yjacket

Because people change, heaven knows I wish I had the first few years with my first kid back-I didn't call them names, but I did quite a bit that I wish I could change-but I learned and grew. And young children are quite malleable and forget real easy. If he gets educated now-the kid would never know and would never remember in 30 years. And while yes people can remember a few instances at a young age-it will only be one or two and you will never be able to figure out which one or two instances they will remember. Just b/c a child understands more than we might think-doesn't mean they will actually retain that information into their adult life.

While he might really be a bad person; I happen to believe that most people who we would categorize as "unfit" parents are really uneducated parents. A parent who lashes out and spanks in anger or says something hateful really wants control over their child's actions and rightly so-part of being a parent is in molding the child to exihibit certain behaviors. A screaming parent wants their kids to obey them and generally they hate it-they say something like "I hate being so mean". I say, you're not being mean enough; a mean parent means what they say, i.e. when I say "child go do xyz" child better go do xyz. Screaming happens because child doesn't do xyz, parent doesn't know how to get child to do xyz and so they then scream b/c they have lost control. Rather than being unfit, I'd say uneducated. To the OP, it really, really sounds like you guys need some parenting classes. Please, please, please do so-the problems started when you had kids. I'm going to give you some hard truth. Many of the problems started with kids-it's very obvious rather than being a wife-you stopped. So while you might still be married in fact, in practice you and your husband are divorced. You have let your children divorce you and your husband. Wife always and forever 1st- mother 2nd. John Rosemond-he will save your marriage.

I theory that is correct, in practice not so much. At each convention R or D, where the parties nominee is elected (by the way the delegates have complete control at the convention on the nominee-technically it doesn't matter if 95% of the population voted for candidate x in the primaries. If the actual 2000 something delegates at the convention decide otherwise they can throw out all the rules and nominate somebody else-that has very rarely happened (and not in modern history) but it is possible. There is a committee at the national convention called the Rules Committee where the National party rules and National platform is written. In theory, the actual delegates at the national convention draft, approve and ratify the platform. In practice what really happens is that whoever the current nominee is sends a bunch of lawyers to the convention, they draft the platform and hand it off to the delegates who then simply ratify it. It's actually quite fascinating how much real power and I do mean real power the national delegates have; unfortunately we don't have much of an independent spirit in this country anymore-so most of the people elected to be national delegates are simply yesmen and bossmen with no backbone or guts. They simply ratify/vote/etc. whatever the "leader" tells them to do. Unfortunately most delegates have no clue about their rights, responsibilities and the power that they actually hold. I've been involved in a few raucous conventions and man oh man if there is at least 1/3+ of the delegates willing to fight it can get wild and wolly! If it is close to a 50/50 split-lookout-the convention might be going 'till midnight!

A big Amen to that; being submissive in all things.

PC-I love that. Thank you. One additional comment however. I do believe that companies and bosses can foster an environment that leads people to gossip, and be egocentric or they can not foster such environment. I do believe very much in what Netflix has put out and said Enron had the following values: Communication – We have an obligation to communicate.Respect – We treat others as we would like to be treated.Integrity – We work with customers and prospects openly, honestly, and sincerely.Excellence– We are satisfied with nothing less than the very best in everything we do. (Enron, Annual Report, 2000, p. 29).Yet we know that the most crooked people were those at the top. Netflix states (and I do believe it to be true) that culture is bred not by what you say your values are, but by the people you promote and reward (in raises, bonuses, assignments, etc.). If bosses are promoting and rewarding individuals who kiss tail then more people will put energy into doing so and more people will talk about it; if management rewards individuals who do great work on projects more people will put energy into working hard and doing great work on projects. Certainly there will always be some people who gossip or who are simply envious of others-but management can go a long way into creating an environment where hard work is valued over gossip.

And Romney would have been sooooo much better. We wouldn't have had ObamaCare, no we would have had RomneyCare-hmm Mass. health system ring a bell. For being a libertarian, you are pretty uneducated about the two party system and how it works. ""The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea, acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election, without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy." Carroll Quiqley- one of Bill Clinton's mentors. Geez man, get educated.

Nope, you started it first- you were a jerk; casting blame on those people who vote 3rd party or who don't vote for the mess we are in. That is being a complete jerk. If you want to cast blame, cast blame on the people who voted for the person you don't like. That would be just. I stand by it-don't be a jerk. You were the one who made the claim that it is their fault-why don't you back it up.

