Does anyone remember this?

Kane wrote
Try looking into the parenting practices of the
places where all that killing is going on.
You'd be amazed.

Greg wrote
Are you talking about where the rockets are being made, launched or
landing?

Kane wrote
Landing.

People manufacturing or launching rockets aren't VIOLENT??
But the people they land on are??
You are perverse Kane!

Greg wrote
When you talk about "where all that killing is going on"
are you talking about Patriot missile production in USA,
Israeli launching facilities or blast craters in Palestine?

Kane wrote
There is killing going on at missile production factories in the USA?
Citation please.

Columbine.

But that doesn't change the fact that sappy over
simplified ""trusims"" do not account for complex realities.

Kane, you support the simplistic rhetoric but
then you get into all kinds of explanations and
justifications for violence, which MAKES MY POINT!

Kane wrote
The AK-47...which I have fired both select and full auto,

How NICE for your ego, but OFF TOPIC!

Greg wrote
Cops, Soldiers, Defense contractors, even security guards.
Some would even argue that there is such a thing as
economic ""violence"". ENRON shareholders felt it.
Victims of corporate mergers and aquisitions feel it.

Kane wrote
Yes, and I didn't say not to look at our country's child rearing
methods, now did I?

I am a hawk militarily, but YOU are sick with OBSESSION about it.

Do you REALLY think that cutting an animals head off
isn't a form of "acceptable violence" that kids learn?

Do you think that attitudes about military SELF
DEFENSE doesn't complicate matters for children?

You joined in with the OVERLY SIMPLE trite truisms,
but you show that you are quite aware that violence
is just not that simple.

Even for a school kid now'days trying to work within
the public school rules about violence it is NOT that simple.

Teachings about self defense are greatly UNDONE
to be replaced by a reliance on BUREAUCRACY to
resolve the problem!

The REAL WORLD is not like some idealistic textbook.

Snitchy kids are NOT looked at as socially in tune,
even the BUREAUCRATS get sick of it fast!

In some cases there is no "right thing to do".

While the bureaucrats would "hope to pretend"
that things are more peaceful, there is an
undercurrent of even MORE violence than before
the policy changes of the last 30 years.
They may pacify kids in school, but the bad ones
are far worse than the bad ones of the past.
They've become more DECEPTIVE to get under
the radar of the naive school administration.
They behave IN SCHOOL, wielding only implied
or veiled threats and doing hardcore violence
only blocks away from the school.

Bureaucrats who over simplify complex issues
are merely training more sinister criminals.

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Try looking into the parenting practices of the
places where all that killing is going on.
You'd be amazed.

Greg wrote
Are you talking about where the rockets are being made, launched or
landing?

Kane wrote
Landing.

People manufacturing or launching rockets aren't VIOLENT??
But the people they land on are??
You are perverse Kane!

I didn't say, "where the rockets are landing." I was, as you asked,
"talking" about where killing going on, and you just couldn't figure
out that I'd be talking about both sides.

Greg wrote
When you talk about "where all that killing is going on"
are you talking about Patriot missile production in USA,
Israeli launching facilities or blast craters in Palestine?

Kane wrote
There is killing going on at missile production factories in the USA?
Citation please.

Columbine.

Columbine has a missile factory? Citation again please.

But that doesn't change the fact that sappy over
simplified ""trusims"" do not account for complex realities.

Often there are elegantly simple solutions to highly complex problems.
One way to reduce violence in humans is not to teach it to them as
children.

The writer wasn't trying to fix ALL violence today, and it's
complexities, but to have some effect on tomorrow. By the simple
expedient of not teaching violence today...like hitting kids, making
them take cold showers for naturally occuring accidents of toilet, not
pushing their heads under the shower simply because they haven't
mastered shampooing yet...those sorts of things, Greg.

You ARE a violent little man, but being a coward, you do it to children
instead of adults. That's why you couldn't handle the old man when he
slugged you.

You are a physical an moral coward. Had he hit me I'd have been on him
like a rat on cheese and taken him apart. A broken bone or two hasn't
slowed me in the past.

Kane, you support the simplistic rhetoric but
then you get into all kinds of explanations and
justifications for violence, which MAKES MY POINT!

No, it doesn't, because you are wrong. You asked my opinion and I gave
it. You just don't like the answers because you can't handle the truth.


Ask your Patrone why, though he is against parents being told not to
spank, he chose not to use it himself in his parenting.

Go ahead.

Kane wrote
The AK-47...which I have fired both select and full auto,

How NICE for your ego, but OFF TOPIC!

We ARE discussing weapons, stupid. YOU brought it up, stupid, to
support your old buddy here in yet another sock.

