THE ROD...the petition....

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
Get used to it. He blames missionaries for the fact that Indians
like myself don't have sex with our children. (And then he cites
missionaries as evidence that we once did!)
------------------------
They saw it, so did others.

But you can't cite a source you yourself don't respect, Steve.
--------------------------------------
If supported by others I do, yes I can.

Then name these 'others', Stevie-boy.
-------------------
Do your own homework, you'll learn a lot, and if I tell you you'll
just avoid it.

In other words, you don't have any evidence.
-----------------------------
Erroneous conclusion. You're just being petulant that I won't
waste my time trying to inform you, when you won't permit that
anyway and seek thereby merely to hinder people like me.

Not really. It's easier for you to find sources proving it than
it is for me to find sources disproving it.

and one the native's side, therefore no ulterior
motive can be assumed. Theodore Rossevelt for one.

A well-known imperialist and eugenist. You'll have to do better than
that.
---------------------------------
Nothing wrong with well-founded eugenics, we do a lot of it these
days via genetic counseling, the same that would scandalized the '20's.

And what kind of eugenics do you think the Progressive Party favored, you
poor naive fool? The genetic counseling of today, or the 'sterilize all
the poor and nonwhites' of their own era?
----------------------------------
Uninterested. That's unrelated to anything I've ever said, you're
tossing smoke bombs.

I'd think coerced sterilizations are relevant, personally. I mean,
had the UN existed then, doing such things would quickly get you
before international court. Well, that is, if your victims happen
to be European; no one at IHS was ever arrested for giving Indian
women an 'appendectomy'.

As an imperialist, to suggest leaving them be, He was obviously
unprejudiced.

He transferred 2.5 million acres of Indian land to national forests. So
much for 'leaving them be'.
-------------------------------
There was nobody there. He thereby saved them for later descendant
claims, but by no fault of his were never were permitted. Go read-up.

Oh, yes, because of ANOTHER clueless liberal, Alice Fletcher! You're
not doing yourself many favors; even in cases of someone being on
the society in question's side, personal biases can creep in.

S: An agnostic cannot be a Rightist.
S: Not unless what he claims he doesn't
S: know is the whole body of human learning.

G: Could you please diagram the logic of that
G: and explain why one precludes the other?

S: A Rightist presumes all sorts of things that
S: have never been evidenced.
S: An "agnostic" literally "does not know".

G: It doesn't follow.
G: Thinking error again, Steve.

S: Your error.

G: I have heard definitions of agnostic that
G: are different from yours. More along the
G: lines that we CANNOT know. But what was
G: your claptrap about "what he claims he doesn't
G: know is the whole body of human learning."?
G: What the heck does that have to do with it?



G: By the way, I label myself a deliberate agnostic.

S: You're merely an erroneous agnostic.
S: You haven't the honesty or couth for
S: agnosticism.

G: You are no one to judge any of that.



S: Religious dogma is often propagated by
S: misconceived imagined atheists.

G: Are going mumbltypeg Steve?
G: How could atheists create religious dogma?
G: Can you give an example?

S: Not "create", propagate, you idiot.

S: They having been raised in a religious state,
S: believe that religion is merely "normal" and
S: of the state and don't recognize it for the
S: religious fraud that the state has been
S: enlisted to defend and propagate secularly.
S: Such things as oppression of sexuality and
S: propagation of classism and racism are
S: mostly of this kind.

S: disguised as secular politic. Transparent.

G: Perhaps your definition of secular is somewhat
G: extreme? You must be quite the raging atheist.
G: Most people would use the word "rabid" since
G: you are such an extremist in your intolerance.

S: I'm not an atheist OR an agnostic regarding the Divine.
S: I KNOW the Truth, and that it's NOT YOURS EITHER!

S: But my "religion", a wrong name for what I have,
S: is none that has gone before.

Worshipping yourself is not a new concept.

Kane:
Steve admits to being a COMMUNIST, outright.
Are you also a COMMUNIST?

How are your views related to children as
children of the state any different?

He claims to be somewhat close in age to you.
He swears like you.
He lacks impulse control, just like you.

Were you seperated at birth or what?

Is he your long lost twin that you didn't
know you had?



"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
Greg Hanson wrote:
How is undercutting parental authority and
giving kids this idea that "the state" is the
boss over how the parents raise kids, how is
THAT good for making future Democratic citizens?

