Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Violence Is Cultured in Our Youth By Example?

Expand Messages
  • coexusa
    ... Fred: Sometimes I think we making the raising of kids too complicated. Actually, we keep trying to say that raising kids is so difficult . Yes, it is
    Message 1 of 107 , Apr 30, 1999
      >From: Fred McGalliard <frederick.b.mcgalliard@...>

      >I am sorry. It is very good to have parents that you love. I love mine,
      >but they are a bit different from me. I want definitly to emulate their
      >better features, but I want to avoid some of their odd quirks. I spent a
      >lot of time learning how to raise my kids and I also studied as a
      >teacher early on. I think we have a lot of oversimplified views of how
      >to raise kids.


      Sometimes I think we making the raising of kids too complicated. Actually,
      we keep trying to say that raising kids is "so difficult". Yes, it is
      challenging..but, difficult? Our Grandparents would turn in their graves.
      They took raising children as a serious responsibility and did not "whine or
      whimper" about how hard it was. Everyone today, seems to complain about
      "how hard it is". They just did it. I would like to hear you expand on how
      you think our view are "oversimplified"?

      Face it, a kid, even at 5, is the most complex piece of
      >equipment you will ever tinker with. You have to feed it right, exercise
      >it right, and give it your love and attention. Works great when your kid
      >turns out to be one of the easy to raise "cheer leaders". But what do
      >you do when they are the hard ones that can be either juvinile
      >delenquents or the bold leaders who point out our faults?

      You deal with it one step at a time. Yes, I know that some kids are real
      bad. But, I believe that discipline and structure in their lifes will help
      them to find their way. A responsible adult being there for them is
      definately an advantage. But, there are so many single/working parent
      families now. So, there is no way that the child can get the discipline and
      structure that they so desperately need.

      Then you have to learn the difference between dicipline and love. Too often
      you find
      >that all the advice you get is simply wrong.

      I agree. Each child is different. I feel that discipline and love are
      inter-mixed. Some call it "tough love". I have seen this work many times.

      I think you would find it safer, and wiser, to never strike your child
      after the age of 3,
      >regardless. It is just too easy to do for the wrong reasons, and to achieve
      the wrong effects.

      The operative statement here is: "for the wrong reasons". If you ever spank
      your children...you had better make sure that it is for the right reasons.
      A loving and caring parent should be able to determine this..especially if
      the child is continually defying his parents. I remember one time when my
      Father was told by my Mom that my sister and I had stolen some other kids
      stuff. My Mother wanted my Father to spank us. He asked us if we did this?
      We said no. My Father called all the parties involved and determined that
      we were "not guilty" and it was a case of mistaken identity. So, we did NOT
      get a spanking. In fact, my Father went and spoke to the children and
      parents who had falsely accused us and let them know that he was
      dissapointed in their "weak investigation" of the facts. As my Father
      always said: "Firm but Fair"
    • Fred McGalliard
      coexusa wrote: ... The citizens demand that their legeslaters listen to them, and support their positions, even when their positions are foolishly short
      Message 107 of 107 , May 10, 1999
        coexusa wrote:
        > Fred McGalliard wrote:
        > >Right now, as I read it, the citizens are the source of the corruption
        > >in our government, and the primary reason that it can't even decide how
        > >to tie it's own shoe laces, so to speak.
        > Please explain what you you mean by the above statement? Which citizens?
        > Where? What corruption? Your comment is so "broad sweeping" that I have no
        > idea what you are talking about?

        The citizens demand that their legeslaters listen to them, and support
        their positions, even when their positions are foolishly short sighted.
        We pay em well to vote the way we want. Then we bitch like crazy when
        they accept money from positions we don't like. We insist they lie to
        us, and persistently ignore their wrongdoing as long as we think they
        are "taking care" of us. We pay em, we ignore their behavior, we make
        use of it and take advantage of it and we accept the cost of it. Are
        "we" then, not responsible? Frankly, I doubt that you and I would agree
        on any one particular example, but as I see it the politicians, with a
        few interesting exceptions, learned their behavior at our feet. We
        raised them up this way. It is no good now to complain. When was the
        last time we voted for a man who told us what our policies would cost

        > First of all, civil war is a fact of history. People revolt when they feel
        > that government is oppressing them. Remember the revolutionary war? You
        > think that war veterans, grandfathers, patriots who love their country but
        > can't stand to see the government continually meddling into the lifes of law
        > abiding citizens are "undisciplined rowdies"? Think again, Fred.

        Sorry, but there is a big difference between even a few hundred thousand
        folk with short range anti personel weapons and a bad attitude and a
        serious army. It takes years to build, equip, and train an army, even
        when it is built from folks with some military experience. And you need
        several hundred billions worth of tanks, aircraft, copters, and thats
        without nukes. But it is more important that you remember, as long as it
        is a small scale insurection, you get treated real nice, though you
        might not think so. When the gloves come off, your crew faces attack
        helicopters with night vision, serious air surpression, heavy combat
        equipment, and the support of the rest of the nation. You could slow em
        down a bit as they feel you out, but you will not stop them, and if they
        want to roll over you, you will not have the opertunity to write your
        will after the fighting starts. What are you thinking? And did you
        imagine that everyone would just sort of sign up for your little war? If
        you can't win the elections, you surely can't win the civil war.

        > If you can't let them do it, then you must see that "we" can't, we
        > dare not, let you do it.
        > Who is YOU and OUR? Please be specific. Are you dividing us up into
        > conservative and liberal? Democrat and Republican? I don't think that way.
        > I am not trying to take up arms and change "that same government by force".
        > I just want our government to be what the Constitution says it should be, "a
        > republic", not a Socialist Democracy which is what we have now.

        Shoot. What garbage. Socialist Democracy? Where does it say that we
        can't be that in the Constitution? If you don't like the way the supreme
        court interprets the constituition, write em about it. Trying to force
        your views down everyone elses throats is what our clumsy three
        sectioned government is all about. No hot head can quickly bring the
        supreme court to heel, nor can a quick insurection among the rightious
        in the hinterlands change the government in a day. If you don't like the
        way we run our country, feel free to leave. You might let someone know
        you are leaving, I suspect there would be a few takers for your place

        Understand me, and hear it well, this country is in the sorry state it
        is because of us, and for our sake. We damn well better pay more
        attention to it, and fix some things. What we call our form of
        government, a "socialist democracy" or democratic republic, or whatever,
        is a job for junior political scientests. If you want to fix something
        that is wrong, tell us what is wrong, and how you want to fix it. We
        vote. We can change it. Take up arms to try to change it by force and we
        will all come down on you like a ton of lead. You have the vote, you
        have access to the means of communication. Use it. And I would suggest
        if you want to wage war, you adopt Martin Luther King's tactics. He has
        had at least modest success.

        > How dare you tell ME what I "dare to consider for use" as a weapon of war.
        > I was guaranteed freedom by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I
        > won't bother anyone if they don't bother me. So, you want to disarm all the
        > US Citizens

        Let's see. I get this right, you stand firmly for arming the black
        panthers, tanks, antiaircraft, cobra helicopters, the whole schmear. Of
        course what's left of the Communists would really like some guns as
        well, maby a few nukes. Course we would have to disarm the right wing
        ginks in the mid west to take away their large terrorist bombs, but I am
        sure they would like to be able to confront the panthers with their own
        tanks and aircraft. And let's be fair about this. The marajuana
        legalization league would like to police it's fields with fully armed
        tanks to keep the local police in line. Now, what was that again about
        what you would "dare" to do with military grade arms? See, you are not
        the only one who just wan't his guns to support his own freedom from an
        opressive government.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.