I have a 14-year old. She tells us that she doesn't like boys... and
we believe her.
She spends all her babysitting money on Hollister and American Eagle
to look good for herself! Those make-up sessions are for her own
I already raised 2 girls. I'd like to think successfully. The oldest
just got married at age 27, just last year. That's more like it. 21
would have been fine by me too.
So much of it depends on the individual. Some are old and wise enough
at 18. My sister was. Some are never old and wise enough.
You might ought to take a better look at some of today's 13 year olds,
and the way they act. But my biggest dislike goes for the guys who
molest toddlers, and there seems to be an ever-increasing number of
those. I don't know whether that's more getting caught, or the fact
that the percentage is increasing, but that news is always hard to
Tim, not too long ago, some asshole here, caught and convicted of
molesting a three year old, said she was coming on to him. No denial,
no nothing. Just a statement that she was coming on to him. Three
years old. I might be wrong. The child might have been four.
If hell exists, there needs to be a special niche for people like him,
say 10 or 11 steps below Adolf and Uncle Joe.
Ah, but don't you know that's not bigotry -- just ask Robatoy. You see
it's OK to attack people who hold religious beliefs (unless they are
islamic, then it's racist).
Just for the record, I don't believe that having laws enacted to enforce
religious viewpoints is a good idea. It a) turns people off to religion
and/or b) it makes people comfortable with a civic righteousness that may
actually do more harm than good by making people think they are doing right
by the Lord.
OTOH, having certain laws that enforce moral codes does make for a more
prosperous and peaceful society. Things like "do not steal", "do not
commit murder" are pretty good ideas regardless of one's religious beliefs.
The idea that adultery may be a bad idea goes beyond just religious
injunctions, it prevents various STD's and maintains the integrity of the
family -- all beneficial to society. Same thing goes for the idea of not
bearing false witness -- preserving peoples' reputations also benefits
society. Same for the idea of coveting, that leads to the idea that "what
is yours should be mine", leading to either a) theft, or b) the idea that
people can elect others to the government to take from some people and give
to them. Respect for parents and authority? Again, that provides for a
peaceful society and good relations among people in that society.
The real problem here is the continuing incrementalism, the more
traditional societal norms are destroyed, the more problems we are going to
see in society.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:17:06 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
As long as those NGOs are not taking government funds, I agree in
principle. Unfortunately, most of them are grabbing all they can get.
And we have to be on the alert for those who think "lack of recognition"
and "exclusion" are the same thing. A private hospital may well refuse to
provide equal benefits for employees based on whatever, but they should
not be able to refuse treatment. Nor should they be able to exclude a
legal partner from visitation rights or a voice in care decisions.
On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:00:30 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
So the private health care system has the right to refuse treatment to
anyone it dislikes or whom it feels will not be a profit opportunity? I
don't think you'll find a lot of support for that viewpoint.
Oh, and don't forget interstate commerce. Does the air you
breathe cross state lines?
Perhaps more to the point, does the sate have laws governing
insurance, employment, etc etc? If so, must the state not enforce
them consistently with the 24th Amendment? But what does that
Last I checked, the 14th Amendment stopped at private property
property not open to the public (there is a term of art I am
here.). If you want to keep white peopleo ut of your home, fine. A
shopping mall, no. A private club, yes.
Dunno if that is the best place to draw the line, but where ever it
is drawn it is bound to be fuzzy.
Last I heard, Scalia thought it was fine for the Feds to make it
illegal to grow or smoke locally grown pot, in private. I wonder
if would think it is OK for local governments to prohibit smoking
tobacco in public?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.