http://www.dlcc.org/node/2375_Michigan_GOP_Religious_Bullying_ok

You have to be shitting me.

Shoot. Them. All.

gut;960173 wrote:I understand and respect the position and logic, I just struggle to justify the inefficiencies and other issues allowing states to decide this individually. I get that 200 years ago the goal was to keep the federal govt from having too much power, but the states were far more independent with most cities a few days travel or more from another city. Now you outlaw abortion and someone can drive 30 minutes west or even hop on a plane to Canada. And I can't reconcile how, in the USA, a gay couple's marriage can be recognized on spot "X" and not recognized two steps to the right across the state line.

New technologies do not render the constitution obsolete. 200 years ago the goal was to limit the power of federal government and today it is still the law of the land. I agree with Otrap on the "not under my roof" mentality. 10's of millions belive it to be the killing of a human life. Like minded people would have the chance to at least not allow it in their state and maybe change a few minds. Getting in that car and driving to a city in another state, or buying a plane ticket and flying into Canada and going through the necessary security procedures to enter their country, may just lend enough time to think things through.

I can also pay a sales tax on point "X" and take two steps across the state line and not pay one at all. Maybe you can't reconcile that either. Or be hauling ass through West Virginia at 75mph and just a few feet later I could get a ticket for speeding when I cross into Ohio. You will never get 300+ million people to agree on so many of these issue. National rule would leave possibly over a 100 million people discontent with the law of the land.

gut;960173 wrote:There's so much mobility today, even just with jobs not to mention travel and moving to new states, that our society IS becoming more homeogenous (relatively speaking) and that SHOULD dictate more uniformity in laws. I have NEVER thought of myself an Ohioan first and American second. Now ignorance of the law is no excuse, and while it may not affect a traveler, it seems really moronic to have to learn and comply with different state laws everywhere I do business.

I agree that our society is becoming more homeogenous on a national level. Uniformity in laws will likely naturally occur on some issues. But naturally from the bottom up. Not unaturally form the top down. Have you ever read the US Code of law? Few have because they will never have the time or the resources. Its seams moronic to have to comply with that morass everywhere I do business. Just ask Gibson Guitar.

gut;960173 wrote:What I would propose, instead, is that some of these issues be put to popular vote rather than decided in a Congress based on back-room deals. If you want abortion to be illegal, let 50.1% of the US population say so (which I doubt ever happens and why this should be a dead issue).

The United States is a republic. Its not a democracy. This would be a radical change in how our federal system of government works. I am sure you realize you would need to amend the constitution. Direct democracy does not alway go the way you think. Look at California. Thought of as one of the more liberal states in the union. Yet by direct democracy the people outlawed gay marriage.

gut;960173 wrote:The whole concept seems rather stupid and wasteful to me. People aren't going to uproot their family because their state decides for or against abortion or gay marriage. They really aren't affected by it either way beyond a false sense of moral stewardship. Again I go back to being an American first and Ohioan/Michigander second, but I think the practical reality is there are some things that make more sense to do on the federal level and others on the state level.

They may not move but they may feel they have a better chance of influencing change in their state rather than in Washington DC. The farthest Ohioans are not much more than three hours from Columbus. I agree there are some things that make mores sense to do on the federal level. So did the founders. They made a list to start us out. Many more things have come up over time and we have added some. Who gets to decide what "things" make more sense on the federal level and what others the state level? Well the founders answered that as well. Its called the Amendment process. Basically the states and feds with their elected representatives get together and decide. At least that is how it was supposed to be.

Skyhook79;960348 wrote:I agree and incest is one of them.

Call your representative/senator and voice your support for a Consitutional amendment banning intercourse between certain individuals with close bloodlines.

I Wear Pants;961027 wrote:http://www.dlcc.org/node/2375_Michigan_GOP_Religious_Bullying_ok

You have to be shitting me.

Shoot. Them. All.

LOL at an anti-bullying bill. Are we going to be rounding kids up and sending them to re-education camps.

This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil's parent or guardian.

That amendment is meant to protect the said parties from over zealous politically correct loon from assailing someone who simply says in class "I think homesexuality is a sin".

pmoney25;959986 wrote:http://mobile.nj.com/advnj/pm_104369/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=h8zTFuk2


sometimes its easy to believe he is being ignored.

