Hillary was right
Tom Ryan
Given all the help and attention being showered on the McCaugheys by
their friends, their families, their church and virtually every
resident of Carlisle; given the dozens of medical professionals who
provided Bobbi McCaughey and her seven children with hundreds of
thousands of dollars in sophisticated, high-tech care that the family
cannot hope to afford; given the free diapers, the free van, the new
home courtesy of the governor -- given all that, can anybody
(especially Republican politicians and talk-show hosts) still say with
a straight face that it doesn't take a village to raise a child?
Tom
Hunkster
Without any problem at all Tom. Your confusing charity with a vaule
system. A huge leap of logic.
Cherryhea...@net.com
On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:36:22 GMT, thr...@uic.edu (Tom Ryan) wrote:
>Given all the help and attention being showered on the McCaugheys by
>their friends, their families, their church and virtually every
>resident of Carlisle; given the dozens of medical professionals who
>provided Bobbi McCaughey and her seven children with hundreds of
>thousands of dollars in sophisticated, high-tech care that the family
>cannot hope to afford; given the free diapers, the free van, the new
>home courtesy of the governor -- given all that, can anybody
>(especially Republican politicians and talk-show hosts) still say with
>a straight face that it doesn't take a village to raise a child?
>
>Tom
It does take a village if you are a liberal like Bill or Hillary and
ignore your child and expect someone else to do most of the work. If
you are a concerned Republican or Conservative you do not expect the
State to do Your Job. In that case it takes Parents to "Raise" a
Child. In the case with seven children all at once it will take
parents relatives and friends, Americans not socialists to help in the
"childcare", but raising the children is still the responsibility of
the parents thank God. But if Bill or Hillary and their cohorts in
crime have their way the brainwashing of children will be carried out
by the state, the "village". Will all parents do a good Job in some
cases? No. Will the state do a good job in most cases, Absolutely
not.
John Parker
On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:36:22 GMT, thr...@uic.edu (Tom Ryan) wrote:
>Given all the help and attention being showered on the McCaugheys by
>their friends, their families, their church and virtually every
>resident of Carlisle; given the dozens of medical professionals who
>provided Bobbi McCaughey and her seven children with hundreds of
>thousands of dollars in sophisticated, high-tech care that the family
>cannot hope to afford; given the free diapers, the free van, the new
>home courtesy of the governor -- given all that, can anybody
>(especially Republican politicians and talk-show hosts) still say with
>a straight face that it doesn't take a village to raise a child?
>
Yea, I can still say it, all right. What we have in Iowa is a case
where the need for charity just happens to coincide with other
people's self promotion goals, and the parents don't apparently have
enough self respect to turn down the free perks. I'd say that this is
a case where the establishment has brainwashed these poor people into
accepting handouts, turning the children into wards of the community,
and probably sentencing them to lives under a microscope. The
question here isn't what it takes to raise a child, it's an example of
how many people can figure ways to "cash in" on something that doesn't
concern them, and will most certainly become an example of how badly
you can screw up children and their family by trying to get too many
greedy outsiders involved in their raising.
-John Parker
Hunkster
On Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:04:23 GMT, Cherryhea...@net.com wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:36:22 GMT, thr...@uic.edu (Tom Ryan) wrote:
>
>>Given all the help and attention being showered on the McCaugheys by
>>their friends, their families, their church and virtually every
>>resident of Carlisle; given the dozens of medical professionals who
>>provided Bobbi McCaughey and her seven children with hundreds of
>>thousands of dollars in sophisticated, high-tech care that the family
>>cannot hope to afford; given the free diapers, the free van, the new
>>home courtesy of the governor -- given all that, can anybody
>>(especially Republican politicians and talk-show hosts) still say with
>>a straight face that it doesn't take a village to raise a child?
>>
>>Tom
>It does take a village if you are a liberal like Bill or Hillary and
>ignore your child and expect someone else to do most of the work. If
>you are a concerned Republican or Conservative you do not expect the
>State to do Your Job. In that case it takes Parents to "Raise" a
>Child. In the case with seven children all at once it will take
>parents relatives and friends, Americans not socialists to help in the
>"childcare", but raising the children is still the responsibility of
>the parents thank God. But if Bill or Hillary and their cohorts in
>crime have their way the brainwashing of children will be carried out
>by the state, the "village". Will all parents do a good Job in some
>cases? No. Will the state do a good job in most cases, Absolutely
>not.
Well said.
