His mother didn't enroll him for religious reasons
Posted By: AnnuderMT on 2009-05-07
In Reply to: parents signed their child up for the religion teaching - of choice....theirs was Islam!
She did what any good mother should do. She checked out the area to find the best possible education for her child. She sent him to a Catholic school for 2 years, too (yet I don't hear anyone arguing that he is Catholic). His mother, still acting like a good mother, regularly re-evaluated who offered the best education for her son. At that time, the public school in the city provided it, which in this case happened to be a Muslim school, which he attended for 2 years.
I will repeat what I mentioned in a previous posting...there are many people who send their children to schools that they do not have an affiliation with- there are many non-Catholics attending Catholic schools, non-Christians attending Christian academies, etc. Even in the public school system, there are a lot of people who do interdistrict transfers and drive 50 miles every day to give their children the benefit of an education that they feel would be better for them, even though there is a neighborhood school walking distance from home.
Mother O's decision to put her child in the best school available to them has nothing to do with embracing Islam. It's just her being a mom.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
You fell for all that religious dogma, didn't you?
X
For the same reasons
they're against gays, anyone of a different religion, a woman's right to choose and all the other things that Americans in general are in favor of. They're like all the other neocon groups who are not happy unless they can force everyone else to believe like they do. That's why I wondered if it was even real. Truth telling and honesty aren't high on their list of priorities, as we've all seen from other similar hateful groups that claim they are morally better than everyone else.
For several reasons
And I'm not required to answer to you for any of them since your only purpose here is to demean people who don't agree with you. (I see that yesterday Mystic left the door wide open and invited friendly, respectful, intelligent dialogue with you below, but you chose to ignore that in favor of continuing on with your rudeness to others in your other posts.) You remind me of a pesky fly that disturbs the peace surrounding the person it invades. If this is typical Israeli behavior, then maybe it's time to take a fresh look at why Israel is having so many problems coexisting in peace with its neighbors.
For any L-I-B-E-R-A-L-S who read the L-I-B-E-R-A-L board and are interested in my reasons for posting this, I'd be glad to list them. After reading this article, these are the questions that came to my mind, and I would appreciate it if LIBERALS would add to this list any questions that are raised in their minds after reading it.
1. I'm trying to understand Hezbollah's commitment to a cease fire. I'm wondering if they would spend the time, effort and money (Iran's) to begin to rebuild if they had plans to violate the cease fire.
2. I'm wondering what impact their doing this will have on other nations of the world in relationship to how they will view Israel and the United States. Will they garner more support, and is it justified?
3. In furtherance of #2 above, will their role in the Lebanese government grow as a result of their concern (be it real or fake) for the Lebanese people whose homes have been destroyed?
4. Finally, I was wondering how long it would take the two-headed snake known as the Bush administration to compete with Hezbollah in the rebuilding of Lebanon, after arming Israel with some of the weapons that caused the destruction, and whether or not Israel will feel betrayed as a result. As you will see below, not long. (Think of all the money we spend there that could be much better used here to truly fight terrorism by keeping our ports, borders and rail systems safer. Is that really where you want your tax dollars to go? Do you want your tax dollars used to supply the weapons to tear down a nation and then supply the money to rebuild it a month later in this cat and mouse game that Bush is playing in the Middle East?)
U.S. Hopes to Rival Hezbollah With Rebuilding Effort
Administration officials say quick action is needed in response to the militant group's reconstruction plans.
By Paul Richter
Times Staff Writer
August 17, 2006
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is scrambling to assemble a plan to help rebuild Lebanon, hoping that by competing with Hezbollah for the public's favor it can undo the damage the war has inflicted on its image and goals for the Middle East.
Administration officials fear that unless they move quickly to demonstrate U.S. commitment, the Lebanese will turn more fully to the militant group, which has begun rolling out an ambitious reconstruction program that Washington believes is bankrolled by Iran.
American officials also believe that the administration must restore its influence to keep a newly assertive Syria from undermining U.S.-supported reformers in Lebanon.