Its the New York Times. The vast majority of Americans will never take a look at Nate Silvers little model. I keep up on politics and I would not have seen this had you not posted it. Plus it is a joke. Huntsman?

majorspark;961146 wrote:LOL at an anti-bullying bill. Are we going to be rounding kids up and sending them to re-education camps.

This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil's parent or guardian.

That amendment is meant to protect the said parties from over zealous politically correct loon from assailing someone who simply says in class "I think homesexuality is a sin".

And yet can also be used to let kids tell a gay kid that he's going to hell, is evil, etc.

It depends on the way it's used.

I love how conservatives hate when people say bullying is bad.

I Wear Pants;961269 wrote:And yet can also be used to let kids tell a gay kid that he's going to hell, is evil, etc.

It depends on the way it's used.

Sounds like bad law. The local schoold districts are more than apt to make that discernment.

I Wear Pants;961269 wrote: I love how conservatives hate when people say bullying is bad.

Another blanket statement by pants. Conservatives do not like the political correct bullshit surrounding this. My kids laugh at the waste of time they have to go through by state mandate with reguards to anti-bullying indoctrination. It is literally a joke to the kids and a waste of tax dollars.

This is how you handle a bully.
[video=youtube_share;XvijyBIgazE][/video]

I Wear Pants;961269 wrote:And yet can also be used to let kids tell a gay kid that he's going to hell, is evil, etc.

Technically, would that not be an assertion of conviction (right or wrong notwithstanding) and thus fall under the category of free speech?

If I believe something to be true ... if I believe it to be a fact ... and I state it as such (without aggression), I would think that would fall under freedom of speech.

I would, then, contend that the manner in which something is said has as much to do with whether or not it is bullying as what is said.

I Wear Pants;961269 wrote:I love how conservatives hate when people say bullying is bad.

I'm personally for as little intervention as possible, but when something crosses a line by infringing on the rights of a student, then I am CERTAINLY on board with governmental mandate of some kind.

majorspark;961341 wrote:This is how you handle a bully.
[video=youtube_share;XvijyBIgazE][/video]

Problem with that is that some bullies can (and may) then retaliate with a weapon. I'm certainly no proponent of any anti-bullying campaign that transcends the line of protecting rights, though.

O-Trap;961356 wrote:Problem with that is that some bullies can (and may) then retaliate with a weapon. I'm certainly no proponent of any anti-bullying campaign that transcends the line of protecting rights, though.

Number one have a little sense of humor. Statistically a very small amount of bullies would respond with a weapon. Bullying is no different today than it was when I was growing up. Or my father or his father. You have modern media devices that brings it more attention. And its being more politicized.

The state would call it "bullying" but both my boys have had issues with certain schoolmates. I told my boys to handle it like men. Briefly ignore. Verbally respond firmly. Defend yourself if any physical contact is made.

I get the Fight Back mentality for bullies but sometimes the bullies are just tougher than the kids they pick on so regardless if they fight back they will still get their ass kicked and nowadays it seems that Verbal/Emotional bullying is worse than Physical bullying.

I remember back in the day, a kid was being bullied and the bully was twice his size and no matter what he did he would have gotten his ass kicked so I stepped in, put the bully in a choke hold and told him to leave him alone. Kid never messed around with him again.

I was always pretty much the tallest/biggest kid growing up so I never really dealt with being bullied.

Fighting back is not always an option for some kids. So making other kids aware that if they witness bullying, they should do something to help put an end to it. Strength in numbers. Now I do believe this is where Parenting can have a huge effect obviously but this whole Kids are whimps if they allow themselves to be bullied is ridiculous.

majorspark;961341 wrote:Sounds like bad law. The local schoold districts are more than apt to make that discernment.



Another blanket statement by pants. Conservatives do not like the political correct bullshit surrounding this. My kids laugh at the waste of time they have to go through by state mandate with reguards to anti-bullying indoctrination. It is literally a joke to the kids and a waste of tax dollars.

This is how you handle a bully.
[video=youtube_share;XvijyBIgazE][/video]

Agreed to the bold part.

