"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 18, 2007 09:08:28 PM new
Coincidence! Our daughter is chief of staff in Sally Lieber's San Jose district office. Sally is one of her best friends, a neighbor, and a very effective assemblywoman. I can see her point on this proposed law, but I'm not sure it's going to fly.
_____________________
A person who is nice to you but rude to a waiter is not a
nice person. (This is very important. Pay attention. It never fails.) ~Dave Barry
posted on January 18, 2007 09:24:04 PM new
Some poll said that most were against the bill.
I can't believe that you, roadsmith, would have agreed with such crazy nonsense when your own children were born.
Would you REALLY agree that the gov. has a 'right' to make laws that tell you, as a parent, how you will raise YOUR children?
edited to add:
(CBS 5 / KCBS) SAN FRANCISCO
Do parents have the right to spank their children?
It is a controversial issue, and while a Bay Area lawmaker wants it addressed in Sacramento -- a majority of those surveyed for a new CBS 5 poll expressed opposition to a spanking ban.
In California, it's currently against the law for anyone but parents to spank a child.
A proposed new law would make it illegal for them, too, if the child is 3 years old or younger.
Assemblywoman Sally Lieber (D-Mountain View) ANOTHER CRAZY DEMOCRATwants the practice of swatting a child on the behind outlawed and is in the process of drafting a bill to do so.
A poll of 500 Bay Area adults conducted for CBS 5 by Survey USA on Thursday found 57% would oppose such a bill, while only 23% would support it. The poll, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4%, showed 11% undecided.
Parents at the playgroup at Parent's Place in San Francisco, non-profit Jewish family child and parents service group, said they don't believe in spanking young children, but they said outlawing it worries them.
AS IT SHOULD ANY PARENT - THIS ISN'T COMMUNIST RUSSIA
Joanna Jhanda as a one year old girl, said she understands the need for a law, but it troubles her:
"There are certainly cases of extreme abuse,and those need to be addressed. I don't know if this law would help those children."
Victoria Wylie has a four month old and she's worried about where the law draws the line. She said, "If someone sees me doing something.. what they would consider spanking.. and it's not, I'm a little uncomfortable I'd be under investigation."
The proposed law would make spanking a child under 3 misdemeanor child abuse, an extenstion of current corporal punishment laws.
Violators could spend a year in jail, and pay up to $1000 in fines.
Enforcement is unclear.
San Francisco assistant district attorney Paul Henderson prosecutes child abuse cases, and he welcomes a no spanking law.
"If you're going to spank your child, you need to know the limit," said Henderson, "and you need to know that doing it in a way that's cruel or traumatic causes injury, and that you could be prosecuted."
At the parenting classes at Parent's Place, spanking is considered the wrong discipline.
Lee Ann Slaton leads discipline classes there. She said, "It teaches a child, if you're bigger you can hit. Violence begets violence.. and they're not learning."
An anti-spanking law in California would be the country's first.
Supporters claim the U.S. is far behind some other nations in this issue. According to Lieber, fifteen countries worldwide have outlawed spanking of children, and under international law, it's considered a human rights abuse.
Critics maintain a spanking ban is an intrusion on the family, while supporters call it protecting a defenseless child.
=============
We ALREADY have child ABUSE laws.....a SWAT is NOT child abuse.
posted on January 18, 2007 09:38:24 PM new
I'm not sure how I'd have felt that long ago, Linda, but we didn't spank any of our three kids (and they all turned out wonderfully!). I have mixed feelings about this idea; I know that there are many who spank in an abusive way--a way that could more properly be called a "beating." I know that society protects our children from many types of abuse. Just not sure about this particular bill.
Many psychologists have asked us to examine what we're teaching our children when we hit them in anger.
_____________________
A person who is nice to you but rude to a waiter is not a
nice person. (This is very important. Pay attention. It never fails.) ~Dave Barry
posted on January 18, 2007 09:45:00 PM new
And many have supported spanking also.
Like when you continually tell a child that running out in the street is just NOT acceptable...they're going to get hit by a car or a truck....and they just 'won't stop'.
There is a HUGE difference between a SWAT...a SPANKING and a BEATING.
Any reasonable adult knows that.
This speaks to the issue of a SWAT being illegal.
It's nothing but an invasion of family privacy. IF a parent or ANY adult is 'beating' a child...of course our present laws will deal with them.
This is MUCH more INTRUSIVE imo, and a place where nanny government doesn't belong.
They should be dealing with issues like China shooting down that satellite...not what parents decide to use as a form of discipline.
posted on January 18, 2007 11:49:37 PM new
Only you , linduh , would support spanking a baby which is what a child under three IS!
