Michigan wants you not to smoke with kids in the car

[Jeemie]

Abortion is a question of a conflict between the rights of the woman and the rights of the unborn child.

We as a society have ruled that at certain periods of time, the woman's rights win out in said conflict of rights.

I am against abortion, but I also can understand why a woman's rights must win out in those cases.

But the argument would be better served if both sides admitted this, and also that the unborn child, no matter its development stage, is in fact a human life.

Arguments like this are better served when the truth...the whole truth...is admitted.

Then there would be at least a chance for sober judgment to take place, rather than the stupid rancor we get now

[Jeemie]

Sorry for helping to derail what might have been a good thread.

[Bob78164]

A lot of Republicans are all for individual freedom right up until the moment we start talking about a woman's right to control her own body and medical treatment. --Bob

Typical ignorant liberal hogwash. It is not about the woman. It is about what you and your liberal minions think is a parasite living in the woman's body. The liberal left loves to play the more intelligent than thou role when bringing science into a religious discussion, but they play the uneducated morons when it comes to reproductive biology.

Really? Because every one of the legislatures that has passed these laws justifies it by referring to concern over women's health. Not one of them acknowledges that the true purpose of the law is to infringe a woman's constitutional rights by making legal abortions more difficult and more expensive.

So are you saying that all of these legislators (the vast majority of whom are Republicans) are engaged in a massive subterfuge to evade the law? --Bob

[BackInTex]

Really? Because every one of the legislatures that has passed these laws justifies it by referring to concern over women's health. Not one of them acknowledges that the true purpose of the law is to infringe a woman's constitutional rights by making legal abortions more difficult and more expensive.

So are you saying that all of these legislators (the vast majority of whom are Republicans) are engaged in a massive subterfuge to evade the law? --Bob

That's quite a leap.

[flockofseagulls104]

A lot of Republicans are all for individual freedom right up until the moment we start talking about a woman's right to control her own body and medical treatment. --Bob

Typical ignorant liberal hogwash. It is not about the woman. It is about what you and your liberal minions think is a parasite living in the woman's body. The liberal left loves to play the more intelligent than thou role when bringing science into a religious discussion, but they play the uneducated morons when it comes to reproductive biology.

Really? Because every one of the legislatures that has passed these laws justifies it by referring to concern over women's health. Not one of them acknowledges that the true purpose of the law is to infringe a woman's constitutional rights by making legal abortions more difficult and more expensive.

So are you saying that all of these legislators (the vast majority of whom are Republicans) are engaged in a massive subterfuge to evade the law? --Bob

Yes Bob, once again, you've hit the nail on the head. All Republicans want women to die. That is their main purpose other than getting all the money for themselves, starting wars for no reason and oppressing everyone that deserves being oppressed. There is no other reason for them doing what they do. So it's very easy to hate them. Makes political debate very easy.

[silverscreenselect]

There is no other reason for them doing what they do. So it's very easy to hate them. Makes political debate very easy.

There are reasons for everything Republicans do. Their tactics are designed to pander to those whose support they need on economic issues by passing laws designed to appeal to a the moral mindset (anti-gay, anti-abortion) of a certain segment of their demographic or to maximize their voting power by suppressing the vote of those who oppose them.

They can easily spout of reasons for what they do, just like Southerners in the 1950s had "reasons" for the citizenship tests they used to exclude black voters. These reasons may allow basically decent minded people like Flock to ignore the obvious and buy into that rhetoric, but they don't hold up when examined closely. The "reasons" are usually efforts to chase after non-existent problems.

If the State of Texas or any other state regulated every doctor's office and other facility that performed similar types of out-patient procedures in the same way they try to regulate abortion clinics, then I might buy into their argument. But they don't, and there's far more risk involved.

[Bob Juch]

Really? Because every one of the legislatures that has passed these laws justifies it by referring to concern over women's health. Not one of them acknowledges that the true purpose of the law is to infringe a woman's constitutional rights by making legal abortions more difficult and more expensive.

So are you saying that all of these legislators (the vast majority of whom are Republicans) are engaged in a massive subterfuge to evade the law? --Bob

That's quite a leap.

Ask Rick Perry's sister about that.

[flockofseagulls104]

Their tactics are designed to pander to those whose support they need on economic issues by passing laws designed to appeal to a the moral mindset (anti-gay, anti-abortion) of a certain segment of their demographic or to maximize their voting power by suppressing the vote of those who oppose them.

Wow. Propaganda works.

[Estonut]

Since I wrote that, I had to go take the gentleman greyhound for a walk, and I had more time to think about this topic.