Because it is false; b/c of 3rd party voters Bush II was elected? Obama was elected? twice? not hardly. Oh wait, right it's because people didn't show up. As if McCain would have been that much better or Romney? You know how corrupt the system is. Romney was Democrat the only reason he became Repub was so he could run against Kennedy outside the primary.

No it is the way it works here b/c of individuals like you; overseas voting for something does work pretty well. Take a look at Spain (not a third-world country). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Spain Don't be a jerk to people who actually want to stand for something instead of simply standing against something.

That is about one of the dumbest things I've read on here and I've read a lot. Really, third party voters are the reason why we are in the mess we are? And you've been involved in politics?? Obviously haven't learned much by being involved have you. That is just so completely utterly false . . . way to fear monger.

I do not believe one has a moral nor civic obligation to vote. I do preface this by saying that I do vote. However, I have found a few arguments about not voting that I do not begrudge those who don't vote. Let there be no mistake about what government really is; government really is legalized theft and killing. Once you tear down all the pretty facades, slogans, wave-flagging, etc. the absolute naked truth is that government is a mechanism whereby a society determines that some individuals have the ability to steal and kill without penalties. Whether we call that ability to steal a "regulation" or a "law", make no mistake when the EPA fines a company, when a state government fines a business, it is theft, i.e. I have money, I don't voluntarily give it up-you forcibly take it from me-that is theft. There is a very, very good reason not to vote for the "lesser of two evils"; it is called the "mandate principle". How many times after an election do we hear that the person just voted in now has a "mandate" to put into place his ideas? When individuals choose the lesser of two evils and don't vote for a candidate they can actually believe in they are voting for evil. In fact they are giving more legitimacy to that evil than if they had never voted. In the last election approximately 130 million people voted; how many of those people actually really wanted the person they voted for vs. just held their nose? In a country of 300 million, 130 million voting is pretty good. Now what if instead of voting against someone, we voted for someone, even if they were going to lose-what if more parties had access to the ballot and say instead of a 51/47 split it was a 35/30/30/5 split. Well the 35% might still win-but it would be fairly obvious that at least 65% of the country wanted something else. The person that claims a "mandate" with a 35% win is going to look pretty stupid. We have a moral and a civic obligation to support good laws and good candidates-we do not have a moral and civic obligation simply to vote. Because simply voting might end up supporting bad laws and bad candidates.

It's not so much that people wouldn't vote 3rd party (other countries show that minority parties can hold a lot of sway), it's just that while the system set-up inside the US 3rd parties can't win. I've done my share of work inside local parties and it is full of some of the most corrupt, dishonest, slimball people I've ever associated with. If you really want to make a difference, run for office-even then be prepared. If you buck the wrong person, you will quickly find yourself on a one-way ticket run out of town through some bit of smear campaign. People really do not understand how insidious politics is. The actual Party structure exists for one reason only, and that is to get more people of the same Party elected (R or D). The actual philosophical stance of a candidate doesn't matter one bit; all that matters is if they are an R and it is the R Party then by George, all must be done to get person x elected. They could have been a D 2 years ago, they could be a socialist, they could be for xyz-it doesn't matter; they are an R so the Party must get them into office. The system is corrupt, it is a den full of vipers and thieves; there are very, very few who get elected who do not become corrupted. And no, your vote honestly doesn't matter-it simply doesn't; when one is up against such corrupt machinery it really doesn't. I honestly hold very little hope for this country-and it goes back to this; people always get the government they deserve. An immoral, corrupt people will get an immoral corrupt government. The morals in this country are bankrupt and until that comes back there is not hope for the government to be moral. Secondly, back to schooling; a populace can be educated in math and science, etc. but if from K-12 they have been taught in social welfare then they will end up voting for social welfare. Ultimately, voting is the end result and reflection of the morality of the country. People don't like to admit it because it is an indictment on them-but we are morally bankrupt and until that is fixed we will continually slide further down the tubes.