Hunkster
HENRY E. KILLEARNY III
(Tom Ryan) wrote:
>
> >Given all the help and attention being showered on the McCaugheys by
> >their friends, their families, their church and virtually every
> >resident of Carlisle; given the dozens of medical professionals who
> >provided Bobbi McCaughey and her seven children with hundreds of
> >thousands of dollars in sophisticated, high-tech care that the family
> >cannot hope to afford; given the free diapers, the free van, the new
> >home courtesy of the governor -- given all that, can anybody
> >(especially Republican politicians and talk-show hosts) still say
> >with a straight face that it doesn't take a village to raise a child?
It takes a FAMILY to raise a child. Of course, if the family structure
has disintegrated, perhaps a village is the next choice.
So what is the answer, fix the family or relegate the children to a
second-tier solution?
By the basenote title, I thought you were going to talk about Hillary's
"Silent Crisis" in child care which was so critical a few weeks ago that
she felt compelled to bring it to the national forefront. Do you
remember her hitting all of the talk shows?
Oh yeah, that one bombed out totally! Let's just pretend it didn't
happen as that might remind people just how "in touch" Hillary is.
Billy K
Steve Myers
I think that the point is being missed. No one has said that anyone is
going to raise the children other than the McCaugheys. This is a "special"
event and as such there are a lot of individuals and organizations that
want to help. In some cases it is for publicity or promotion. At no point
have the parents indicated that anyone but themselves would be raising the
children. Of course everyone wants to help, when we had our kids my
mother-in-law moved in for about 2-3 months to help. Those 3 months were
the longest years I'll ever remember. At some point all of the hoopla will
die down and who will be left? The parents and the children.
To be honest, this kind of "charity" makes more sense than if they had
turned to the government to assist. They are getting almost exactly what
they need and it is not involuntarily taking money out of someone's pocket
to do it. Does this kind of thing happen anywhere else? Yes, it may not
get the publicity and it may not have a direct focus - but there are
Doctors and Lawyers, Computer Technicians, Policemen, Cooks, Corporations,
etc. that volunteer time, services, and goods for the betterment of all.
To help the poor and underpriviliged without government programs. Is any
of this bad? No. Does it promote socialism or the village concept? No, it
reinforces that people are basically good and can do things for the
betterment of all without having to be an intrusive part of everyone's
lives. Some people may need help while others may give it.
John Parker <jhparker$@mailbag.com> wrote in article
John Parker
On Fri, 28 Nov 1997 07:16:48 -0800, "HENRY E. KILLEARNY III"
<hek5...@prairie.net> wrote:
>
>It takes a FAMILY to raise a child. Of course, if the family structure
>has disintegrated, perhaps a village is the next choice.
Well at least Buddy and I agree on this one. If a family is not
available for some reason, the only thing left is the community, and
that's why we need to bite the bullet and get children out of homes
that instill negative values into them. We need to drive out the
ridiculous notions that race, color, nationality, gender, gender
choices, or any other stupidity is a factor in how well a person is,
or should be capable of fitting into our societal structure, and when
we do that we are faced with the undeniable fact that a child grows up
to become exactly what his environment taught him to become, and when
we can do that, we can then decide how to best get the children into
positive situations that promote the best chance for a successful
life.
-John Parker
Gary Lantz
That has to be one of the dumbest posts I have ever read.
John Parker <jhparker$@mailbag.com> wrote in article
> On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:36:22 GMT, thr...@uic.edu (Tom Ryan) wrote:
>
> >Given all the help and attention being showered on the McCaugheys by
> >their friends, their families, their church and virtually every
> >resident of Carlisle; given the dozens of medical professionals who
> >provided Bobbi McCaughey and her seven children with hundreds of
> >thousands of dollars in sophisticated, high-tech care that the family
> >cannot hope to afford; given the free diapers, the free van, the new
> >home courtesy of the governor -- given all that, can anybody
> >(especially Republican politicians and talk-show hosts) still say with
> >a straight face that it doesn't take a village to raise a child?
> >
>
Gary - KJ6Q
John Parker <jhparker$@mailbag.com> wrote in article
<348a0109...@news.binc.net>...
> On Fri, 28 Nov 1997 07:16:48 -0800, "HENRY E. KILLEARNY III"
> <hek5...@prairie.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >It takes a FAMILY to raise a child. Of course, if the family structure
> >has disintegrated, perhaps a village is the next choice.
>
> Well at least Buddy and I agree on this one. If a family is not
> available for some reason, the only thing left is the community, and
> that's why we need to bite the bullet and get children out of homes
> that instill negative values into them.
HUH? You are claiming that natural children should be *REMOVED* from
families felt to be instilling "negative values" in them? And WHO is to be
appointed JUDGE and exicutioner in those cases. If YOU are a liberal, would
you want a conservative agency deciding whether your children are being
"properly" taught by you?