I decided this is one of those pretend "We must do this for the children!" bills that politicians seem to love. It's actually a problem of decreasing proportions as time passes. Virtually all American cars (at least family-type vehicles -- not sure about trucks or imports) have been manufactured for several years without ashtrays or any good place to install one. As older cars are retired from use, fewer people will light up in their vehicles, with or without children on board. While I realize that a determined would-be driver/smoker could always stick a soft drink can or a cup with some liquid into a drink holder to catch ashes, I have never seen anybody do that as a matter of common practice. If a driving smoker throws ashes, a lighted cigarette, or even an extinguished cigarette butt out the window, I would like to see him or her socked with a $1,000 fine.

If we want to do something useful "for the children," let's use the $500 fine on drivers accompanied by children who go through the drive-through windows at McDonalds, Wendy's, Taco Bell, etc. I believe that regular intake of fast food is a greater threat to children's health than occasional exposure to second-hand smoke.

I like fast food from time to time, mind you, but I'm neither a child nor a likely prospect for obesity.

Smokers still smoke in their cars- they just do exactly what you said- they flick their ashes out the window, and then throw the butt out the window when done.

That wouldn't bother me so much except for the non-biodegradable filter that's in the cigarette (and the filter doesn't really do a damn bit of good- the invention of filtered cigarettes was actually something that made the whole habit even worse, IMO. the filter really does nothing to mitigate the damage to the smoker, and now adds another element of non-biodegradable junk to our world).

Someone doesn't live in brushfire country...

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Does Liberty have any value?
When did the government get in the business of enforcing manners at the point of a gun.
Who's children are they?
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/12/kidna ... e-not-over

Yesterday I ran an interview with the Florida mom whose children were removed from their home for a month after a neighbor reported the family to Child Protective Services because their 11-year-old son was left outside by himself for 90 minutes.

[silverscreenselect]

Does Liberty have any value?
When did the government get in the business of enforcing manners at the point of a gun.
Who's children are they?
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/12/kidna ... e-not-over

Yesterday I ran an interview with the Florida mom whose children were removed from their home for a month after a neighbor reported the family to Child Protective Services because their 11-year-old son was left outside by himself for 90 minutes.

If you believe that thoroughly documented and detailed article about the parents at face value then you probably also believe the e-mails you get from the Nigerian oil minister.

[Estonut]

Does Liberty have any value?
When did the government get in the business of enforcing manners at the point of a gun.
Who's children are they?
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/12/kidna ... e-not-over

Yesterday I ran an interview with the Florida mom whose children were removed from their home for a month after a neighbor reported the family to Child Protective Services because their 11-year-old son was left outside by himself for 90 minutes.

If you believe that thoroughly documented and detailed article about the parents at face value then you probably also believe the e-mails you get from the Nigerian oil minister.

If you have seen a story covering this kidnapping that differs in any substantial way, please provide a link. I've seen several, and they are all pretty consistent.

[silverscreenselect]

If you have seen a story covering this kidnapping that differs in any substantial way, please provide a link. I've seen several, and they are all pretty consistent.

Of course they're consistent. They all cite back to the same source, this woman Lenore Skenazy's blog article based on her supposed interview with the parents. That's not multiple sources. That's multiple (mostly right wing) web sites all citing back to the same article.

If I post an "interview" with Hillary Clinton on my website in which Hillary "says" she's going to name me Secretary of Culture and Film Studies in her administration, that doesn't make it so, no matter how many left wing web sites might happen to pick up the article (oh, that they would).

As far as I can tell, no one has done any independent verification of this so it's one set of parents and their sour grapes complaint about the way they were treated by the authorities. You can go to any prison in this country and talk to any prisoner and get a similar unsubstantiated horror story about how they were railroaded.

[Jeemie]

If you have seen a story covering this kidnapping that differs in any substantial way, please provide a link. I've seen several, and they are all pretty consistent.

Of course they're consistent. They all cite back to the same source, this woman Lenore Skenazy's blog article based on her supposed interview with the parents. That's not multiple sources. That's multiple (mostly right wing) web sites all citing back to the same article.

If I post an "interview" with Hillary Clinton on my website in which Hillary "says" she's going to name me Secretary of Culture and Film Studies in her administration, that doesn't make it so, no matter how many left wing web sites might happen to pick up the article (oh, that they would).

As far as I can tell, no one has done any independent verification of this so it's one set of parents and their sour grapes complaint about the way they were treated by the authorities. You can go to any prison in this country and talk to any prisoner and get a similar unsubstantiated horror story about how they were railroaded.

While this is true, we know stuff like this has happened in the past and HAS been documented (i.e. to the parents of those two girls they allowed to walk through the neighborhood by themselves).

The only reason for now that this story might not be independently confirmed is because the parents (supposedly) wish to remain anonymous.

But there really is no reason to doubt this story or think of it as "right wing scare tactics". Child Protective Services departments HAVE done this sort of thing in the past.