Originally the founders thought that the Electoral College was to be more of a vetting process; i.e. since at the founding each of the states really were more like actual nations it was assumed that the candidates would be more sectional and that states would end up voting for the candidate from their state. So the original presumption was that the EC would provide 3-4 candidates to the House of Reps who would then choose the President. The founders were pretty wise-they specifically didn't want every Tom, Dick and Harry voting b/c they knew that ever Tom, Dick and Harry wouldn't have the political acumen to understand the issues and be an informed voter. By restricting the voting pool to certain groups that were more likely to have a deep understanding of the issues the "mob" was less likely to be swayed by somebody with good rhetoric. Given the current situation, I'd much rather see something akin to the European models of coalition governments, etc. than what we now have. As it currently stands, those who don't like either big parties are pretty much disenfranchised as nobody really represents them (and for libertarians there probably at least 3-4 million of them).

Completely false; this same line of thinking is why everyone must have health care. "A person's decision to not have health care insurance in the United States of America robs another of his freedom. This is perfectly displayed in people going to the ER without insurance" Welcome to socialist america with that line of thinking.

Being illiterate and casting an ignorant vote have nothing to do with each other. One can be very learned and yet cast an ignorant vote. Case in point, how many of you actually study the race for your local county commissioner? Do you study the candidates out on every vote? Having been involved a bit in politics, the vast majority of people simply vote according to the party they most affiliate with R or D. Elections occur every year, yet very few people are actually educated on the individuals they are voting for. Even the presidential election is more about who looks the best or sounds the best, who has the best digs. Voting is more about philosophy rather than education. One might be educated in the best science and art, but if they are taught socialist principles in school, guess who on average they will vote for later in life. A person might be illiterate or uneducated yet through experiences recognize you can't get something for nothing and then vote against socialist candidates. In fact, I'd rather have farm boys voting rather than Harvard boys.

Exactly!! It really is a simple concept that one sees in young children. Human beings are inherently lazy-they want to do the least amount of work for the most gain. When I wasn't quite as wise as a parent with my first kid, I would teach him how to tie his shoes. I'd show it to him, walk him through it, etc. Sure enough, Sunday would come and he would complain, "I can't tie my shoes", I'd do it all for him or do part of it for him, etc. We would continue to go through this process every week for a long time-well past the time when he had the ability to do so. I finally realized that I was enabling his lack of confidence and co-dependence. He internally, without conscientiously knowing it, was lazy-knew it took some effort to actually learn how to tie his shoes and simply didn't have enough self-confidence that he could do it himself and didn't want to put forth the effort to learn because "dad would do it for him". I finally wised up and realized that the only way for kids to actually gain self-confidence is for them to put for the hard work themselves and just do it without me babying them every step of the way. Telling them "you can do it" and cajoling them 100 of times wasn't going to work. Simply stating a few times with confidence "Son, I know you can do it" walking away and letting him struggle by himself until he got it, built up his self-confidence, motivation and self-reliance. It took me a while to figure out how to raise my kids the way my parents raised me. I was raised so independently that it would have literally been insulting to me (yes I do mean insulting to me) for my parents to have provided for my education. In effect, that would be telling me "hey yjacket, you don't have the ability to do this on your own" so let me do it for you. It's the same as telling the 6 year, "you are old enough to physically be able to tie your shoes, but I'm going to do it for you". When you have such an independent self-reliant attitude you are able to better distinguish between true charity and simple welfare. True charity is helping someone when they honestly don't have the capacity to do so-the mentally ill, the physically disabled, those who are going through severe medical problems, etc. Charity enables someone to get through the hard times and breeds gratitude and humility; welfare enables dependency, ingratitude, and a weak self reliance. But my 2 cents won't get you a cup of coffee:-).

Not so, parents are fighting a battle they cannot win; sure they can correct small things but overall not a chance. Why is it that the largest block of atheists are the youth? I don't think their parents are teaching them to be atheists.

Yeap; by homeschooling you might be able to mold your own child but you can't mold others. So when the state gets involved they can mold the entirety of society to how they want regardless of parents' wishes.

School gets the child for somewhere around 40 hours a week "educating" them. Take into account schoolwork, normal daily living, etc. and the school comes out on top as far as how much "education" they can shove into a kids brain. Undoing the damage can be very challenging.

