What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

No, but it does not provide any repercussions to those who do, especially when directed to do so by their congressional representative.

This whole thing makes you wonder: Palin played a part in Rep. Giffords' shooting, Bachmann has these kids' blood on her hands. Why don't the Republicans run Ted Bundy in 2016?

It's not fair to blame either of those two for what has happened, in both instances society in general failed (and continues to fail) by allowing such hate and intolerance to continue to exist and propagate. For as long as civilization has existed people have used hate and intolerance to promote their own personal agendas and that isn't going to change anytime soon. Change isn't going to come from any level of government saying you can't do that, but from individual people saying that enough is enough and that they are not going to listen when someone spews this nonsense and they are going to interact when they see an individual targeted.

Any change will be a up from the individual and not down from any level of government (though the government will be able to support the actions of the individual, not direct those actions)
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

I would disagree. The anti-bullying laws groups are dismissive and act as though it couldn't possibly be an issue. (Why would it even be brought up if it wasn't?)
Why do people feel like they need a ****ing law for everything? Again, this can easily be solved at the district level.
Because there are better uses for my time than reading things that attempt to assign blame on public figures who have little or nothing at all to do with the problem itself?

This would be like trying to blame std increases on Clinton after the Lewinsky scandal put oral sex at the forefront of the national conversation. At some point, you have to look at individual responsibility as opposed to saying it's some sort of failing on the part of government (in this particular district's case, it's a failing on the part of the parents moreso than anything).

And Kepler, how about telling the missus to have more kids? Let us know how it turns out. :D
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

That's a double-edged sword, since laws like DOMA and rules like DADT effected a top-down imposition of the opposite brand of "political correctness."

But your premise is flawed, anyway. The personal responsibility of the thief doesn't mean we don't have laws against theft.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

But your premise is flawed, anyway. The personal responsibility of the thief doesn't mean we don't have laws against theft.
And who exactly would be responsible for enforcing the law? The police? I think they have better things to do than worrying about kids intimidating each other (like ticketing us for bull**** traffic offenses to fund themselves). The main people watching out for this sort of thing are teachers/school administrators - which tells me the place to address it is clearly in the realm of school policy and NOT the realm of the state legislature or Congress (clearly neither of these entities is particularly competent).
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

The police? I think they have better things to do than worrying about kids intimidating each other (like ticketing us for bull**** traffic offenses to fund themselves).

Ever since I got a family I LOVE speeding and reckless driving and drunk driving laws. (If you're talking about parking laws... yeah, the cops have better things to do.)

I think you have to be pretty oblivious not to realize that gay people get bullied mercilessly in many environments. I'm pretty sure threatening somebody with physical violence is assault, so we already have laws against it. If you want bullying to be a civil penalty rather than criminal, I am perfectly willing to sue the ef out of the knuckledragger.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Why do people feel like they need a ****ing law for everything? Again, this can easily be solved at the district level.
Because if there are laws or decisions made that are discriminatory, district level decisions are inadequate. Districts have enjoyed segregating students, was it preferable to let them decide on that?
Because there are better uses for my time than reading things that attempt to assign blame on public figures who have little or nothing at all to do with the problem itself?
Because it provided a lot more information than the NYdailynews article did? Like how Bachmann is active in one of the groups, the MFC. Not just a tenuous link to her husband.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

And who exactly would be responsible for enforcing the law? The police? I think they have better things to do than worrying about kids intimidating each other (like ticketing us for bull**** traffic offenses to fund themselves). The main people watching out for this sort of thing are teachers/school administrators - which tells me the place to address it is clearly in the realm of school policy and NOT the realm of the state legislature or Congress (clearly neither of these entities is particularly competent).

That group is even worse than state legislatures or congress.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Not everyone I disagree with. Just those that put forth positions so absurd that they make people dumber for having heard them. Granted, that's most evangelicals and social conservatives (to whatever extent those are 2 separate groups) these days, with probably the lone exception of Bob from this board.

That doesn't mean I want the government to arrest any of them. The world would be better off without Fred Phelps, but he still has the right to say what he says. Thankfully everyone else has the right to tell him to stick it where the sun don't shine.

No hypocricy involved. Try again.

