Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A criminal could care less WTF you are doing. When he sneaks around while you're hitting the buttons on the ATM, it doesn't take much convincing for you to hit the withdrawal button with a gun pointed at your head.
When that happens, then I will be more concerned about it. But to my knowledge, it never has and for the life of me I can't think of a situation where it could..
Well, it seems to happen a lot on here when I discuss the matter.
Yes, the right promote two parents, they promote morality, they promote religion.
The problem is that they're promoting morals from religion, trying to get everyone to be a part of their religion, and the morals aren't based around what should happen in a modern society, but morals from an older era.
And then they're willing to be extremely contradictory. They'll push anti-abortion rhetoric until the cows come home, but will they be teaching people how to bring up a child? No, they won't. Will they be demanding that people don't work too much in order to be able to bring their kids up? No, they won't. This is the problem with religious morals as opposed to sensible morals.
You think parenting is natural. Well you see, here's the problem. It isn't. There are basics.
When you see kids with a coke in one hand, a cake in the other and chips in their backpack, and this is the food sustaining them through the day, you know that someone isn't on the natural parenting course.
You complain about parenting, then say it's natural. If it were natural, you wouldn't be complaining about it.
Again, a "no-brainer" and yet too many people are acting without too much of a brain.
Do you think all those kids were single parent families? Probably not. Both my parents worked. That doesn't help you deal with kids. You need to think about things, you need education. But apparently it's so natural that so many people don't do it.
How do you prevent single parent families? Again, many on the right will simply say that they can't get involved in educating kids into how relationships should work, this would be "indoctrination" and all that crap. Then they will bitch and moan at single parent families.
It doesn't make sense.
You cannot prevent single parent households, but you can surly be against them.
Where are the road signs promoting two parent families? Where are the television commercials on promoting two parent families like there are for drugs, global warming, and gun restrictions? Where are the radio ads or courses in school about two parent families? There are none. they don't exist.
The right promotes morals of an older era? So WTF is wrong with that? There were many advantages of that older era which include kids not wanting (or thinking they need) guns to survive. They include the value of two parent families.
The OP is about the stance a mother of a troubled teenager. How many other mothers do we have like this one? And when we look at the increasing gun violence in ghettos, are the guns responsible, or are the parent(s)?
Why do you need commercials promoting two parent families? For me that would seem to be a massive waste of money.
Certainly I've seen problems with this kind of promoting where people believe something will happen, and then they don't work at it.
What is needed is education. Where people talk and discuss the issues, try and make sense of the world they live in, try and understand what the issues are in relationships so they can enter into them with knowledge, with a thought process, with a sense of what is right and what is wrong.
The same with parenting. What food should kids eat? How much TV and computer games should they play? How do they want their kids to turn out? What issues are there? Things like this should be taught in education to make people aware. You do this and you'll see lower single parent families, less problems with kids, better educational achievement.
Saying that it's all natural and people should just know it, when they clearly don't, isn't going to get you anywhere.
What is wrong with morals of an older era? Well... they represent a different world. People turn off, these morals aren't about them any more. So what are their morals? Well they don't really know, so there aren't really any morals.
What morals are there in the Bible about the internet? None, because it didn't exist. The world has changed, until you accept that everything else changes with it, you'e going to be fixing the aircon unit as if it were a paper fan. It isn't going to work.
Yes, I know what the OP is about, and it's like asking a question which ignores the actual problem. So I'm talking about the actual ways to solve the actual problem, rather than pretending the problem is really simple and the solution too.
What you fail to understand is you can't educate people that have no interest in being educated. What are you going to do, put handcuffs on them and drag them into a class?
These people just don't care. They have children and expect them to raise themselves. It's like I told you about my neighbor and his stupid basketball hoop. Education is not why those kids were out all night, it's because the mothers could care less if they were out all night.
Education for the kid? As far as the mother is concerned, her duty is to make sure the kid gets on the school bus. There.....she did her part for her kids education, and some don't even do that.