We need to drive out the
> ridiculous notions that race, color, nationality, gender, gender
> choices, or any other stupidity is a factor in how well a person is,
> or should be capable of fitting into our societal structure,
Your line of reasoning is so deeply flawed as to be totally WORTHLESS! What
you are promoting is a society that is to be forcibly REQUIRED to at all
times teach their children a brand of ethics, morality and conscience that
is established and enforced by a central government that they may fully
disagree with. Easy, if you happen to agree with the government currently
in power - but just imagine YOUR reaction to your own proposal if the
government in power happens to be one YOU disagree with. What would you
think of that policy then?
and when
> we do that we are faced with the undeniable fact that a child grows up
> to become exactly what his environment taught him to become, and when
> we can do that, we can then decide how to best get the children into
> positive situations that promote the best chance for a successful
> life.
> -John Parker
>
It is an unfortunate FACT that much of the flawed reasoning proposed above
by John is *ALREADY* in action daily in our public schools. Many of our
older citizens would not recognize the early history of our country and
government as taught out of modern textbooks that have been extensively
re-written by a liberally based government who has seen fit to attempt to
do with our youngsters what they have failed to do with their parents. In
recent years there have been articles written in major publications
exposing these alterations and new slants in histort - some even going as
far as to modify displays in places such as our Smithsonian Institute to
help with their intent.
Perhaps John Parker will get his wish after all...
--
Gary - KJ6Q
====================
Of *course* Democrats can take a joke...
they've got Bill and Hillary, haven't they?
====================
At least friends and associates of Bill & Hillary
have convictions...
====================
Gun haters: why did gun sales make a record 10%
INCREASE during the same period crime DROPPED 10%
Hunkster
On 28 Nov 1997 19:02:54 GMT, "Gary Lantz" <gar...@defnet.com> wrote:
In your opion of course, since you don't even take the time read your
own. Try it one time, your opion will change Gary
>That has to be one of the dumbest posts I have ever read.
>
>John Parker <jhparker$@mailbag.com> wrote in article
Hunkster
>(Tom Ryan) wrote:
>>
>> >Given all the help and attention being showered on the McCaugheys by
>> >their friends, their families, their church and virtually every
>> >resident of Carlisle; given the dozens of medical professionals who
>> >provided Bobbi McCaughey and her seven children with hundreds of
>> >thousands of dollars in sophisticated, high-tech care that the family
>> >cannot hope to afford; given the free diapers, the free van, the new
>> >home courtesy of the governor -- given all that, can anybody
>> >(especially Republican politicians and talk-show hosts) still say
>> >with a straight face that it doesn't take a village to raise a child?
>
>It takes a FAMILY to raise a child. Of course, if the family structure
>has disintegrated, perhaps a village is the next choice.
>
>So what is the answer, fix the family or relegate the children to a
>second-tier solution?
>
>By the basenote title, I thought you were going to talk about Hillary's
>"Silent Crisis" in child care which was so critical a few weeks ago that
>she felt compelled to bring it to the national forefront. Do you
>remember her hitting all of the talk shows?
>
>Oh yeah, that one bombed out totally! Let's just pretend it didn't
>happen as that might remind people just how "in touch" Hillary is.
>
>Billy K
We will only fix the family crisis (everythings a crisis now) when the
US gets back it's moral compass. Only then will we be on the right
track.
Hunkster
Hunkster
On 28 Nov 1997 16:57:02 GMT, "Steve Myers" <swm...@msn.com> wrote:
>I think that the point is being missed. No one has said that anyone is
>going to raise the children other than the McCaugheys. This is a "special"
>event and as such there are a lot of individuals and organizations that
>want to help. In some cases it is for publicity or promotion. At no point
>have the parents indicated that anyone but themselves would be raising the
>children. Of course everyone wants to help, when we had our kids my
>mother-in-law moved in for about 2-3 months to help. Those 3 months were
>the longest years I'll ever remember. At some point all of the hoopla will
>die down and who will be left? The parents and the children.
>To be honest, this kind of "charity" makes more sense than if they had
>turned to the government to assist. They are getting almost exactly what
>they need and it is not involuntarily taking money out of someone's pocket
>to do it. Does this kind of thing happen anywhere else? Yes, it may not
>get the publicity and it may not have a direct focus - but there are
>Doctors and Lawyers, Computer Technicians, Policemen, Cooks, Corporations,
>etc. that volunteer time, services, and goods for the betterment of all.
>To help the poor and underpriviliged without government programs. Is any
>of this bad? No. Does it promote socialism or the village concept? No, it
>reinforces that people are basically good and can do things for the
>betterment of all without having to be an intrusive part of everyone's
>lives. Some people may need help while others may give it.