Secondly. I love how anti-bullying campaigns are "indoctrination" or something bad. We get it you think that everyone is pussified these days. But how is telling kids that bullying isn't cool and is unacceptable and if you see it you should tell an adult (which is what 99% of bullying campaigns say) a bad thing? Please explain that to me. I'd love to hear one reason that isn't "kids are soft these days". Because that's bullshit.

And you should talk about blanket statements they way you vilify anything you deem as liberal.

pmoney25;961434 wrote:I get the Fight Back mentality for bullies but sometimes the bullies are just tougher than the kids they pick on so regardless if they fight back they will still get their ass kicked and nowadays it seems that Verbal/Emotional bullying is worse than Physical bullying.

I agree some kids physically can't match up. I disagree that today verbal/emotional bullying is any worse than in times past. Modern technology just gives it more media attention.

pmoney25;961434 wrote:I remember back in the day, a kid was being bullied and the bully was twice his size and no matter what he did he would have gotten his ass kicked so I stepped in, put the bully in a choke hold and told him to leave him alone. Kid never messed around with him again.

Far more effective than any state legislature.

pmoney25;961434 wrote:I was always pretty much the tallest/biggest kid growing up so I never really dealt with being bullied.

Both my boys are the tallest/biggest in their class. That was the context of my comment.

pmoney25;961434 wrote:Fighting back is not always an option for some kids. So making other kids aware that if they witness bullying, they should do something to help put an end to it. Strength in numbers. Now I do believe this is where Parenting can have a huge effect obviously but this whole Kids are whimps if they allow themselves to be bullied is ridiculous.

When a physical confrontation is not to ones advantage I am still not against a kid standing up for himself verbally. Most "bullys" do not want a physical confrontation. They seek to rule you with words. A man knows how to judge the situation and how to handle it. And your right its the parents responsibility to guide them when these issues come up.

Ignore the last addition to that post. That was my in a bad mood troll attempt that I shouldn't have done. I usually try to at least be funny why I troll.

majorspark;961603 wrote:I agree some kids physically can't match up. I disagree that today verbal/emotional bullying is any worse than in times past. Modern technology just gives it more media attention.



Far more effective than any state legislature.



Both my boys are the tallest/biggest in their class. That was the context of my comment.



When a physical confrontation is not to ones advantage I am still not against a kid standing up for himself verbally. Most "bullys" do not want a physical confrontation. They seek to rule you with words. A man knows how to judge the situation and how to handle it. And your right its the parents responsibility to guide them when these issues come up.

Modern technology allows the bullying to continue into the kids home, their phone, their computer. There isn't anywhere they can have an escape these days.

I Wear Pants;961570 wrote:Secondly. I love how anti-bullying campaigns are "indoctrination" or something bad. We get it you think that everyone is pussified these days. But how is telling kids that bullying isn't cool and is unacceptable and if you see it you should tell an adult (which is what 99% of bullying campaigns say) a bad thing? Please explain that to me. I'd love to hear one reason that isn't "kids are soft these days". Because that's bullshit.

Back in my day we knew bullying was not cool without the state telling us so. It was handled by the parents and if necessary the school district authorities were brought in. Kids today find the programs a joke and a waste of time. Acting out bullying skits. What a joke the kids already know whats up.

I Wear Pants;961570 wrote:And you should talk about blanket statements they way you vilify anything you deem as liberal.

I rarely us the word liberal. The word liberal has its root in liberty. Thats why I specifically use the word "left" most times because I don't want to blanket those that actually seek liberty.

I Wear Pants;961615 wrote:Ignore the last addition to that post. That was my in a bad mood troll attempt that I shouldn't have done. I usually try to at least be funny why I troll.

To late. But you get a pass.

I Wear Pants;961616 wrote:Modern technology allows the bullying to continue into the kids home, their phone, their computer. There isn't anywhere they can have an escape these days.

True. And if you want to involve the state by nature they will want to police those things. What liberty do you want to exchange for the securtiy of your child? Parents and local authorities are more than apt to deal with these issues. The exception being an outside bully. One outside the locals authority. But the parents and locals are more than able to work with the necessary higher authorities that already exist to take care of the matter.

majorspark;961627 wrote:Back in my day we knew bullying was not cool without the state telling us so. It was handled by the parents and if necessary the school district authorities were brought in. Kids today find the programs a joke and a waste of time. Acting out bullying skits. What a joke the kids already know whats up.