I didn't say you couldn't educate people who have no interest in being educated at all, so where the fuck you came up with the idea that I'm somehow failing to understand such a thing I don't know.
What I do know is that most kids can be educated. Sometimes there are issues which mean a kid struggles with being educated, but most can be.
Also, with your wild assumptions here, I am talking about trying to change SOCIETY, not change every individual. Statistics. Put something in place and so many percent will change. Not every single person, but hopefully enough for society to see positive results.
So, if you have parents who think they don't have much of a role in their kid's education, then what are you going to do?
You could:
A) do the right wing way, which is say "we can't do anything, it's too hard and it'll cost money, so fuck it, let these kids rot in hell" or...
B) You can try and educate these kids. You can try and stop the cycle of poverty that pervades society. You can give the kids an education that matters, you can teach them stuff that will stop the cycle of poverty in as many as you can.
I know you favor A. But hey, not everyone has a "can't do" attitude.
So what kids are not being educated and why?
And don't say the schools. If you took upper middle-class students, and put them in those same lower cost schools, those kids will still learn and pass with A's. And if you took those lower income students, put them in the upper-middle class school, they will still have the same failure rate.
I attended a private Catholic school when I was a kid. It was totally funded by the church parishioners which meant we didn't have a lot of money.
We had no classes to switch to, the school was too small. We had no free lunch because we didn't even have a cafeteria or lunch room. We ate our homemade lunch at our desk. We didn't have college educated union teachers. Most of the teachers were nuns. To support our own school, we had bake sales the mothers contributed to, rummage sales, we went door to door selling cookies.
But I would put our class against any public school class for a contest to see which class was more educated.
Yes, yes I know. The lefts solution to everything is keep throwing more money at it, but trust me, it won't help in this situation.
Nobody with a license will pull out their gun unless there is a threat. So two people with CCW's will keep their gun in their holster.
Nobody with a license will pull out their gun unless there is a threat. So two people with CCW's will keep their gun in their holster.
One guy with a gun, sees the other guy with a gun. Both of them position themselves by putting their hands where they can draw their weapon if they have to. That act is suspicious enough for ther other guy to believe the first is about to pull out a gun and shoot him. The scene escelates rapidly from there.
You cannot prevent single parent households, but you can surly be against them.
Where are the road signs promoting two parent families? Where are the television commercials on promoting two parent families like there are for drugs, global warming, and gun restrictions? Where are the radio ads or courses in school about two parent families? There are none. they don't exist.
The right promotes morals of an older era? So WTF is wrong with that? There were many advantages of that older era which include kids not wanting (or thinking they need) guns to survive. They include the value of two parent families.
The OP is about the stance a mother of a troubled teenager. How many other mothers do we have like this one? And when we look at the increasing gun violence in ghettos, are the guns responsible, or are the parent(s)?
Why do you need commercials promoting two parent families? For me that would seem to be a massive waste of money.
Certainly I've seen problems with this kind of promoting where people believe something will happen, and then they don't work at it.
What is needed is education. Where people talk and discuss the issues, try and make sense of the world they live in, try and understand what the issues are in relationships so they can enter into them with knowledge, with a thought process, with a sense of what is right and what is wrong.
The same with parenting. What food should kids eat? How much TV and computer games should they play? How do they want their kids to turn out? What issues are there? Things like this should be taught in education to make people aware. You do this and you'll see lower single parent families, less problems with kids, better educational achievement.
Saying that it's all natural and people should just know it, when they clearly don't, isn't going to get you anywhere.
What is wrong with morals of an older era? Well... they represent a different world. People turn off, these morals aren't about them any more. So what are their morals? Well they don't really know, so there aren't really any morals.
What morals are there in the Bible about the internet? None, because it didn't exist. The world has changed, until you accept that everything else changes with it, you'e going to be fixing the aircon unit as if it were a paper fan. It isn't going to work.