It shows children that they are valued and have rights
that are protected by the Majority, even if they are
unlucky enough to be born to complete criminally abusive
assholes as their parents.

It prevents children from imagining that the People's
State tacitly supports all the vicious abusive crap
their asshole parents pull, so that they don't confuse
the rest of us with their parents when they grow up
dominated by hate and fantasies of vegeance against
their parents.

It also gives them a knowledge of where to go if they are
being abused, they can call a ****ing cop, like any of
the rest of us!

The Democratic Majority and its Rule of Law is more important
than the stupid imaginary "Family" of your sick Fundy religious
fables.

The "Family" can fall apart, get divorced, abuse you, but the
Democratic People's State can and will protect you from the
random bad luck of being subjected to the idiots in your "Family"!
Steve



in message ...
"R. Steve Walz" wrote

No, I'm a Communist.
Marx was one writer, and his was not the only kind of Communism.

For future reference, I believe in "Universal rightful home possession,
and from each according to his labor hours, to each according to his
labor hours, adjusted democratically by equally distributed collective
social costs required for a decent society."

Steve actually justified the undercutting of parental
authority as good for the "People's State".

Shortly Steve announced that he is a Communist.


"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
Greg Hanson wrote:
How is undercutting parental authority and
giving kids this idea that "the state" is the
boss over how the parents raise kids, how is
THAT good for making future Democratic citizens?

It shows children that they are valued and have rights
that are protected by the Majority, even if they are
unlucky enough to be born to complete criminally abusive
assholes as their parents.

It prevents children from imagining that the People's
State tacitly supports all the vicious abusive crap
their asshole parents pull, so that they don't confuse
the rest of us with their parents when they grow up
dominated by hate and fantasies of vegeance against
their parents.

It also gives them a knowledge of where to go if they are
being abused, they can call a ****ing cop, like any of
the rest of us!

The Democratic Majority and its Rule of Law is more important
than the stupid imaginary "Family" of your sick Fundy religious
fables.

The "Family" can fall apart, get divorced, abuse you, but the
Democratic People's State can and will protect you from the
random bad luck of being subjected to the idiots in your "Family"!
Steve


in message ...
"R. Steve Walz" wrote

No, I'm a Communist.
Marx was one writer, and his was not the only kind of Communism.

For future reference, I believe in "Universal rightful home possession,
and from each according to his labor hours, to each according to his
labor hours, adjusted democratically by equally distributed collective
social costs required for a decent society."

(Kane) wrote in message . com...
(Greg Hanson) wrote in message . com...
You and your various cronies, and
it seems you are down to about two

The WYSIWYG theory on politics?

What has that to do with the only portion of my post you left
attributed?

Come on, Kane, even I think you know better.
If you went to a Socialist convention and
see Socialists all around you, would you
REALLY think that was the dominant view?

No, but I have a hunch you would.

I have actually asked several people NOT
to back me up, Kane. Can you guess why?

No, child, why?

and one of those seems to avoid you,

Point the finger. You know you want to!

No. No I don't.

have a habit of assuming, I guess because
you have the problem, that everyone thinks
and believes in absolutes.

You're the one proposing removing parental perogative to spank.

Dimwit. In fact I'm sometimes just a little guilty feeling because I
don't lobby for such laws...but then I don't want them. And I said so.

Where have I proposed removing the parental perogative to spank?

Point to the request for laws made by me.

I've made it plain before that I am not happy
with any persons that use their religion
(often misinterpeting it badly) as a rationale
for abuse of children.

So what?

To point out your are lying again?

Who does that statement serve?

You just tried to suggest I was abandoning athiesm. It serves to set
you straight on both that and my actually stand on religion and
spanking.

Are you trying to conceal your atheist bias and zeal?

No. What an odd thing to say to someone that has announced my atheism
in this ng more than once.

When you say "not happy" you severely understate.

You can read. I'm delighted, but you cannot read minds. What I would
like to do, and what I actually do, as is so in normal human beings,
are often far apart.

I have the knowledge and experience to think that laws might do harm
on this issue. Since I believe that it is congruent for me to urge
people strongly to consider a voluntary solution. I use more than one
way to do that.

Tell the truth about what your atheism means, Kane.

Okay...yah got me. I'll fess'up.

My atheism means that I don't believe in fairies, goblins, or old
white men with beards, running the universe. I believe that those that
do simply cannot cope with two things...the unknown, and their own
mortality.