>
>John Parker <jhparker$@mailbag.com> wrote in article
>> Yea, I can still say it, all right. What we have in Iowa is a case
>> where the need for charity just happens to coincide with other
>> people's self promotion goals, and the parents don't apparently have
>> enough self respect to turn down the free perks. I'd say that this is
>> a case where the establishment has brainwashed these poor people into
>> accepting handouts, turning the children into wards of the community,
>> and probably sentencing them to lives under a microscope. The
>> question here isn't what it takes to raise a child, it's an example of
>> how many people can figure ways to "cash in" on something that doesn't
>> concern them, and will most certainly become an example of how badly
>> you can screw up children and their family by trying to get too many
>> greedy outsiders involved in their raising.
>>
>> -John Parker
>>
Well said Steve
Gary Frazier
In <01bcfc34$7b368200$2b6ba2cd@default> "Gary - KJ6Q" <gdav...@deletecwnet.com> writes:
>John Parker <jhparker$@mailbag.com> wrote in article
><348a0109...@news.binc.net>...
>> On Fri, 28 Nov 1997 07:16:48 -0800, "HENRY E. KILLEARNY III"
>> <hek5...@prairie.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >It takes a FAMILY to raise a child. Of course, if the family structure
>> >has disintegrated, perhaps a village is the next choice.
>>
Parker is revealing his true fascist colors here. Let him go ahead and rant.
--
Gary
http://www.efn.org/~gfrazier
Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! http://www.cauce.org
D...@webtv.net
Bill and didn't ignore their child and expect someone else to raise her.
Was that a silly lie or a silly error?
D...@webtv.net
Why should anyone fight for a country if they raised by only a family?
Mitchell Holman
In article <348a0109...@news.binc.net>, jhparker$@mailbag.com (John Parker) wrote:
}On Fri, 28 Nov 1997 07:16:48 -0800, "HENRY E. KILLEARNY III"
}<hek5...@prairie.net> wrote:
}
}>
}>It takes a FAMILY to raise a child. Of course, if the family structure
}>has disintegrated, perhaps a village is the next choice.
}
}Well at least Buddy and I agree on this one. If a family is not
}available for some reason, the only thing left is the community, and
}that's why we need to bite the bullet and get children out of homes
}that instill negative values into them.
And who gets to decide what is a "negative value"?
Jerry Fallwal? Pat Robertson? David Duke? There is no
shortage of small minds that think secular humanism,
evolution, interracial marriages and the separation of
church and state are "negative values".
John Parker
On 28 Nov 1997 13:19:22 -0800, gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) wrote:
>In <01bcfc34$7b368200$2b6ba2cd@default> "Gary - KJ6Q" <gdav...@deletecwnet.com> writes:
>
>
>>John Parker <jhparker$@mailbag.com> wrote in article
>><348a0109...@news.binc.net>...
>>> On Fri, 28 Nov 1997 07:16:48 -0800, "HENRY E. KILLEARNY III"
>>> <hek5...@prairie.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >It takes a FAMILY to raise a child. Of course, if the family structure
>>> >has disintegrated, perhaps a village is the next choice.
>>>
>>> Well at least Buddy and I agree on this one. If a family is not
>>> available for some reason, the only thing left is the community, and
>>> that's why we need to bite the bullet and get children out of homes
>>> that instill negative values into them.
>
Jeez, talk about ranting......You children can relax, I didn't mean to
imply that teaching of moral values should be controlled by the state.
It is clear, however that the current welfare situation continues to
breed generation after generation of welfare people. What I was
proposing, and the only thing I was proposing was the concept that if
a parent is financially unable to provide for the wellbeing of their
children, and requires the state to support it, the child is probably
better off being removed from that parent before it becomes en grained
into it's little head that it is OK to let somebody else take care of
you. It's clear enough to me that you can't expect a child to grow
into a responsible adult when all of it's role models were totally
irresponsible.
-John Parker
Loki
>It is an unfortunate FACT that much of the flawed reasoning proposed above
>by John is *ALREADY* in action daily in our public schools. Many of our
>older citizens would not recognize the early history of our country and
>government as taught out of modern textbooks that have been extensively
>re-written by a liberally based government who has seen fit to attempt to
>do with our youngsters what they have failed to do with their parents. In
>recent years there have been articles written in major publications
>exposing these alterations and new slants in histort - some even going as
>far as to modify displays in places such as our Smithsonian Institute to
>help with their intent.
While I in general agreed with most of your post, here I have issues.
While it is true that much of our history has been rewritten, is that
necessarily a bad thing? Keep reading before responding. The dates
remain the same, but the events are often (though not always) written
from a defferent perspective-one equally true.
It is true that history is written by victors, but the perspective of
victors is not alway a universal truth. When I went to school we were
taught of how American Indians were savages and that Custer was a
hero. From one perspective, that may have been true. However from the
perspective of the women and children who were butchered at Wounded
Knee it was not completely accurate.