Yes, I know what the OP is about, and it's like asking a question which ignores the actual problem. So I'm talking about the actual ways to solve the actual problem, rather than pretending the problem is really simple and the solution too.
What you fail to understand is you can't educate people that have no interest in being educated. What are you going to do, put handcuffs on them and drag them into a class?
These people just don't care. They have children and expect them to raise themselves. It's like I told you about my neighbor and his stupid basketball hoop. Education is not why those kids were out all night, it's because the mothers could care less if they were out all night.
Education for the kid? As far as the mother is concerned, her duty is to make sure the kid gets on the school bus. There.....she did her part for her kids education, and some don't even do that.
I didn't say you couldn't educate people who have no interest in being educated at all, so where the fuck you came up with the idea that I'm somehow failing to understand such a thing I don't know.
What I do know is that most kids can be educated. Sometimes there are issues which mean a kid struggles with being educated, but most can be.
Also, with your wild assumptions here, I am talking about trying to change SOCIETY, not change every individual. Statistics. Put something in place and so many percent will change. Not every single person, but hopefully enough for society to see positive results.
So, if you have parents who think they don't have much of a role in their kid's education, then what are you going to do?
You could:
A) do the right wing way, which is say "we can't do anything, it's too hard and it'll cost money, so fuck it, let these kids rot in hell" or...
B) You can try and educate these kids. You can try and stop the cycle of poverty that pervades society. You can give the kids an education that matters, you can teach them stuff that will stop the cycle of poverty in as many as you can.
I know you favor A. But hey, not everyone has a "can't do" attitude.
So what kids are not being educated and why?
And don't say the schools. If you took upper middle-class students, and put them in those same lower cost schools, those kids will still learn and pass with A's. And if you took those lower income students, put them in the upper-middle class school, they will still have the same failure rate.
I attended a private Catholic school when I was a kid. It was totally funded by the church parishioners which meant we didn't have a lot of money.
We had no classes to switch to, the school was too small. We had no free lunch because we didn't even have a cafeteria or lunch room. We ate our homemade lunch at our desk. We didn't have college educated union teachers. Most of the teachers were nuns. To support our own school, we had bake sales the mothers contributed to, rummage sales, we went door to door selling cookies.
But I would put our class against any public school class for a contest to see which class was more educated.
Yes, yes I know. The lefts solution to everything is keep throwing more money at it, but trust me, it won't help in this situation.
Kids aren't being educated properly because the govt, elected by the people, does seem to want to think about education in terms of producing an educated workforce. Too many people on sites like this get into hysterics any time anyone comes out with a decent idea.
We know sugar fucks with people's brains and makes them study less well, makes them moody, makes them lose concentration a lot, ie, produces bad students, so Michelle Obama says "hey, how about we reduce ketchup sachets to one per student?" My personal view is that ketchup sachets shouldn't be anywhere near schools in the first place, let alone pizza, French (excuse me, Freedom) Fries, hamburgers and all that other shit, but holy crap, the right went BALLISTIC on this matter. Some went crazy because they think schools shouldn't give any food to any kid, others went crazy because they think this is the govt telling their kids what to do, and others just went ballistic because it was a black women saying things.
Either way, you have something that would have a mildly positive impact on studying, and the right is totally opposed to this. It beggars belief, it really does.
So, you have politicians pandering to the extremes on both sides, you have partisan politics which takes in even more of the politicians, you have a system where politicians need the money to get elected/re-elected and they're willing to prostitute themselves for that money, and all the time nothing gets done for the people that actually makes any sense.
Then you have schools which teach traditional subjects. Why? Why is a kid who is going to end up working on cars his whole life doing literature and other things which are completely irrelevant to their life at 13, completely irrelevant to their life at 23, 33, 43 and the rest?
Education is supposed to be about intelligence, logic, progress, and yet people who run education seem to be of the opinion that it's all about making them look good. It's bullshit.