Greg wrote
Cops, Soldiers, Defense contractors, even security guards.
Some would even argue that there is such a thing as
economic ""violence"". ENRON shareholders felt it.
Victims of corporate mergers and aquisitions feel it.

See. look above. What do they carry for weapons, GREG...guns, NO?

And so do the people we were talking about when I asked the "parenting
methods" question.

Then YOU claimed that they have inferior weapons to the opposition. My
discussion would of course then open up the truth that they DO NOT have
inferior weapons.

I notice that you are again dodging with this rant instead of admitting
that the Palestinians do indeed have modern effective weapons as I
proved. You are such an immoral sick little prick.

Kane wrote
Yes, and I didn't say not to look at our country's child rearing
methods, now did I?

I am a hawk militarily, but YOU are sick with OBSESSION about it.

Really? Have you seen me justify it disproportionately? Are people
simply supposed to not shoot back when they are shot at?

That's all I've defended, Greg.

Do you REALLY think that cutting an animals head off
isn't a form of "acceptable violence" that kids learn?

Of course. And they learn to do it without giving more pain than
necessary. Humanely.

As I did.

As far as I know children in the US are rarely treated to scenes of
their parents cutting of the heads of captive bound humands, or using
powerdrills to torture them.

Or are you claiming that butchering animals is inhumane and cruel?

Do you think that attitudes about military SELF
DEFENSE doesn't complicate matters for children?

That's life, Greg, as you pointed out.

I'd rather they come to that point without enthusiasm for violent
solutions, hence I defend the list of parenting methods that encourage
non-violence.

You joined in with the OVERLY SIMPLE trite truisms,
but you show that you are quite aware that violence
is just not that simple.

Why would the two, despite your lying hyperbole about one, be mutually
exclusive?

And where did I say, claim, that violence was "that simple?"

Even for a school kid now'days trying to work within
the public school rules about violence it is NOT that simple.

I'd still rather they came to it without having had parently provided
examples of pain, humiliation, fear, and other kinds of insult to
humans that you seem to be in favor of.

As the piece says, children learn what they live.

Are you suggesting that for children to make valid choices about
violence they must have experienced it being done to them?

Teachings about self defense are greatly UNDONE
to be replaced by a reliance on BUREAUCRACY to
resolve the problem!

The list does not include NOT teaching self defense. I was taught it.
My children were free to and learned it.

Most of the better martial arts are not dedicated to violence, but
quite the opposite.

The REAL WORLD is not like some idealistic textbook.

Then you think the best way to teach a child how to handle physical and
psychological violence is to visit it upon their minds and bodies?

Snitchy kids are NOT looked at as socially in tune,
even the BUREAUCRATS get sick of it fast!

It is snitchy for a kid to tell a grown up that someone is threatening
or hurting them?

I can see how a bully might not like that.

In some cases there is no "right thing to do".

Life is like that. This defends your position how again?

While the bureaucrats would "hope to pretend"

Why the quotes? That's your kind of rhetorical bull**** that I quote of
YOU from time to time to point out how mentally crippled you are.

that things are more peaceful,

What has this to do with the list quoted?

there is an
undercurrent of even MORE violence than before
the policy changes of the last 30 years.

No, actually, you are ignorant of this as you are of everything else
having to do with human affairs, Greg.

Look up the FBI/DOJ data and you will find that in fact teen violence
is DOWN and has been down for years. I believe it peaked in 96, and
even then was not all that high.

The tend to list "charges" in data, rather than convictions, something
I consider "violence to research" but still the figures are DOWN.

Kids are using some drugs less, and they are getting pregnant less.

YOU are full of ****.

They may pacify kids in school, but the bad ones
are far worse than the bad ones of the past.

Bull****. Violence in the past was violence. Kids that were violent
then were no more violent than those now. Guns, knives, pieces of pipe,
a piece of coal in a sock, it's all the same, stupid, and had a great
deal more to do with poverty and the disadvantaged then "violent
youth."

They've become more DECEPTIVE to get under
the radar of the naive school administration.

Yep. I like that in teens. We never COULD be repressed successfuly. Not
even in Nazi Germany. You know how old the people were that set up
secret presses and ran off anti Nazi propaganda fliers? Most were
teens, stupid. Or very young adults. Look up, The White Rose.

They behave IN SCHOOL, wielding only implied
or veiled threats and doing hardcore violence
only blocks away from the school.

Not the majority of kids. You are talking inner city violent
neighborhoods, stupid.

That has always been a problem and will be as long as their are sick
bigots like you, and those that will NOT support social programs that
would end it.

Bureaucrats who over simplify complex issues
are merely training more sinister criminals.

Prove it.