Is it then, necessarily a bad thing to demonstrate that there were
multiple perspectives and that history, not being as absolute a
science as math for example, deserves a viewing from many varied
points of view?
Loki
GLC1173
Tom babbled:
>>Given all the help and attention being showered on the >>McCaugheys by
>>their friends, their families, their church and virtually >>every
>>resident of Carlisle; given the dozens of medical >>professionals who
>>provided Bobbi McCaughey and her seven children with >>hundreds of
>>thousands of dollars in sophisticated, high-tech care that >>the family
>>cannot hope to afford; given the free diapers, the free van, >>the new
>>home courtesy of the governor -- given all that, can >>anybody
>>(especially Republican politicians and talk-show hosts) >>still say with
>>a straight face that it doesn't take a village to raise a >>child?
Yeah.- I can.
Within a week of the septuplet family getting all the freebies, other
multiple-birth parents angrily griped that they had to raise triplets (or more)
on their own without the governor getting them a free new home or any car
dealer giving them a free van.
Family members are not the "village" Hillary had in mind, either. She did
not mean that it takes parents, siblings, and grandparents - she meant
*unrelated* people, in short taxpayers.
Can I say with a straight face that it does not "take a village to raise a
child?" YES - just look how Africa, the birthplace of that saying, is doing in
every index of public health and child-rearing. Black African countries have
the world's lowest literacy rates, the highest AIDS rates (and other VD), and
generally are at the bottom of every known statistic of public health or social
success - even ones not related directly to poverty.
Bill Lynch
John Parker wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Nov 1997 07:16:48 -0800, "HENRY E. KILLEARNY III"
> <hek5...@prairie.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >It takes a FAMILY to raise a child. Of course, if the family structure
> >has disintegrated, perhaps a village is the next choice.
>
> Well at least Buddy and I agree on this one.
Wrong Henry.
Bill Lynch
> If a family is not
> available for some reason, the only thing left is the community, and
> that's why we need to bite the bullet and get children out of homes
> that instill negative values into them. We need to drive out the
> ridiculous notions that race, color, nationality, gender, gender
> choices, or any other stupidity is a factor in how well a person is,
> or should be capable of fitting into our societal structure, and when
John Parker
>John Parker wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Nov 1997 07:16:48 -0800, "HENRY E. KILLEARNY III"
>> <hek5...@prairie.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >It takes a FAMILY to raise a child. Of course, if the family structure
>> >has disintegrated, perhaps a village is the next choice.
>>
>> Well at least Buddy and I agree on this one.
>
>Wrong Henry.
whoops, sorry.
>Bill Lynch
>
>> If a family is not
>> available for some reason, the only thing left is the community, and
>> that's why we need to bite the bullet and get children out of homes
>> that instill negative values into them. We need to drive out the
>> ridiculous notions that race, color, nationality, gender, gender
>> choices, or any other stupidity is a factor in how well a person is,
>> or should be capable of fitting into our societal structure, and when
>> we do that we are faced with the undeniable fact that a child grows up
>> to become exactly what his environment taught him to become, and when
>> we can do that, we can then decide how to best get the children into
>> positive situations that promote the best chance for a successful
>> life.
>> -John Parker
-John Parker
John Parker
On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:38:52 GMT, lo...@NOSPAMmidtown.net (Loki) wrote:
>
>It is true that history is written by victors, but the perspective of
>victors is not alway a universal truth. When I went to school we were
>taught of how American Indians were savages and that Custer was a
>hero. From one perspective, that may have been true. However from the
>perspective of the women and children who were butchered at Wounded
>Knee it was not completely accurate.
not to mention the men, huh?
-John Parker
USSMontana
In article <01bcfc1e$a12e0f20$4f1133cf@swmyers>, "Steve Myers"
<swm...@msn.com> writes:
>I think that the point is being missed. No one has said that anyone is
going to raise the children other than the McCaugheys
The point is being missed by you. I doubt that you will ever "get" it either.
Your mother-in-law was part of the village. So is your next door neighbor, so
is your pharmacy and pediatrician and everyone else that comes in contact with
your child, football coach, baseball/softball coach, dance teacher, english
teacher. DO YOU REALLY NOT COMPREHEND THIS? It's so sad that your veiw is so
limited that your blinders are so tight. I pity your child
Mimi Weasel
(feeling sorry for the pitiful people who want no interaction from their own
little village)
USSMontana
In article <01bcfc30$486c0600$b9a713cf@default>, "Gary Lantz"
<gar...@defnet.com> writes:
>That has to be one of the dumbest posts I have ever read
Isn't it sad that these greedy f*cks can not understand the simplest of
concepts?