And just to give you something to chew on, since I think this is the
whole thing, I would like to treat children with dignity, respect, and
gentleness so they may grow up to see a benevolent universe where they
are not victims.

And of course will kill the first son of a bitch like you that tries
to manipulation and exploit them.

The others, they and I live in peace with each other.

Playing violins?

That clearly reflects the difference you and I have about the nature
of the universe. You looooove to wallow, along with your cronies that
helped you write this, R R R R, in a nasty brutish universe. I don't.
I believe it's what we make it, hence I am the natural enemy of you
assholes.

And it's Classical Guitar for me thanks.

And we might just lend each other a hand
to remove the millenniums of evil child
rearing practices.

Megalomania and imposition from a minority.

That is exactly what you and your kind have been up to regarding
children for millenia. You have imposed your will on them without
reason, much to the deteriment of humankind.

You actually shame your own cause by
being such a rabid extremist.

Stealin' my stuff again?

And Greegor, tell him to move his hand higher up your ass, you are one
sorry sock puppet.

Imagine...all of use working together regardless of
our ethnicity, religion, class or status...

You're a better liberal than the other liberals.

Since I'm not one that counts as yet another attempt to hide your
bigotry.

Ultraliberal.

Nice try...no cigar.

Tokenizing

Who do I tokenize? Point out the words I used.

and patronizing.

Of you? Of course. You're a dangerous psychologically arrested child.

Some of those minorities you tokenize don't
want to be patronized.

Which minorities am I tokenizing and how did you manage to go off
topic in this particular direction?

Are you sure it's not you idiots that do NOT understand children and
force your own sick bias on them hate to be caught at your games?

just to make YOU a victim.

Funny! Your delusion is just to intimidate??

It pleases me that you are amused. You need to lighten up.

What is my delusion and how am I attempting to intimidate?

And why do you use two question marks? And if the moon isn't green
cheese why isn't it Riccota?

Didn't that just get yah in the cajones? R R R R R

Yes, can't you tell by my involuntary laughter?

You laugh when you get a woody? Okay, if you say so.

I doubt that it proposes banning just
use of implements, because that's already
banned in most states.

No, I found nothing on the website in question,
that "banned" anything or advocated banning
except this lovely "train up a child" instrument.

Why do I care what's on some nutty web site?

Why would you make claims about it if you do not care?

Is it YOUR web site?

No. It would be inconsistent in it's other parts with my beliefs for
it to be mine.

Whose web site, exactly, is it?

The people that put it up I think identify themselves.

Why are you suddenly so interested in a website you don't care about?

By that I mean what individual or organization
runs it? Who is behind the "front"?

I've no idea. The owner of the website has communicated with me but of
course this being a virtual world I can't be sure of anything. Let's
just say I had to go on "faith."

I did see a gentle plea for an end to
abuse of children though.

So it IS a web site run by a no-spank zealot
for propaganda purposes isn't it?

Have you asked the owners of the web site? I find it very much in
keeping with kind and loving parents thinking.

What is it about spanked people that when they are adults they hate
and fear those that do no with to spanking and try to influence others
not to?

We just terrify you. And we are zero threat to you, except in the
maintenance of your facade of madness.

Actually the use of implements is NOT banned
in most states. It's about 50 50 last I heard.
Check out the states that allow paddling in
schools.

Please cite statistics.

You made the original claim, then cut it from this post. YOU site the
stats to support YOUR poitions.

Biased, authoritative or both.

As I said. ...

My bet is The Rod already is included
in the array of scholarly
instructional tools at some schools.

Like the one you have?

The very same one I'd suppose. I hadn't heard there were other models.

Or to be used on kids in an elementary school?

Why are you going on and on with such babble?

My old school had a paddle on display,
long after it was not legal to use.

We keep other medieval instruments of torture in museums and in the
tours of old castles in Europe in their doungeon keeps.

Owning it and using are not the same thing,
wouldn't you agree, Kane?

Yep. Do you agree that those that own it can use it if they choose?


Are you going to find a way to enforce
"Honor thy Father and Mother"?

Greg expands:

The sockpuppet exands with it's hand up Greegor's ass:

I'm asking about what CPS can do to reverse the
undermining of parental authority with their children?

No you aren't. You were babbling about me finding a way to enforce one
of the Ten Commandments...hardly something I'd even be interested
in...and it's total nonsense. Children who are honored learn to honor
their parents quiet easily.