Show the FBI and DOJ data that supports your claim of more violence of
greater intensity.

I KNOW the data, and that is NOT what it's saying.

0:-

Greg wrote
They behave IN SCHOOL, wielding only implied
or veiled threats and doing hardcore violence
only blocks away from the school.

Kane wrote
Not the majority of kids. You are talking
inner city violent neighborhoods, stupid.

Iowa.

Kane wrote
That has always been a problem and will be as long as their are sick
bigots like you, and those that will NOT support social programs that
would end it.

Why do you think any amount of social programs would end it?
What if no amount of social programs would stop it?

Are you still calling yourself a conservative?

Conservative socialist?

Greegor wrote:
Greg wrote
They behave IN SCHOOL, wielding only implied
or veiled threats and doing hardcore violence
only blocks away from the school.

Kane wrote
Not the majority of kids. You are talking
inner city violent neighborhoods, stupid.

Iowa.

Your Proof such does not exist in Iowa?

And you have not provided proof that such hard core violence even
exists in Iowa.

Let's see some.

Kane wrote
That has always been a problem and will be as long as their are sick
bigots like you, and those that will NOT support social programs that
would end it.

Why do you think any amount of social programs would end it?

Because social programs on other issues of human behavior have ended
such things.

We don't have much of a problem with child labor any more in the US do
we, Greg? Other than the occasional scofflaw using kids to dumpster
dive and pick up cans and bottles for refund, right?

What if no amount of social programs would stop it?

What if the moon was a marshmallow.

We'll never completely stop it, Greg, despite my wishes, but we can
bring it under control.

Would you do away with laws against bank robbery and wife beating
because they haven't totally ended those problems?

Are you still calling yourself a conservative?

Of course. Are you still denying that you are a liberal constantly
wanting government interventions to "correct" social programs?

Conservative socialist?

Nope.

You a Socialist conservative then?

0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Greg wrote
They behave IN SCHOOL, wielding only implied
or veiled threats and doing hardcore violence
only blocks away from the school.

Kane wrote
Not the majority of kids. You are talking
inner city violent neighborhoods, stupid.

Iowa.

Your Proof such does not exist in Iowa?

To what are you referring?


And you have not provided proof that such hard core violence even
exists in Iowa.

You want me to cite the whole NEWSPAPER?



Let's see some.

Kane wrote
That has always been a problem and will be as long as their are sick
bigots like you, and those that will NOT support social programs that
would end it.

Why do you think any amount of social programs would end it?

Because social programs on other issues of human behavior have ended
such things.

Got an example?


We don't have much of a problem with child labor any more in the US do
we, Greg? Other than the occasional scofflaw using kids to dumpster
dive and pick up cans and bottles for refund, right?

What if no amount of social programs would stop it?

What if the moon was a marshmallow.

We'll never completely stop it, Greg, despite my wishes, but we can
bring it under control.

Would you do away with laws against bank robbery and wife beating
because they haven't totally ended those problems?

Are you still calling yourself a conservative?

Of course. Are you still denying that you are a liberal constantly
wanting government interventions to "correct" social programs?

Conservative socialist?

Nope.

You a Socialist conservative then?

YOU are the one BLATANTLY advocating socialist crap.

Doesn't fit your claim you're a conservative.

Greegor wrote:
0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Greg wrote
They behave IN SCHOOL, wielding only implied
or veiled threats and doing hardcore violence
only blocks away from the school.

Kane wrote
Not the majority of kids. You are talking
inner city violent neighborhoods, stupid.

Iowa.

Your Proof such does not exist in Iowa?

To what are you referring?

"They behave IN SCHOOL, wielding only implied or veiled threats and
doing hardcore violence
only blocks away from the school."

Look familiar? It's in the first lines of this post, as attributed to
you, Greg.

And you have not provided proof that such hard core violence even
exists in Iowa.

You want me to cite the whole NEWSPAPER?

No, some media we can check on via link.

All you have to do is abstract or extract pertanent information to draw
our attention that supports your claim. Really simple stuff. You can do
it.


Let's see some.

Kane wrote
That has always been a problem and will be as long as their are sick
bigots like you, and those that will NOT support social programs that
would end it.

Why do you think any amount of social programs would end it?

Because social programs on other issues of human behavior have ended
such things.

Got an example?

Oh dear. The same old ploy?

Sure, stupid. How long have you and I been exchanging posts, Greg, and
how long have you seen yourself fail again and again with that
challenge, when I overwhelmed your poor brain with cited references and
quotes.

Where shall we start?

Okay, workhouse and factory use of children as laborers.

See any legally going on in this country today?

Post any you know of, right here.

Slavery?