Yes, there are those who throw money at things, that isn't my view. Money can be important, but it needs to be directed in the right way.
As for your school being "more educated" than other schools, education cannot be quantified in the first place. Those who do it, the politicians, make education worse in many cases.
When that happens, then I will be more concerned about it. But to my knowledge, it never has and for the life of me I can't think of a situation where it could..
Police have shot other police officers, because the other guy 'had a gun'. He also had a badge, but they were busy noticing the gun.
A criminal could care less WTF you are doing. When he sneaks around while you're hitting the buttons on the ATM, it doesn't take much convincing for you to hit the withdrawal button with a gun pointed at your head.
A crook wants fast cash, not to spend time on the ATM camera. If he robs you at the ATM he's facing both the local police, and the FBI, yes inside a bank becomes a federal crime, so he's more likely to watch to see if you withdraw a wad of cash, and rob you after you walk out the door, and out of camera range.
If you took upper middle-class students, and put them in those same lower cost schools, those kids will still learn and pass with A's. And if you took those lower income students, put them in the upper-middle class school, they will still have the same failure rate..
So much for the republican argument that Obama was an 'affirmative action' student getting him into Columbia and Harvard, You just said the school wouldn't make a difference, it's the student. And Obama graduated from Harvard Law magnum cum laude, which you said he would have done no matter what school he got into.
We will never know because Obama made sure his school records were sealed to the public. Some suspect that he got in on a student Visa claiming he was Kenyan. Others want to know how he could afford such education being from a middle-class family. Most people can't afford to go to schools like that.
We will never know because Obama made sure his school records were sealed to the public. Some suspect that he got in on a student Visa claiming he was Kenyan. Others want to know how he could afford such education being from a middle-class family. Most people can't afford to go to schools like that.
News for you. Everybodies school records are sealed to the public. Yours, mine, the man in the moons. Just like tax records.
But we do know Obama graduated Harvard Law magna cum laude, which means at least a 3.8 GPA.
I'm sure he did. DumBama is a book smart guy. But I think he falls way short when it comes to common sense.
.
but more importantly the situation he was elected into. He blew it.
Republicans have been in charge of congress. Libs give them no credit for deficit reductions due to their corruptI'm sure he did. DumBama is a book smart guy. But I think he falls way short when it comes to common sense.
.
Obama cut the deficit by 60%, cut unemployment by 50%, cut the wars by 50%, increased the DOW by 120%, saved GM and created 22 million private sector jobs. The longest continuous private sector job growth in history.
No too shabby for someone you say was only book smart.
LOL. You looked the other way or chanted away any bad news while rocking away on your Obama prayer mat. The IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, immigration EO overturned. Major eff ups in the middle east, especially Libya. The Benghazi hearings are how we found out about her incompetence, the email scandal, server scandal. Selling access to government scandal. Dems aren't going to prosecute their corrupt party, you have no credibility.Obama went 8 years, without a major administrative scandal. Nobody went to jail, no matter how many Benghazi investigations were held.
when you walk up to an ATM a crook has no idea if you are depositing or withdrawing if he sees you pull one of those deposit envelopes out of your pocket don't you think he'd try to take it?But at an ATM, a criminal is more assured on getting at least a couple hundred bucks out of you. Plus since you have your wallet or purse in which you carry your ATM card, it's likely you have all your bank cards with you.
You said you carried your gun to 'make a deposit'. Which means after you leave, you have little cash on you. Crooks expect you to take money OUT of an ATM, which is when they would try to rob you. And as you explained, you just put your cash INTO the ATM.
I would think you'd carry your gun when you planned to take money OUT of the ATM. Or maybe that's just reverse psychology, where crooks rob people right before they go into the bank.
nature. Obama has not been a business friendly president and has piled on regulations after regulations. Which policy do you claim boosted the economy? Less than 2% gdp growth his eight years impresses you? You're a disciple to a religion.