[Jeemie]

Their tactics are designed to pander to those whose support they need on economic issues by passing laws designed to appeal to a the moral mindset (anti-gay, anti-abortion) of a certain segment of their demographic or to maximize their voting power by suppressing the vote of those who oppose them.

Wow. Propaganda works.

You don't think Republicans pander?

But I bet you have no problem believing Democrats pander.

[Bob Juch]

Here's a link to the original blog entry. Seeing how this is presumably slanted in favor of the parents, I agree the CPS should have been involved.

http://www.freerangekids.com/interview- ... e-in-yard/

[Jeemie]

Here's a link to the original blog entry. Seeing how this is presumably slanted in favor of the parents, I agree the CPS should have been involved.

http://www.freerangekids.com/interview- ... e-in-yard/

You have no data, and yet somehow you reach that conclusion?

Would be interesting to hear the "logic" behind how you arrived at that conclusion.

Oh...wait...you stated your "logic" already.

The blog is "slanted" in favor of the parents, so obviously the parents are hiding something.



PS I realize it was useless to ask you anyway, since you never post in more than one or two sentences that are usually just "politico-speak" anyway.

[silverscreenselect]

But there really is no reason to doubt this story or think of it as "right wing scare tactics". Child Protective Services departments HAVE done this sort of thing in the past.

The "fact" that CPS have done this in the past does not make this story true or not.

Both left and right wings tend to accept as gospel reports like this that fit with their own ideologies. I pointed out that the "many" sources for this story were actually one source repeated and paraphrased many times (and yes, left wing sites do the same thing). That's why obituary notices nowadays say "according to multiple sources" because the particular organization's policy (a wise one) requires multiple independent reports before posting a "news" story about someone's death.

Until someone verifies this story (and it shouldn't be too difficult if the parents are willing to go on record because court proceedings are available to the public), I would take it with a big grain of salt.

[Jeemie]

Until someone verifies this story (and it shouldn't be too difficult if the parents are willing to go on record because court proceedings are available to the public), I would take it with a big grain of salt.

Normally I follow the same rule...always want multiple sources for a story...and sources as close to the primary as possible to boot.

However, we know government bureaucracy oftentimes is mindless and illogical in its dedication to following rules and processes, whereas truly bad and neglectful parents are rare, so in this case, I would never ever give the government bureaucracy the benefit of the doubt.

And we all know about the busybody neighbors who can't resist getting in other people's business.

This story may only have one source, but it completely rings true with reality.

[Bob Juch]

Here's a link to the original blog entry. Seeing how this is presumably slanted in favor of the parents, I agree the CPS should have been involved.

http://www.freerangekids.com/interview- ... e-in-yard/

You have no data, and yet somehow you reach that conclusion?

Would be interesting to hear the "logic" behind how you arrived at that conclusion.

Oh...wait...you stated your "logic" already.

The blog is "slanted" in favor of the parents, so obviously the parents are hiding something.



PS I realize it was useless to ask you anyway, since you never post in more than one or two sentences that are usually just "politico-speak" anyway.

We'll see if there's anything else. I have a feeling we're not getting an important part of the story.

Here's part of what the mother said:

The eleven year old comes home and is met by his dad who lets him in the house. In the event dad isn’t here on time, his instructions are to wait in the backyard until I come home about 20 minutes later.

On this particular day, a little more than a month ago, both dad and I were both running late due bad traffic and rain. We were about and hour and a half late. When we arrived the police had been anonymously called and we were arrested for child neglect.

[Jeemie]

Here's a link to the original blog entry. Seeing how this is presumably slanted in favor of the parents, I agree the CPS should have been involved.

http://www.freerangekids.com/interview- ... e-in-yard/

You have no data, and yet somehow you reach that conclusion?

Would be interesting to hear the "logic" behind how you arrived at that conclusion.

Oh...wait...you stated your "logic" already.

The blog is "slanted" in favor of the parents, so obviously the parents are hiding something.



PS I realize it was useless to ask you anyway, since you never post in more than one or two sentences that are usually just "politico-speak" anyway.

We'll see if there's anything else. I have a feeling we're not getting an important part of the story.

Here's part of what the mother said:

The eleven year old comes home and is met by his dad who lets him in the house. In the event dad isn’t here on time, his instructions are to wait in the backyard until I come home about 20 minutes later.

On this particular day, a little more than a month ago, both dad and I were both running late due bad traffic and rain. We were about and hour and a half late. When we arrived the police had been anonymously called and we were arrested for child neglect.

And what is wrong with this?

[littlebeast13]

Jesus H. Christmas... me and my best friend used to walk the mean streets of GC at 1 AM by ourselves when we were 11. And there were just as many bad mens around back then as there are now...

Fuck everyone who wants to continue to contribute to the Pussification of America....

lb13