Throwing the word divorce around in a marriage is playing with a nuclear weapon; even though at times one might feel justified in saying it because of anger, hurt, distrust, etc. It is never appropriate to use-unless one actually is planning on divorce. And there is nothing taught in the Church that justifies divorce over this issue. For this particular issue, she might (conjecture) be throwing it around to get you to change because she is hurt, angry, upset, etc. It still isn't appropriate. What I continue to believe is that this issue is completely your responsibility to overcome, and while it is not her fault any man in a solid marital relationship will not get into this. Your marriage has bigger issues than porn (while it is a major factor); and while she doesn't have any responsibility to work on not viewing porn (that is 100% your issue-just stop it, you can do it-mind over matter-just simply stop), she does have a responsibility to work on the marriage and that includes not using nuclear weapons as a threat. But, seriously-stop it. Rather than seek out pixels, seek out your wife.

For the majority of today's society, I agree; but how did it happen? It happened because instead of giving children more responsibility and the leeway to completely fall flat on their face and fail, parents want so badly for their child to "succeed" that they end up doing everything for them, thus delaying the ultimate day of reckoning when one realizes, "oh, I'm the only one who is in charge and responsible for my life". This falls directly back to another thread about financial support; yeap adolescence does continue into the mid-20s with parents providing financial backing to a fully-formed adult. 100 years ago, people matured a lot faster, why? because they were given plenty of opportunities early on to fail and then to learn from their failures.

Personally, I'm very hard-nosed about this issue. I think it is a real shame to give financial support to fully-functioning adults that are not in a crisis (and having been through a few crises in my life, I know what one is and one isn't), graduating high school and not having a job is not a crisis, going to college is not a crisis. Having cancer, having a death, having a medical problem, house burns down, etc.-those are crises. Simply not having a job, or even losing it is not a crisis. Losing a job shouldn't be a crisis because you should be living with at least a 6 months cushion-if you don't ain't my fault. Necessity is the mother of invention. My rules, the summer past your 18th birthday (what would normally be college-time) you are out the door; don't ask for hand-outs because there will be none. You want food-work for it-you want games, TV, etc. work for it. Don't come begging to me about it. I expect that by the time my kids are 18, I better have done a good enough job teaching them money management, work ethic, etc. that they should know I'm not a money tree. I have made my own way in my life and I've done quite well at it-but the only reason I have is because I am motivated by survival. Yes we are all beggers, but the problem has become that people and especially the next generation of kids expect it and because they expect it they don't respect it. They don't respect what it takes to get to the point of having money to be able to give charity. A kid in college getting their tuition paid for by mom and dad will never respect his degree as much as if he did it himself. Kids who have parents pay for things after they are fully functioning adults will have lower confidence, more likely to be depressed, less successful overall in life. And in fact, parents paying for kids education has made college more expensive. Prior to graduating HS, if my kids are so inclined to take college courses, I will pay for those but not afterwards. I figured out how to make it through college, earn a BS and MS without mom/dad; it made me a better person. You never know what you are made of until your back is against the wall. I'd rather have my kids learn very early in adulthood-you can do it on your own vs. having to figure it out later in life. Rather than giving money to my kid for college-I'd rather give it to someone truly in need, someone with serious medical problems, etc.

If you really want to get into the definition of "initiating force" read The Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard http://anarcho-capitalist.org/wp-content/pdfs/Rothbard%20(Murray)%20-%20The%20Ethics%20of%20Liberty.pdf

I very much agree with this. I am very pro-life; I don't really like the Church's exceptions but I think that is where the individual has the option to choose without any type of Church discipline. So while I'm uber pro-life; I do draw a very distinct line for the legality of abortion. One of the very difficult issues in the pro. vs. pro. debate is when exactly does life begin. I don't know when exactly, but I figure it is pretty close to conception; however I know this is pretty hard to prove and a lot of people may not accept this. However, I believe we can definitely say at what point life can survive without being in the mother. Modern technology has increased the number of months that a baby can be premature and survive. I think most rational people (on both pro. sides) can say, yes being able to survive outside the mother definitively constitutes life. I see no reason why for legality purposes only that abortion be made illegal after that point minus a couple of weeks for fudge room. As technology increases and the months born prior to normal birth increase, then the week at which abortion becomes illegal decreases too. It's not perfect, but it's about the best I can figure given all the sides and issues.

Hmm, weird. I've always thought the young earth creationist just simply lacked a little more light and knowledge. Within the Church, we have concepts like "matter unorganized", creation periods, time is relative (Kolob, etc.) which fit pretty nicely with fossilization and the earth being older than 6000 years, etc.