Know any slaves? Post their names here.

Women's sufferage?

Know any women, other than felons, that are unable to vote should they
wish?

Any that cannot, unless they are judged unfit by disposition or age,
make a legal binding contract?

That you can legally, as once you could, beat at your whim?

You ever collected unemployment compensation, Greg?

You ever appealed to the court to give YOU money to use for YOUR
interests that was earmarked for child support?

Will you have any accumulation in SSI for when you are disabled or
retired, Greg?

(The rest of us do...we have worked).

Would you like to do away with any of the social programs that I've
listed? The ones you seem to be unable to think up yourself, and asking
stupid questions for me to produce them?

We don't have much of a problem with child labor any more in the US do
we, Greg? Other than the occasional scofflaw using kids to dumpster
dive and pick up cans and bottles for refund, right?

Isn't it odd you'd ask the question you did, then when I provided a
proof you went dead silent...no response?

And asked the same stupid question AGAIN?

What if no amount of social programs would stop it?

What if the moon was a marshmallow.

We'll never completely stop it, Greg, despite my wishes, but we can
bring it under control.

Would you do away with laws against bank robbery and wife beating
because they haven't totally ended those problems?

No comment, stupid?


Are you still calling yourself a conservative?

Of course. Are you still denying that you are a liberal constantly
wanting government interventions to "correct" social programs?

Conservative socialist?

Nope.

You a Socialist conservative then?

YOU are the one BLATANTLY advocating socialist crap.

Name one "socialist crap" I advocate.

Doesn't fit your claim you're a conservative.

Conservatives don't support social programs?

How about farm subsidies?

How about various programs to change the balance of trade?

How about providing government support, MY tax dollars, to finance the
moving of American business and manufacturing out of country?

Conservatives are behind all those.

Or don't you recognize them.

I'm much MORE of a conservative than most, because I do NOT support
THOSE social programs for the wealthy.

I do support social programs that encourage American industry HERE, and
small business HERE.

I am a TRUE conservative. You are a little piece of liberal socialist
scum that is hiding being what you think is a conservative facade we
can't see through.

You are a lazy self serving sick little ****, Greg.

What the rest of us have to support, conservatively.

R R R R R R RR

Kane wrote
Okay, workhouse and factory use of children as laborers.
Slavery?
Women's sufferage?

Which of those were government run "social programs"?

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Okay, workhouse and factory use of children as laborers.
Slavery?
Women's sufferage?

Which of those were government run "social programs"?

A law effecting society is a social program.

And if you check the times, you will see there were in fact government
sponsored programs for all three categories of people.

In fact, some are STILL going on, often with the addition of new laws
to support those programs.

We here enough bitching about them from the constant bigot, like you,
Greg.

One is CPS.

Another is civil rights laws.

Including enforcement of hiring practices.

Another is government funded (I've helped write grants for them myself)
women's shelters and rehabilitation programs.

You are ignorant beyond belief, Greg, if you didn't know about these.

Now, back to the subject.

Do you believe children do NOT learn what they live?

Please explain how they do learn then.

0:-

Oh Greegie? Greegiepoo?

You asked, I answered, now you are silent.

Apparently you have accepted my post as fact.

Which, of course, flattens your argument like a pile of cow **** on a
hot day.

No comments?

Admit you are wrong?

Anything Greg, except cowardly running away?

How about that lady you "lab ratted" Greg?

Did she actually use your suggestion?

Are you praying to the Gods she didn't?

You'd better. You aren't the only one that can sue, stupid.

0:-



0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Okay, workhouse and factory use of children as laborers.
Slavery?
Women's sufferage?

Which of those were government run "social programs"?

A law effecting society is a social program.

And if you check the times, you will see there were in fact government
sponsored programs for all three categories of people.

In fact, some are STILL going on, often with the addition of new laws
to support those programs.

We here enough bitching about them from the constant bigot, like you,
Greg.

One is CPS.

Another is civil rights laws.

Including enforcement of hiring practices.

Another is government funded (I've helped write grants for them myself)
women's shelters and rehabilitation programs.

You are ignorant beyond belief, Greg, if you didn't know about these.

Now, back to the subject.

Do you believe children do NOT learn what they live?

Please explain how they do learn then.

0:-

Kane wrote
Okay, workhouse and factory use of children as laborers.
Slavery?
Women's sufferage?

Greg wrote
Which of those were government run "social programs"?

Kane wrote
A law effecting society is a social program.

Remember those things you listed not only predated LBJ,
they predated FDR and the "New Deal".

What government department ran those social programs?

John Brown was a government sponsored Social Program?
Funny then how the Union Army executed him.

You really should study up more on John Brown.