet with neglect, not with abuse.)

    The problem is just that people have different beliefs and values and we must do our best with regulation to find a balance between costs (parents feeling like their rights are being violated) and benefits (protecting children). I don't NECESSARILY believe that children should be made to wear bicycle helmets. My problem is not with people's varying opinions about where the balance in regulation lies.

    My problem is with the notion that it's very obvious where the line should be drawn and that if it's not drawn in a way that exactly fits with a given person's values then the government is OBVIOUSLY fascist and trying to take away our freedom.

    Why can't people just get over their blind partisan loyalty and talking points and admit that overall, and especially when it comes to health and safety, the government, public health officials, and most supporters of any given regulation are just trying to do their best to protect the well-being of the people of this nation - especially the children? Once we can agree to that, we can begin to have reasoned, evidence-based discussion about exactly where these lines of regulation should be drawn.

    This post could be put in just about every topic in the Moving Train. Good job.
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."

    "With our thoughts we make the world"
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    markin ball wrote:
    scb wrote:
    aerial wrote:
    I just feel it's common sense..
    How about a panel of grown abused children make those calls...
    I feel I know about child abuse since I was abused from 5 to age 14...in just about every aspect..
    so in a personal way I can see how ignorant not wearing a helmet is when trying to equate it to child abuse or neglect ...

    I'm very sorry that happened to you. I hope you know that no one here is trying to trivialize abuse. (I said earlier that I was trying to compare not wearing a helmet with neglect, not with abuse.)

    The problem is just that people have different beliefs and values and we must do our best with regulation to find a balance between costs (parents feeling like their rights are being violated) and benefits (protecting children). I don't NECESSARILY believe that children should be made to wear bicycle helmets. My problem is not with people's varying opinions about where the balance in regulation lies.

    My problem is with the notion that it's very obvious where the line should be drawn and that if it's not drawn in a way that exactly fits with a given person's values then the government is OBVIOUSLY fascist and trying to take away our freedom.

    Why can't people just get over their blind partisan loyalty and talking points and admit that overall, and especially when it comes to health and safety, the government, public health officials, and most supporters of any given regulation are just trying to do their best to protect the well-being of the people of this nation - especially the children? Once we can agree to that, we can begin to have reasoned, evidence-based discussion about exactly where these lines of regulation should be drawn.

    This post could be put in just about every topic in the Moving Train. Good job.
    :)

Categories