You are right it was a stupid post the he (Parkie) made, but you know "stupid
is as stupid does" :)
Mimi Weasel
USSMontana
>>It takes a FAMILY to raise a child. Of course, if the family structure
>has disintegrated, perhaps a village is the next choice.
Would that be a Repugnantcan family who has multiple partners and only lasts
til the wife's usefulness has worn out? Which Mrs. Dole, the new one or the
used one?
Name ONE Repugnantcan who is still married to their first wife, mother of his
child/children. Betcha can't
Mimi Weasel
Loki
>>It is true that history is written by victors, but the perspective of
>>victors is not alway a universal truth. When I went to school we were
>>taught of how American Indians were savages and that Custer was a
>>hero. From one perspective, that may have been true. However from the
>>perspective of the women and children who were butchered at Wounded
>>Knee it was not completely accurate.
>
>not to mention the men, huh?
It is a sad reality, but men who are killed in battle do not count
unless they are either children, elderly, or handicapped.
In the song "Men" Louden Wainright III observes:
"It's the same when there's a war on,
It's the men who go to fight
Women are civilians,
If they're killed it's not right.
Men kill men in uniforms
That's the way war goes
If they run they're cowards
If they die ther are heros
Every man's a general
Men go off to war
A battlefield's a man's world
Cannon fodder's what he's for."
Loki
Gary Frazier
I'm afraid, Mimi, that these folks are so focused in on the "rugged
individual" paradigm for ideological reasons that they totally discount
the role that others have in shaping young lives. They're not willing to
deal with reality. Instead, they imagine some idyllic past where all men
were free...the kicker is, social controls were far more pronounced in
the past than they are now.
They're wishing for a "golden age" that never was.
Hunkster
History should always be from the parties involved perspectives.
That's not the question, It's how much perspective do we give each
party. For the sake of argument lets say that Germany got to write
some of American History in the WWII. Not just any Germans but those
who were in government at the time. True we'd know about the battles
but not about concentration camps, death squads SS. But we'd say that
was part of the War! It needs to be discussed and recorded. That they
weren't really Concentration Camps only Resorts with really bad health
care, There weren't any death squads merely the army couldn't
control some of its men. There was no SS just men that love the
country very much. Now say 50 years later someone wants to include
history about Germany in WWII. We find from "their" perspective now
that we invaded France and Italy, overthrew legal governments killed
children defending their houses. One could come to the conclusion
upon reading this "History" the US shouldn't have been involved in
WWII. I did say for expample, none of us would want this to happen. .
It's what I fear if let views of today try to rewrite history of
yesterday with view that aren't why we did what we (America) did.
Every time in history had its own bad times and good. We must see the
good times with thankfullness and the bad with an eye towards
learning.
John Wonderly
John Parker wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 02:29:42 -0500, Bill Lynch
> <lyn...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >John Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 28 Nov 1997 07:16:48 -0800, "HENRY E. KILLEARNY III"
> >> <hek5...@prairie.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >has disintegrated, perhaps a village is the next choice.
> >>
> >
> >Wrong Henry.
>
> whoops, sorry.
>
> >Bill Lynch
> >
> >> If a family is not
> >> available for some reason, the only thing left is the community, and
> >> that's why we need to bite the bullet and get children out of homes
> >> that instill negative values into them. We need to drive out the
> >> ridiculous notions that race, color, nationality, gender, gender
> >> choices, or any other stupidity is a factor in how well a person is,
> >> or should be capable of fitting into our societal structure, and when
> >> we do that we are faced with the undeniable fact that a child grows up
> >> to become exactly what his environment taught him to become, and when
> >> we can do that, we can then decide how to best get the children into
> >> positive situations that promote the best chance for a successful
> >> life.
> >> -John Parker
>
> -John Parker
children???hmmm...let me guess
Cherryhea...@net.com
On 29 Nov 1997 17:41:45 GMT, ussmo...@aol.com (USSMontana) wrote:
>In article <348a0109...@news.binc.net>, jhparker$@mailbag.com (John
>Parker) writes:
>
>>>It takes a FAMILY to raise a child. Of course, if the family structure
>>has disintegrated, perhaps a village is the next choice.
>
>Would that be a Repugnantcan family who has multiple partners and only lasts
>til the wife's usefulness has worn out? Which Mrs. Dole, the new one or the
>used one?
>Name ONE Repugnantcan who is still married to their first wife, mother of his
>child/children. Betcha can't
>
>Mimi Weasel
The only Reason Hillary is still married to him is because he is
such a gread deceiver, and she knew he would go far and, she would be
there on his coatails. Any self respecting women would not have put
up with Bill and His Lies. In addition to that Hillary also was
making about 200,000 a year at the time and Bill,s Salary was 35,000
as Governor. Hillary would probably have ended up paying Bill
"Alimony" and have lost half their net assets which were mostly earned
by Hillary. It is kown that Hillary is more concerned with money, She
deducted Bill's used underware on their income taxes.