"I don't hate Sarah Palin, but if I did, she would deserve it." Talk about all time Clintonian bologna slicing. When we get around to building a USCHO monument, this should be prominently engraved somewhere.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

"I don't hate Sarah Palin, but if I did, she would deserve it." Talk about all time Clintonian bologna slicing. When we get around to building a USCHO monument, this should be prominently engraved somewhere.

We can put it right next to your statue of Hitler.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

We can put it right next to your statue of Hitler.

What're you, the lawyer's lawyer? Don't you ever have anything worthwhile to contribute, other than busting my balls? People are beginning to talk. Hitler was a great man, we just didn't understand him.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

No, but it does not provide any repercussions to those who do, especially when directed to do so by their congressional representative.

This whole thing makes you wonder: Palin played a part in Rep. Giffords' shooting, Bachmann has these kids' blood on her hands. Why don't the Republicans run Ted Bundy in 2016?

"directed to do so by their congressional representative" sort of gives away the store doesn't it, Timmy? She appoints herself to congress, then begins issuing "directions" to her constituents. Got it.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

And who exactly would be responsible for enforcing the law? The police? I think they have better things to do than worrying about kids intimidating each other (like ticketing us for bull**** traffic offenses to fund themselves). The main people watching out for this sort of thing are teachers/school administrators - which tells me the place to address it is clearly in the realm of school policy and NOT the realm of the state legislature or Congress (clearly neither of these entities is particularly competent).

It's more that any bullying that reaches a criminal level should already fall under a different crime: assault, battery, stalking, theft, etc.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

"I don't hate Sarah Palin, but if I did, she would deserve it." Talk about all time Clintonian bologna slicing. When we get around to building a USCHO monument, this should be prominently engraved somewhere.

I said it would be justified, not that she deserved it. While similar, they are not identical sentiments (one implies reasoning behind an action or belief, the other implies an impartation of blame). Words have distinct meanings, troll. If you're going to use quotation marks, make sure it's actually a quote.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Do the names Reynard Johnson or Bill Sparkman ring a bell? Johnson was the teenager found hanged in his front yard in Kokomo, Mississippi in 2000. A death ruled suicide by local and state authorities and Janet Reno's justice department. That didn't stop Jesse Jackson from showing up, claiming the lad had been the victim of a lynching. After all, we had an election coming, and it was important to bolster black turnout.

Bill Sparkman was the part time census worker found hanged in Kentucky with "FED" written across his chest and his hands bound. The usual suspects proclaimed this a hate crime or an anti-government crime and launched into their shop warn talking points. The only trouble was Sparkman staged the event. He was sick with cancer (or thought he was) and had an excessive amount of insurance and wanted to leave something behind for his son, who was having money problems.

The only connection to the tragic school suicides we've been discussing is the attempt to politicize these cases by people who should know better, but don't care. I can't imagine anything worse than losing a child, except losing a child by his own hand. The parents will blame themselves for the rest of their lives. A wound that never heals. And it's almost universally true that parents are the last to know. Naturally they want to make some sense of what happened to their child, looking for "reasons" to explain the inexplicable.

"Bullying" has become the cause du jour in the case of gay kids who kill themselves. And while "bullying" these days is ugly and repulsive and far worse than decades ago, it remains to be seen whether it "causes" an otherwise stable child to end his life. And let's not forget gay kids aren't the only targets of bullies. Kids who are ugly, fat, poor, physically handicapped, etc. etc. can also be targets. Bullying shouldn't be permitted, it's as simple as that. But we should protect all of its targets, not just gay kids. It seems to me the gay rights crowd in that district is interested in more than just "tolerance" and "understanding." They want acceptance of their entire agenda, no questions asked, and these tragic suicides provide them with talking points and leverage.

If bullying caused these kids to kill themselves, shouldn't there be more gay kids committing suicide? Do gay kids commit suicide in districts that are more "progressive" on these matters? If a kid kills himself after he was turned down for a prom date or broke up with his girl friend, shouldn't we have many more teen suicides? Remember the case of the boy who killed himself, and his parents sued because a rock song "caused" him to do it? Shouldn't many more kids have died listening to the same song? Remember when some kids who played "Dungeons and Dragons" were killing themselves? Did the game "cause" those deaths?