Normal humans are like that. It becomes much harder after a generation
or so of brute force parenting.

What can CPS do to end children who reject authority?

Nothing. That's not their mandate. If you want it to be lobby your
state lawmakers for the money and staff.

What can CPS do to put parents back in charge
after CPS undercuts parental authority?

Have them first attend some training so they understand the truth
about child development instead of the stupid brutal
misinterpretations of far too many parents. We watched you crow about
disrupting such a class because you ran into concepts that terrified
your sick little overcontrolling narcissistic mind.

How is undercutting parental authority and
giving kids this idea that "the state" is the
boss over how the parents raise kids, how is
THAT good for making future Democratic citizens?

It's the only choice left to stop the erosion of the basis for
democracy. If you have citizens that are brutes, that themselves have
been taught volent control of others is the way to go politically, you
will grow an authoritarian dictatorship or oligarchy.

If we have a 90% rate of spanking in this country I can understand
some of the trouble we get ourselves into. And the complaints of the
blind about "government taking over etc. blah blah blah."

Of course it is. Spanked children grow up to become Enron and Ultra
conservative right wing fundies.

Gently raised children grow up to be classic conservatives.

I value religion in many ways.

The opiate of the masses, right, Kane?

Could you get a bit stupider?

Or do you just USE religion when it's
convenient to your fanatacism?

I value religion in many ways.

Like you'd value a bug in a jar, eh?

Why yes, you can? Excellent.

I do not beat my wife and never have.

How is he doing?

Naw, Greeg's not that good.

Kane

On 23 Dec 2003 06:23:03 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Kane:
Steve admits to being a COMMUNIST, outright.

Steve seems inordinately honest. Whether I agree with him or not,
refreshing. You aren't in his league and should really give it up. You
are embarrassing yourself yet again.

Are you also a COMMUNIST?

No.

How are your views related to children as
children of the state any different?

I don't know all his views so couldn't really do much of a comparison.
Your phishing again.

He claims to be somewhat close in age to you.

Nope. I'm older. I don't recall him making such a claim. You have a
habit of making assumptions then assigning them to your opponent. If
you were good at it it would be insightful and intelligent of you.

Since you are a dunce it just points that up when you try figuring out
what someone else is about.

He swears like you.

No, we have different styles. You are stupid.

He lacks impulse control, just like you.

Can't speak for him, but I have fine impulse control I don't hit
children when they don't do what I wish them to. I don't punish them
for not having control over bodily functions. And I sure don't see a
need to move in with someone and live off them.

Were you seperated at birth or what?

One of the ways to spot a lack of conscience is by the pointlessness
of someone's attack. When I call you names and make fun of you it's
because you are careless, self serving, child abusing gigolo.

Just what do you think your justifiable motives might be in attacking
me?

That I think abusive parents, and boyfriends of parents, should not
have access to children unless they can get their acts together?

That I know how to raise children without pain and humiliation?

Or is it that I keep exposing you for the simple twit you actually
are?

Is he your long lost twin that you didn't
know you had?

Schoolboy twittery.

You have so little going for you in your life I should probably, out
of charity, let you win one now and then.

But you are so stupid and make such a thorough ass of yourself even
someone of my intelligence can't figure out a way to save you in
debate.

Kane





"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
Greg Hanson wrote:
How is undercutting parental authority and
giving kids this idea that "the state" is the
boss over how the parents raise kids, how is
THAT good for making future Democratic citizens?

It shows children that they are valued and have rights
that are protected by the Majority, even if they are
unlucky enough to be born to complete criminally abusive
assholes as their parents.

It prevents children from imagining that the People's
State tacitly supports all the vicious abusive crap
their asshole parents pull, so that they don't confuse
the rest of us with their parents when they grow up
dominated by hate and fantasies of vegeance against
their parents.

It also gives them a knowledge of where to go if they are
being abused, they can call a ****ing cop, like any of
the rest of us!

The Democratic Majority and its Rule of Law is more important
than the stupid imaginary "Family" of your sick Fundy religious
fables.

The "Family" can fall apart, get divorced, abuse you, but the
Democratic People's State can and will protect you from the
random bad luck of being subjected to the idiots in your "Family"!
Steve



in message ...
"R. Steve Walz" wrote

No, I'm a Communist.
Marx was one writer, and his was not the only kind of Communism.