A major rebuilding investment would put the United States in the position of subsidizing both the Israeli munitions that caused the damage and the reconstruction work that will repair it. Such a proposal could meet with resistance from Congress, but administration officials said that the need for action was urgent.
People have been seized by the need to do more, in a tangible way, and they're working feverishly on this, said a senior administration official who asked to remain unidentified because he was speaking about plans still in development. They know we're in a race against time to turn around these perceptions.
U.S. officials and private experts agree that the administration faces an uphill effort trying to outdo Hezbollah, which has a broad local base, well-developed social service programs and the confidence of many Lebanese.
Hezbollah is deeply integrated into Lebanese society, said Jon Alterman, a former State Department official who is head of Middle East studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
We're coming in when there's a sense that we stood by the destruction of Lebanon by an ally, with U.S. weapons, and didn't complain. So we may be too late.
Even so, Alterman said he supported the idea of trying to rebuild U.S. influence in Lebanon at a time when the political situation there is in flux.
The United States has only $50 million in the pipeline for relief and rebuilding in Lebanon, a figure dwarfed by multibillion-dollar estimates of the need. The U.S. is lagging behind some other contributors, such as Saudi Arabia, which has pledged $1.5 billion. An international donors conference is to be held Aug. 31.
But American officials say they expect to expand the effort, which is largely focused on rebuilding the airport, restoring electric power, cleaning up environmental damage and reconstructing some of the estimated 150 destroyed bridges.
The U.S. effort is aimed in part at supporting its allies in the fragile Lebanese central government, which is competing with Hezbollah for influence. Moving rapidly, Hezbollah officials fanned out across the country this week, canvassing the needs of residents and promising help. In some areas of the south, Hezbollah already had fielded cleanup teams with bulldozers.
The U.S. official said talk of a deeper rebuilding role was one of several discussions underway within the administration. He said there was talk about launching a broader diplomatic and economic initiative for the Middle East aimed at increasing involvement in mediating the Arab-Israeli conflict, as well as in regional economic development and politics.
Officials are focused on the idea that things better change, or we're going to have serious problems, he said. Many people in the region believe the United States was a co-combatant in the war, he acknowledged.
With Congress on its August break, lawmakers have not explicitly taken positions on funding for rebuilding. But some influential members have given indications.
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has said he would like the United States to take a lead role in the rebuilding by giving generously and organizing meetings of donors. He has argued that the U.S. missed an opportunity by failing to do more in Lebanon last year, as Syria withdrew its troops from the country, leaving a partial vacuum.
Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, voted for a resolution that called for a postwar donors conference. But he made it clear that there should be careful planning before the U.S. committed large sums, an aide noted.
Alterman, the analyst, said providing aid posed complicated challenges in Lebanon, and that the money could easily be wasted without the United States getting any advantage from it.
Lebanon is a tough commercial environment…. It's tough coming from the outside, trying to identify reliable people, he said. We could end up getting no credit — or, worse yet, it could end up in the bank accounts of the very people who are trying to get us out.
That's just one of many reasons why I'm
3 reasons
1. He fights for us.
2. He admits his mistakes (keating 5)
3. He isn't going to just throw money at a problem.
4. He is a reformer.
Your reasons he shouldn't be:
His age - So what? I've seen perfectly healthy men drop dead at age 52 and people with cancer live to 94.
His temper - Seriously? You're going to use this one? I know three times at least tonight that I wanted to reach out and smack Obama for his smugness. I think he does a very good job of controlling it.
His running mate - I like Palin. If you don't want the "good ol' boys club" and you want a "breath of fresh air" well there ya go. She will go against the majority to fight what she believes in.
His aggression - kinda the same thing as temper. So what? You want a wimp in the White House? There is nothing wrong with being aggressive. He isn't overly aggressive, and sometimes you need a little aggression to get things done.
Of course Obama is going to know how to SAY all the right things, HE'S A LAWYER!!! THEY ARE TRAINED TO DO SO!!! But he hasn't walked the walk! He does not have the experience to be in the white house. He is going to make foolish, costly, mistakes.
As a famous person once said (take a wild guess who)
"The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."
Too bad your reasons
don't have anything to do with McCain being a good candidate.