I rarely us the word liberal. The word liberal has its root in liberty. Thats why I specifically use the word "left" most times because I don't want to blanket those that actually seek liberty.

Acting out bullying skits? That is dumb. But talking about bullying/promoting anti-bullying stuff I don't think is harmful even if you could argue it isn't terribly effective.

[video=youtube;o_-tRDDSH_Y][/video]
That sort of thing is what I mean. If kids make fun of Bas' campaign, he'll break their liver.



To that last post of yours. I don't think that the state is particularly suited to combat bullying. Another thing I should have made clear. I've been talking about anti-bullying stuff in general not limited to government (at least federal) involved. I think we'll agree there.

I Wear Pants;961656 wrote:To that last post of yours. I don't think that the state is particularly suited to combat bullying. Another thing I should have made clear. I've been talking about anti-bullying stuff in general not limited to government (at least federal) involved. I think we'll agree there.

We agree.

I'm kinda shocked that neither of Ron Paul's most vocal supporters have yet to opine on his stint on Fox News Sunday yesterday - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcgjF-IINNw I've read several times on here that he doesn't get any air time, and yet, here he was on a very widely watched Sunday news program and crickets appear on the OC. By the way, while searching for his appearance on YouTube, I found 4 different times he was on FNS in 2011 alone. Guess he's not hiding as much as could be surmised on here.

My impressions:

1. He is wonderful when discussing his economic solutions and our unsustainable debt. Very articulate, although he still talks awfully fast.
2. He chose NOT to pile onto the Herman Cain media circus. Well played, Ron, and he stayed focused on the issues pertaining to issues he disagrees with Cain.
3. His arguing that Iran may or may not have nuclear weapon capabilities is troubling. He says this has been going on for a decade and he's not sure if they are any closer today than they were before GWB was POTUS. I understand not wanting to go to war, but to say he's not sure Iran is any closer is to close the door on reality. His solution was to "be friends with them so they don't hate our guts". Is he reading Obama's handbook? If he was wanting to alleviate people's concerns about his foreign policy views, he made it worse, IMO.
4. He did try to split hairs when discussing military strength vs. bringing troops home. This was the best I've seen him at explaining it. Maybe his team has gotten through to him finally.

Finally, he did say he didn't want to run as a 3rd party candidate, but he chose to not endorse the R candidate, should it be someone other than himself. Fair enough that he doesn't want to appear compromised by his party affiliation, but Wallace kinda made it appear he'd be a grumpy gus if he doesn't win the nomination.

He isn't going to endorse the Republican nominee if he doesn't win. He didn't last time either. In fact the last Republican nominee he endorsed was Reagan. After that they are the same as Democrats. He might as well endorse Obama. His supporters would never allow him to endorse a big government fascist like Cain, Romney, Perry, or Gingrich.

He does need to brush up his Iran answer to at least settle down the warmongers. We can't possibly afford to go to war with Iran, and obviously sanctions and tough talk doesn't work. The government will still fund their nuclear program. It only hurts the Iranian people and galvanizes them against us. Maybe if we lifted the sanctions their people would focus more on overthrowing their government rather than sneaking into Iraq to kill the Americans that are starving them out.

So when does Paul sit down and have coffee with his new friend Ahmadinejad and discuss how Iran and the USA become better friends? WoW

[video=youtube;bHY_rv8ItUU][/video]

Ron Paul on O' Reilly's radio show today. O' Reilly was at least civil this time. He had all of the candidates on today, and had an online poll afterward which Paul won, and the O' Reilly disqualified him saying his supporters flooded the poll and Paul wasn't going to win anyway.

Cleveland Buck;962616 wrote:[video=youtube;bHY_rv8ItUU][/video]

Ron Paul on O' Reilly's radio show today. O' Reilly was at least civil this time. He had all of the candidates on today, and had an online poll afterward which Paul won, and the O' Reilly disqualified him saying his supporters flooded the poll and Paul wasn't going to win anyway.

He won a Online poll...really? The Roniacs and Paulinnites must have been out in full force on the web.