For future reference, I believe in "Universal rightful home
possession,
and from each according to his labor hours, to each according to
his
labor hours, adjusted democratically by equally distributed
collective
social costs required for a decent society."

On 24 Dec 2003 04:56:04 GMT, (GI Trekker) wrote:

When you post a reply be polite enough, if you don't mind, to
attribute the person you are replying to. thankyouverymuch.


Assault is illegal. Why should an assault against a 2 year old be
legal but not assault against 30 year old?

And if you're defining a simple spanking as "assault", you just blew
your
entire argument.

Define a simple spanking, and with a clear demarcation, since there is
a very wide range of striking called "spanking," of that point when it
becomes assault. It must be concise or....

....you just blew your counter challenge.

Kane

MIB529 wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
Get used to it. He blames missionaries for the fact that Indians
like myself don't have sex with our children. (And then he cites
missionaries as evidence that we once did!)
------------------------
They saw it, so did others.

But you can't cite a source you yourself don't respect, Steve.
--------------------------------------
If supported by others I do, yes I can.

Then name these 'others', Stevie-boy.
-------------------
Do your own homework, you'll learn a lot, and if I tell you you'll
just avoid it.

In other words, you don't have any evidence.
-----------------------------
Erroneous conclusion. You're just being petulant that I won't
waste my time trying to inform you, when you won't permit that
anyway and seek thereby merely to hinder people like me.

Not really. It's easier for you to find sources proving it than
it is for me to find sources disproving it.
------------------------------------
Nonsense. Illogical.


and one the native's side, therefore no ulterior
motive can be assumed. Theodore Rossevelt for one.

A well-known imperialist and eugenist. You'll have to do better than
that.
---------------------------------
Nothing wrong with well-founded eugenics, we do a lot of it these
days via genetic counseling, the same that would scandalized the '20's.

And what kind of eugenics do you think the Progressive Party favored, you
poor naive fool? The genetic counseling of today, or the 'sterilize all
the poor and nonwhites' of their own era?
----------------------------------
Uninterested. That's unrelated to anything I've ever said, you're
tossing smoke bombs.

I'd think coerced sterilizations are relevant, personally. I mean,
had the UN existed then, doing such things would quickly get you
before international court. Well, that is, if your victims happen
to be European; no one at IHS was ever arrested for giving Indian
women an 'appendectomy'.
------------------------------------
Not my position, why are you being disingenuous?


As an imperialist, to suggest leaving them be, He was obviously
unprejudiced.

He transferred 2.5 million acres of Indian land to national forests. So
much for 'leaving them be'.
-------------------------------
There was nobody there. He thereby saved them for later descendant
claims, but by no fault of his were never were permitted. Go read-up.

Oh, yes, because of ANOTHER clueless liberal, Alice Fletcher! You're
not doing yourself many favors; even in cases of someone being on
the society in question's side, personal biases can creep in.
--------------------------------
I have no idea who Alice Fletcher is, or what (her) politics are/were.

Again, you're being disingenuous in not speaking to what *I* promote.
Steve

Greg Hanson wrote:

S: An agnostic cannot be a Rightist.
S: Not unless what he claims he doesn't
S: know is the whole body of human learning.

G: Could you please diagram the logic of that
G: and explain why one precludes the other?
---------------

answer:
S: A Rightist presumes all sorts of things that
S: have never been evidenced.
S: An "agnostic" literally "does not know".


G: It doesn't follow.
G: Thinking error again, Steve.

S: Your error.
---------------
You should start reading what I said, instead of merely typing
something to try to save face.


G: I have heard definitions of agnostic that
G: are different from yours. More along the
G: lines that we CANNOT know. But what was
G: your claptrap about "what he claims he doesn't
G: know is the whole body of human learning."?
G: What the heck does that have to do with it?
--------------------------------
Anyone who claims he can't know and claims that it makes
him a Rightist, must actually be ignorant of the whole
body of human learning.


G: By the way, I label myself a deliberate agnostic.

S: You're merely an erroneous agnostic.
S: You haven't the honesty or couth for
S: agnosticism.

G: You are no one to judge any of that.
----------------------------------
Sure I am. Who the **** would I HAVE to be!


S: Religious dogma is often propagated by
S: misconceived imagined atheists.

G: Are going mumbltypeg Steve?
G: How could atheists create religious dogma?
G: Can you give an example?

S: Not "create", propagate, you idiot.