How about the Republican George Bush, and I bet he does not fool
around with as many other women as he can Lilke the Traitorcrat Bill
Clinton. The reason he is a traitorcrat is not that he is a Democrat,
but that he is president of the entire country, and he Lies to the
entire country. He deceives the country not just Republicans. He
divides the country. He is supposed to unite and lead the country.
When Clinton lies to the country he is not representing the country, I
am not sure who he represents other than himself.
Currently the president Bill Clinton is worried about his
"Legacy" and takes actions designed to improve his legacy.
Unfortunately improving his legacy is not necessarly in the best
interests of the people and the country. Imagine if he were to just
do things HONESTLY and BECAUSE THEY WERE RIGHT. If Bill was following
this path he would not have to worry about his Legacy because a great
Legacy would follow him.
Cherryhea...@net.com
On Fri, 28 Nov 1997 20:29:35 -0500, D...@webtv.net wrote:
>Bill and didn't ignore their child and expect someone else to raise her.
>Was that a silly lie or a silly error?
>
>
In ways that is true, but she was raised a great deal by nannies and
other paid caregivers. It is only really a hope that values were
installed in Chelsea by people other than her parents. Hopefully she
has grown up "honest" hard to do when parents put such value in Lying
and deception. It is hoped she will look at facts openly and
objectively.
John Parker
On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 19:45:00 GMT, lo...@NOSPAMmidtown.net (Loki) wrote:
>
>>>It is true that history is written by victors, but the perspective of
>>>victors is not alway a universal truth. When I went to school we were
>>>taught of how American Indians were savages and that Custer was a
>>>hero. From one perspective, that may have been true. However from the
>>>perspective of the women and children who were butchered at Wounded
>>>Knee it was not completely accurate.
>>
>>not to mention the men, huh?
>
>It is a sad reality, but men who are killed in battle do not count
>unless they are either children, elderly, or handicapped.
I don't want to press the point, but wounded knee was not a battle.
In order to have a battle, you have to have both sides fighting. In
order to fight, both sides need to have weapons. Wounded knee was a
massacre.
>In the song "Men" Louden Wainright III observes:
>
> "It's the same when there's a war on,
> It's the men who go to fight
> Women are civilians,
> If they're killed it's not right.
> Men kill men in uniforms
> That's the way war goes
> If they run they're cowards
> If they die ther are heros
> Every man's a general
> Men go off to war
> A battlefield's a man's world
> Cannon fodder's what he's for."
>
>
>Loki
>
-John Parker
garald
Loki <lo...@NOSPAMmidtown.net> wrote in article
<347f29e3....@news.midtown.net>...
>
> >It is an unfortunate FACT that much of the flawed reasoning proposed
above
> >by John is *ALREADY* in action daily in our public schools. Many of our
> >older citizens would not recognize the early history of our country and
> >government as taught out of modern textbooks that have been extensively
> >re-written by a liberally based government who has seen fit to attempt
to
> >do with our youngsters what they have failed to do with their parents.
In
> >recent years there have been articles written in major publications
> >exposing these alterations and new slants in histort - some even going
as
> >far as to modify displays in places such as our Smithsonian Institute to
> >help with their intent.
>
> While I in general agreed with most of your post, here I have issues.
> While it is true that much of our history has been rewritten, is that
> necessarily a bad thing? Keep reading before responding. The dates
> remain the same, but the events are often (though not always) written
> from a defferent perspective-one equally true.
>
> It is true that history is written by victors, but the perspective of
> victors is not alway a universal truth. When I went to school we were
> taught of how American Indians were savages and that Custer was a
> hero. From one perspective, that may have been true. However from the
> perspective of the women and children who were butchered at Wounded
> Knee it was not completely accurate.
>
> Is it then, necessarily a bad thing to demonstrate that there were
> multiple perspectives and that history, not being as absolute a
> science as math for example, deserves a viewing from many varied
> points of view?
>
> Loki
>
Fact is, only *one* point of view is currently being offered - and whether
you or I agree with that one, is overshadowed by the greater underlying
question "WHO is making the moral decisions that change historical
perspectives being taught to today's children?" Wouldn't we all prefer that
FACTUAL basis be used in presentation of historical material used in
schools, (and let the developing kids draw their OWN conclusions) and that
that material NOT reveal the SLIGHTEST slant of those researching, writing
or selecting such material for our kids? If YOU are a pacifist, would you
willing select material presented to your kids to be prepared by militant
activists? Is it too much to demand of our schools to be as neutral as
humanly possible in areas of morality, history and American government? I
think not - but I seriously doubt that is the case in todays classrooms...
garald
GLC1173 <glc...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971129063...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Can I say with a straight face that it does not "take a village to
raise a
> child?" YES - just look how Africa, the birthplace of that saying, is
doing in
> every index of public health and child-rearing. Black African countries
have
> the world's lowest literacy rates, the highest AIDS rates (and other VD),
and
> generally are at the bottom of every known statistic of public health or
social
> success - even ones not related directly to poverty.
