That's not answering my question.

Why won't you answer my question?

Why is it ok for a CHILD to ABUSE an ADULT?

lol...unknowingly unhappy,,,,,HAAAAAAAAA


can we imagine that, organizations and professionals set up to convince otherwise happy people that they should be UNHAPPY?



I See quite a market in it,,,,,interesting concept

ok,, I guess all these years I was happy , loving and respecting my folks, I was only kidding myself about what violent abusers they were,,


although , I have yet to hear of an abuser who pays all your bills, feeds you(your choice of food), clothes you(your choice of clothes) , buys you presents, pays for your vacations, attends all your school functions, constantly hugs and kisses you, tends to you when you are sick and gives you the freedom to move about freely in return for NOTHING but attending school and cleaning some things at home,,,,


I bet alot of abused kids still turned out happier than those with parents who never laid a hand on them, or HUGGED them, or attended any of their accomplishments, or taught them anything, or spent any time with them, ,,,,,etc,,,

but its ALL because of those random swats to my behind that this delusion has caused me to spend a whole lifetime thinking I Was happy ,,,,,

This thread has been great fun.

We beat the children until they are grown when they can finally do the same and then they go to jail for beating others to get them to learn

NEVER and ALWAYS statements can rarely be debated with any type of reason,,,,

I am healthy and happy, I didnt have violent parents and have never been a violent person, but I was spanked as a child. It worked to teach me boundaries and consequences and I know that as an adult if I commit a crime, noone is going to just sit down with me and politely ask me why I did it and not to do it again, or to go somewhere for forty minutes (they recommend one minute in time out for each year of age) to think about it.

It taught me about the REALISTIC seriousness of lifes consequences when we dont make good choices. I am glad my parents cared enough to teach me those things along with all the other realities of life like love and hard work and perseverence and respect and consideration....

I would have to assume (although I hate to) that you were actually not happy for lots of reasons when you were a child, and perhaps for you the discipline was one reason.

I dont think that experience for you is the same experience for all spanked children though or that noone else was or is capable of being a happy child and being spanked just because you werent.

I also dont condone trying to CONVINCE otherwise happy people that they should really be unhappy with their circumstance because we were. For instance, I LOVED sitting alone as a child with my imagination to keep me company and because there were no interruptions. I have heard people say they HATED having to sit still as a child, or sit in their room. They shouldnt be convinced that I really was miserable about it and am in denial because I didnt feel the same way they did. Its like saying one persons emotion is more valid than anothers.

I dont condone abuse and people have very different circumstances in their childhood. To credit their happiness or blame their unhappiness on any one element in their childhood is something only that CHILD can attest to and noone can assume to attest to it for them. I was a very happy child. because I had VERY supportive parents. I was encouraged to believe in myself, I was pushed to do my best, I was loved at every step of the way. I was also given the rules of the home and the consequences ahead of time so that I could make the CHOICE about how to act. IT is when children have balance, whether being spanked or not, that they will be healthy and happy. WHen they get TOO much of anything(spanking, attention, unearned gifts, unhealthy foods) or TOO little of others(love, hugs, assurance, support, balanced meals, responsibility),,that problems occur in their adulthood.

Do you think you would know???

I agree with this,, we need to wait to see how the law is implemented before acting to change it or sustain it.

My suggestions regarding how immigration ‘might’ be handled better follows my introduction.

In the USA no one is exempt from Federal Constitutional law because that law was created on the basis of human ethics. Representative government means just that – it doesn’t say ‘representative of US citizens only’ – it says and means representative, which is why we have seen a trend toward redistricting. Our public administrations, and our courts, uphold the ethics contained in the Constitution to assure that the civil rights of every human in the USA is protected. WE THE PEOPLE love that constitution, and no elected or appointed official is given more praise than those who fight in the battlefields to protect it.

So all those who piss and moan about how much of our tax dollars are going to medical costs, schooling, food, housing and law suits in support of immigrants are out of order here. No one can whole heartedly and unconditionally adore our troops and what they fight for and then turn around and declare that what they fight for is wrong…..!(the Constitution)

So Civil Rights laws that prohibit racial profiling, refer to everyone in the USA? But what is racial profiling? If a man or woman is questioned as a witness at a crime scene and that person has a very strong Asian, Hindu, German, Zulu, or any other kind of accent and when asked for ID that person cannot a single shred, does it fall under “Reasonable Suspicion”? Or is it racial profiling for a law enforcement officer to follow up? Perhaps take the person a few blocks to where they are staying to get this information? If it can’t be supplied is it racial profiling to detain the person for say, 24 hours while the effort is made to access the proper information?

I don’t think so.

Is it racial profiling to question any of the documents a worker must present to an employer, proving their legal status? Perhaps not, but companies have been sued and lost in court for having done so. Was it lack of training of the H/R personnel?


My suggestion: If the federal government alone understands the policy of this country pertaining to immigration, why are they keeping it secret? They must be keeping it secret because that's partially what their lawsuit agains Arizona is about.

SO - Why not have the fed set up a public administration whose job it is to ‘train’ law enforcement agents and H/R personnel in every state about policy and the proper way to administer it. (it would then be the feds policy and they wouldn't have to worry that it was being upheld.

THEN – let the States enforce immigration law through their law enforcement agencies. AND – while we’re at it, why not have a separate state administrative bureau strictly for “Immigration Status” in every state – RUN by the state to take care of the paper work, keep track of individuals and lapsing visas – seeing as how the federal administration can’t seem to do it. Some 30% of illegals are here on lapsed visas.

Then the States could share funding for the administrations with the Fed to do these jobs. This would create jobs in each state through state government and the Federal gov could focus more time, effort and money on the borders.

Before you comment on my suggestion try skimming the following report by the League of Women Voters – a couple years old but it’s a real eye opener. The Federal government does not want any state taking over any part of immigration – why? Read the report and see if you can figure it out.

http://emporia.lwv.org/files/ImmigrationStudy_Enforcement.pdf
FEDERAL IMMIGRATION POLICY: ENFORCEMENT ISSUES
By Barbara Margerum


My suggestions are not to return power over immigration to the states but to have the federal government relinquish some of the administrative aspects and involve local law for enforcement. It is less expensive to have state involved at this level than to have the fed handling it all. It also allows for more jobs at State level and more tax revenue from the new jobs. It would also reassure the public to know that their state has some control.

In 1968 I was told I would have carry ID to show Law Enforcement.State ID and a Draft Card. In 1969 They took my Draft Card at R and O.
I've been stopped while driving, the only thing that has changed since 1966 is now you have to show a Photo Drivers License and Proof of Insurance.
If I don't have my License with me he doesn't say have a nice day and send me down the road. I have to a least prove who I am before he gives me my ticket.
Lets take a short poll here. Who thinks the cop should let me just drive away. Who thinks the cop should verify who I am.

2010 or 2012?

Yep, with all that you wrote in the post before mine and then mine we are good.

If all people in Arizona are willing to prove they are citizens at every interaction with the police, there can be no complaints from those like me.

Do it.

I condone it and will support it and will stop my anti-Arizona pledge on the internet since the law passed.

As long as this law is struck down, there will be no problems from all of us human advocates.