S: They having been raised in a religious state,
S: believe that religion is merely "normal" and
S: of the state and don't recognize it for the
S: religious fraud that the state has been
S: enlisted to defend and propagate secularly.
S: Such things as oppression of sexuality and
S: propagation of classism and racism are
S: mostly of this kind.

S: disguised as secular politic. Transparent.

G: Perhaps your definition of secular is somewhat
G: extreme? You must be quite the raging atheist.
G: Most people would use the word "rabid" since
G: you are such an extremist in your intolerance.

S: I'm not an atheist OR an agnostic regarding the Divine.
S: I KNOW the Truth, and that it's NOT YOURS EITHER!

S: But my "religion", a wrong name for what I have,
S: is none that has gone before.

Worshipping yourself is not a new concept.
----------------------
Hah! You're lying again instead of thinking, eh? Classsic.
Steve

Greg Hanson wrote:

Steve actually justified the undercutting of parental
authority as good for the "People's State".

Shortly Steve announced that he is a Communist.
------------------------------
Yeah, decades previous.
Steve


"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
Greg Hanson wrote:
How is undercutting parental authority and
giving kids this idea that "the state" is the
boss over how the parents raise kids, how is
THAT good for making future Democratic citizens?

It shows children that they are valued and have rights
that are protected by the Majority, even if they are
unlucky enough to be born to complete criminally abusive
assholes as their parents.

It prevents children from imagining that the People's
State tacitly supports all the vicious abusive crap
their asshole parents pull, so that they don't confuse
the rest of us with their parents when they grow up
dominated by hate and fantasies of vegeance against
their parents.

It also gives them a knowledge of where to go if they are
being abused, they can call a ****ing cop, like any of
the rest of us!

The Democratic Majority and its Rule of Law is more important
than the stupid imaginary "Family" of your sick Fundy religious
fables.

The "Family" can fall apart, get divorced, abuse you, but the
Democratic People's State can and will protect you from the
random bad luck of being subjected to the idiots in your "Family"!
Steve

in message ...
"R. Steve Walz" wrote

No, I'm a Communist.
Marx was one writer, and his was not the only kind of Communism.

For future reference, I believe in "Universal rightful home possession,
and from each according to his labor hours, to each according to his
labor hours, adjusted democratically by equally distributed collective
social costs required for a decent society."

Greg Hanson wrote:

Kane:
Steve admits to being a COMMUNIST, outright.
Are you also a COMMUNIST?
------------------------
What are you trying to show? Would you desperately like to convince
yourself that the Leftist Majority is actually a minority by showing
that there are actually many fewer Leftists because we are each
secretly masquerading as two or more voters??


How are your views related to children as
children of the state any different?
--------------------------
Gee, he imagines that the current govt believes that its children
are less important than a Communst govt would be.


He claims to be somewhat close in age to you.
He swears like you.
---------------
Liberals know that there are NO "dirty words".


He lacks impulse control, just like you.
---------------
Hah! He thinks that his brainwashed conformity counts as
"impulse control"!!


Were you seperated at birth or what?

Is he your long lost twin that you didn't
know you had?
------------------------
More useless disingenuity, instead of any reasoned opposition.
He's incapable of it!
Steve



"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...
Greg Hanson wrote:
How is undercutting parental authority and
giving kids this idea that "the state" is the
boss over how the parents raise kids, how is
THAT good for making future Democratic citizens?

It shows children that they are valued and have rights
that are protected by the Majority, even if they are
unlucky enough to be born to complete criminally abusive
assholes as their parents.

It prevents children from imagining that the People's
State tacitly supports all the vicious abusive crap
their asshole parents pull, so that they don't confuse
the rest of us with their parents when they grow up
dominated by hate and fantasies of vegeance against
their parents.

It also gives them a knowledge of where to go if they are
being abused, they can call a ****ing cop, like any of
the rest of us!

The Democratic Majority and its Rule of Law is more important
than the stupid imaginary "Family" of your sick Fundy religious
fables.

The "Family" can fall apart, get divorced, abuse you, but the
Democratic People's State can and will protect you from the
random bad luck of being subjected to the idiots in your "Family"!
Steve

in message ...
"R. Steve Walz" wrote

No, I'm a Communist.
Marx was one writer, and his was not the only kind of Communism.

For future reference, I believe in "Universal rightful home possession,
and from each according to his labor hours, to each according to his
labor hours, adjusted democratically by equally distributed collective
social costs required for a decent society."