To resort to spanking a child that young is to admit you are defeated in brain power and maturity by a baby!!!!
And it's pretty hilarious that you're in such a tizzy over being told not to spank babies yet you support the government dictating to a woman THAT SHE MUST HAVE A BABY whether she wants to or not!
Personally I would think that IF the government thinks it can force you to have a baby it can direct EVERY other move you make....WHY NOT????????
posted on January 19, 2007 05:32:47 AM new
Most of these liberals fully support abortion - no restrictions - on demand - because they WANT to...the KILLING of their own child.
And they are NOW trying to tell others they can't give a swat on the rear to their own child?????
posted on January 19, 2007 07:16:02 AM new
Yes, linduh, if the government could tell you that you HAVE to have a baby (which YOU agree with) then YES, it can tell you what to have for breakfast or anything else it wants.
Only YOU would advocate beating babies because of your lack of parenting skills and inadequate brain power...
posted on January 19, 2007 11:49:18 AM newSome poll said that most were against the bill.
Once again someone is believing in poll results again. I thought Liar_K did not believe in polls. I guess she does when they suit her agenda.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on January 19, 2007 03:03:50 PM new
As I have explained over and over again logansdad....but you can't seem to GRASP....I don't believe in polls....especially ones that are so low in numbers.
I post them because MOST on the left ARE poll driven.
Try and 'get that' this time...you sound like a parrot...repeating things over and over.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 19, 2007 04:00:32 PM new
"As I have explained over and over again logansdad....but you can't seem to GRASP....I don't believe in polls....especially ones that are so low in numbers."
Good grief, Linda, it seems that you don't grasp why a poll can be accurate when it polls just a small percentage of the population. Get a book, get a professor, sign up for a class -- please. You betray your non-scientific upbringing.
_____________________
A person who is nice to you but rude to a waiter is not a
nice person. (This is very important. Pay attention. It never fails.) ~Dave Barry
posted on January 21, 2007 08:48:10 AM newAs I have explained over and over again logansdad....but you can't seem to GRASP....I don't believe in polls....especially ones that are so low in numbers.
If that is the case, that you REALLY DO NOT BELIEVE IN POLLS then you would not feel the need to post poll results.
you sound like a parrot...repeating things over and over.
Another hyproctical statement from Linda. Then that would make the CHEERLEADER IN CHIEF the PARROT IN CHIEF. After all how many times does BUSH repeat the same things over and over. You and your people must like parrots because you believe most everything that comes from his "beak". But people would expect that from people that do not have an open mind and can not think for themselves. Puppets and Parrots go hand in hand. The King Parrot squawks and the puppets just nod accordingly.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on January 21, 2007 03:46:39 PM new
ROFLMHO at your post logansdad.
Try standing back and re-read what you wrote.
Your post sounds like something a 7th grader would write.
So very immature.
I'll post polls when I WANT to do so. You take care of your OWN actions....and don't tell me what I should or shouldn't feel the need to do. :LOL LOL LOL LOL
posted on January 21, 2007 04:15:30 PM new
linduh,"""You take care of your OWN actions....and don't tell me what I should or shouldn't feel the need to do. """
posted on January 21, 2007 04:27:30 PM new
roadsmith - IF you choose to believe a poll is accurate based on so few numbers...that, of course, is your choice. A stupid one, imo, but yours to make.
We have approx. 300,000,000 million Americans...with approx. 254,000,000 being over the age of 18.
Now if you think lol lol lol 500 people are representative of that same 254,000,000...lol that is your choice.
I don't. I'm smart enough to know there's no way that few are representative of that many. I don't need to read a 'book' to KNOW that fact. I don't need some idiot liberal professor telling me why it could be...it's NOT.
posted on January 21, 2007 04:51:17 PM new
But Linda--you believe SOME polls but not the others. All polls are based on a small percentage scientifically chosen. So are you saying the wrong, bad, evil polls (the results of which you disbelieve) have chosen their own respondents based on -- what -- their voting records? Their favorite brand of beer? What? The scientific method stands in either case.
_____________________
A person who is nice to you but rude to a waiter is not a
nice person. (This is very important. Pay attention. It never fails.) ~Dave Barry
posted on January 21, 2007 05:25:24 PM new
roadsmith....are you now trying to emulate mingo????
Please don't presume to tell me what I believe. I'll speak for what I believe...YOU speak for yourself.
I have often stated I don't believe polls are very accurate....BECAUSE they depended on the way they're worded....who they poll....etc....many different factors.
And I EVEN said the same thing in my post, so I wouldn't HAVE to explain my continuing positions on polls.