I'm suggesting that two things are going on here: gross oversimplification of teen suicides. I mean, kids who are seeing a psychiatrist kill themselves all the time. And the doctors were unable to predict or prevent the deaths. The second, of course, is this effort to criminalize policy differences. It is irrational, not to mention exceptionally cruel, to suggest Michele Bachmann is "responsible" for this suicide cluster. I don't rule out that the "anti-gay" policies of the district may have played a role in the suicides and the bullying, too.
But that's different from absolutely, positively blaming the policies and the bullying and by extension Bachmann, because she's "responsible" for both.

My (admittedly limited) understanding is what brings teenagers to the point of attempting suicide is complex and subtle. And that while certain setbacks may trigger the behavior, there were other problems long before the setbacks. Klebold and Harris went to their prom on the Saturday night before they shot up Littleton HS. They were both homicidal and suicidal and nobody caught it. The well publicized cases of shool shootings generally involved kids who didn't show up on anybody's radar as being a threat. All I'm arguing is that we are dealing here with complex behavior with not easily determined "causes" and it's unfair (at a minimum) to blame it on a politician. Oh, and this blame game isn't likely to help identify and intervene with suicidal kids either.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

I said it would be justified, not that she deserved it. While similar, they are not identical sentiments (one implies reasoning behind an action or belief, the other implies an impartation of blame). Words have distinct meanings, troll. If you're going to use quotation marks, make sure it's actually a quote.

I can understand you wanting to walk back from and clarify your extremism, ambulance chaser. I guess it all depend on the meaning of "is." It's true I was paraphrasing and should have indicated as much. One of these days you're actually going to contribute something worthwhile and I, for one, will be shocked. I guess every boy needs a hobby. When you're done, be sure to give Foxton his thesaurus back, he's gonna need it.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

It's more that any bullying that reaches a criminal level should already fall under a different crime: assault, battery, stalking, theft, etc.

But isn't bullying that crosses the line into the offenses you mentioned already illegal? And apart from "officer friendly's" in schools, wouldn't faculty or staff have to make the judgement and call the police? Remember several years ago a highly publicized case of a kid who without provocation attacked another boy, just so his accomplice could videotape the beatdown? That would qualify as bullying, IMO, and it's already against the law. More importantly, it didn't stop that psychotic little punk.

And is this a matter of law or of education? We've seen in case after case (not just involving bullying) where there's one constant: kids won't rat out other kids to adults. Changing the law might give authorities the tools to more effectively punish bullies, but it doesn't seem likely to do much for eliminating the bullying.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

But isn't bullying that crosses the line into the offenses you mentioned already illegal?
Yeah, which is what I said. Anti-bullying legislation is like hate-crimes legislation, you're making things doubly illegal, which is kinda stupid.

If there's one leg to stand on, it's that kids in school are generally not free to escape the bullying for one reason or another. So in so much as bullying involves picking on people who cannot run away or go elsewhere, it is somewhat more heinous than, say, a drunken bar fight where an adult voluntarily entered the bar and proceeded to make drunken comments about the next guy's mother.

But, considering that most legislation ends badly (see Meghan's Laws, for instance, which turn someone peeing in an alleyway into a sex offender)...I'd prefer we stick with the tried and true over anything new.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Yeah, which is what I said. Anti-bullying legislation is like hate-crimes legislation, you're making things doubly illegal, which is kinda stupid.

If there's one leg to stand on, it's that kids in school are generally not free to escape the bullying for one reason or another. So in so much as bullying involves picking on people who cannot run away or go elsewhere, it is somewhat more heinous than, say, a drunken bar fight where an adult voluntarily entered the bar and proceeded to make drunken comments about the next guy's mother.

But, considering that most legislation ends badly (see Meghan's Laws, for instance, which turn someone peeing in an alleyway into a sex offender)...I'd prefer we stick with the tried and true over anything new.

Technology is also the bully's best friend. What can be done about that? We get ourseles in trouble by thinking somebody's gotta "do something." I believe it's Alan Dershowitz who says the law is a blunt instrument.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

After attacking Obama's wife, Bachmann declares spouses off limits. Funny how that works...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top