>
>
AIN'T it *AMAZING* that turn-of-the-century families - especially those in
rural areas - FREQUENTLY raised large families, often more that 10 in
number, and managed to do so WITHOUT government help or interference!
BUT, today's society has become so gullible and eager for THEIR turn at the
welfare trough, that they are quite willing to fall for the "village"
concept, and line up at the government's gates with their hands
outstretched.
And, while 7 kids at once are a heavier load to bear all at once, their
father made it quite clear that their bills were being handled by their
insurance carrier, and that they intended to live as nearly as possible on
their OWN, outside the public eye. Naturally, MANY commercial interests
were interested in the increased visibility offered when they made
donations to the young family - but they were *commercial* interests, not
governmental.
My family was smaller, only 4, but we neither needed or wanted any
"village" help in supporting and raising our kids...
garald
WELL, John, FIRST you complain about being "misunderstood", THEN you come
up with...
John Parker <jhparker$@mailbag.com> wrote
> Jeez, talk about ranting......You children can relax, I didn't mean to
> imply that teaching of moral values should be controlled by the state.
> It is clear, however that the current welfare situation continues to
> breed generation after generation of welfare people. What I was
> proposing, and the only thing I was proposing was the concept that if
> a parent is financially unable to provide for the wellbeing of their
> children, and requires the state to support it, the child is probably
> better off being removed from that parent before it becomes en grained
> into it's little head that it is OK to let somebody else take care of
> you.
SOOoo, you are AGAIN saying that when a family is down and out, they must
be watched closely to make sure they don't get TOO attached to that welfare
check, or WORSE, begin impressing upon their kids that this way of life is
something they might want to consider as a carreer move.
WELL, let's say YOU fall upon hard times, and find yourself in need of that
nasty welfare dole, exactly how much intrusion do you think you would
endure, as state goons make unannounced visits to your home and your kid's
school to quiz them on any developing attitudes they may be displaying... "
say, little Suzy, how are things at home with your daddy out of work?"
(Suzy replies) "Gee mister, it's sort of nice - daddy is home lots, and
plays with me and little Jimmy all the time!) "Mister" immediately responds
to his sidekick "We gotta get these kids outta that place - they are
beginning to think government welfare is just an unending vacation..."
Farfetched? Don't forget, schoolteachers are REQUIRED BY LAW to report even
the slightest indication of child abuse to local police and juvenile
authorities, and kids hurt and bruised AT PLAY have been removed from their
parents, who have then sweat blood to get them returned! My own daughter's
2 year old daughter had a cop at her door because her daycare center
reported that the young daughter had redness in one eye - which was from
soap getting into it while taking a bath immediately prior to being dropped
off at the center. Fortunately, the policeman was able to quickly see the
redness was already gone, and that the condition of the home and care being
displayed to the kids was not from abusive parents - but that can't always
be assumed to be the reaction of the authorities.
We don't NEED any more stinking government intrusion into our private
lives!
It's clear enough to me that you can't expect a child to grow
> into a responsible adult when all of it's role models were totally
> irresponsible.
OR from a juvenile hall, either...
> -John Parker
John Parker
On 30 Nov 97 04:49:26 GMT, "garald" <gar...@cwnet.com> wrote:
>
>SOOoo, you are AGAIN saying that when a family is down and out, they must
>be watched closely to make sure they don't get TOO attached to that welfare
>check, or WORSE, begin impressing upon their kids that this way of life is
>something they might want to consider as a carreer move.
>
>WELL, let's say YOU fall upon hard times, and find yourself in need of that
Weeeell. let's say I don't instead.
-John Parker
Michael S Payer Jr
Tom Ryan wrote:
> Given all the help and attention being showered on
> the McCaugheys by
> their friends, their families, their church and
> virtually every
> resident of Carlisle; given the dozens of medical
> professionals who
> provided Bobbi McCaughey and her seven children
> with hundreds of
> thousands of dollars in sophisticated, high-tech
> care that the family
> cannot hope to afford; given the free diapers, the
> free van, the new
> home courtesy of the governor -- given all that,
> can anybody
> (especially Republican politicians and talk-show
> hosts) still say with
> a straight face that it doesn't take a village to
> raise a child?
What child ???? that was a litter
MSP
SOMETIMES THE DRAGON WINS
>
>
> Tom