Re: Violence Is Cultured in Our Youth By Example?
>From: Fred McGalliard <frederick.b.mcgalliard@...>Fred:
>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, exerciseFred:
>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
>that all the advice you get is simply wrong.Fred:
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 achievethe 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"
- coexusa wrote:
> Fred McGalliard wrote:The citizens demand that their legeslaters listen to them, and support
> >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?
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 feelSorry, but there is a big difference between even a few hundred thousand
> 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.
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, weShoot. What garbage. Socialist Democracy? Where does it say that 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.
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.Let's see. I get this right, you stand firmly for arming the black
> 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
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