10 Reasons..........
10 Reasons Why Conservatives' Fiscal Ideas Are Dangerous
By Sara Robinson, Campaign for America's Future
Posted on February 27, 2009, Printed on February 27, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/128900/
Yes, it's true. The conservatives -- that's right, the very same folks who just dragged us along on an eight-year drunken binge during which they borrowed-and-spent us into the deepest financial catastrophe in nearly a century -- are now standing there, faces full of moral rectitude, fingers pointing and shaking in our faces, righteously lecturing the rest of us on the topic of "fiscal responsibility."
I didn't think it was possible. I mean, they were mean enough drunk -- but hung over, in the clear light of morning, it turns out they're even worse.
I know. The choice is hard. Laugh? Cry? Scream? All three at once? It would almost be funny, if it weren't such clear evidence of a complete break with objective reality -- and their ideas of what that "fiscal responsibility" means weren't so dangerous to the future of the country.
The next episode in this surreal moral drama is set to take place next Monday, when President Obama will convene a "fiscal responsibility summit" at the White House to discuss the right's bright new idea for getting us out of this hole: let's just dismantle Social Security and Medicare.
As usual, this proposal is encrusted with a thick layer of diversions, misconceptions, factual errors and out-and-out lies. Here are some of the most pungent ones, along with the facts you need to fire back.
1. Conservatives are "fiscally responsible." Progressives just want to spend, spend, spend.
The comeback to the first assertion is easy: Just point and laugh. Any party that thought giving cost-plus, no-bid contracts to Halliburton was fiscally responsible (and let's not even get started on handing Hank Paulson $700 billion, no questions asked) deserves to be made fun of for using words that are simply beyond its limited comprehension.
And a quick look back at actual history makes them into even bigger fools. For decades now, liberal presidents have been far and away more restrained in their spending, and more likely to turn in balanced budgets. Part of this is that they've got a good grasp of Keynes, and know that the best way out of bad financial times is to make some up-front investments in the American people -- investments which have almost always, in the end, returned far more than we put in.
Conservatives believe wholeheartedly in investment and wealth-building when individuals, families, and corporations do it. But their faith in the power of money well-spent -- and the value of accumulated capital -- completely vanishes when it comes to government spending. They think it's morally wrong for government to ever invest or hold capital -- despite the long trail of successes that have enriched us all and transformed the face of the nation.
Under the conservative definition of "fiscal responsibility, " we'd have never set up the GI Bill and the FHA, which between them launched the post-war middle class (and made possible the consumer culture that generated so much private profit for so many). We wouldn't have 150 years of investment in public education, which for most of the 20th century gave American business access to the smartest workers in the world; or the interstate highway system, which broadened trade and tourism; or research investment via NASA and DARPA, the defense research agency that gave us the microchip and the Internet and made a whole new world of commerce possible. There wouldn't be the consumer protection infrastructure that allowed us to accept new products with easy confidence; or building and food inspectors who guarantee that you're not taking your life in your hands when you flip on a light or sit down to dinner.
What we're proposing now is not "spending." It's the next round of investment that will create the next great chapter in the American future. And the most fiscally irresponsible thing we can do right now is lose our nerve, and fail to prepare for what's ahead.
2. It's not gonna work. Everybody knows the Democrats spent us into this mess in the first place.
The only remaining "everybodys" who "know" this are the ones who are simply impervious to facts.
Ronald Reagan came into office with a national debt of less than $1 trillion. Mostly by cutting taxes on the rich, he grew that debt to $2.6 trillion. George H.W. Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge, but it wasn't enough to keep the debt from ballooning another 50 percent, to $4.2 trillion.
Bill Clinton''s aggressive budget balancing slowed the growth rate a bit: eight years later, he left office with a debt of $5.7 trillion -- and a tight budget in place that, if followed, would have paid whole thing off by 2006. Unfortunately, George W. Bush had no intention of following through with Clinton's plan: on his watch, the debt nearly doubled, from $5.7 to $10.6 trillion. So, nearly 80 percent of the current debt -- about which conservatives now complain -- was acquired on the watch of the three most recent conservative Presidents.
3. $10.6 trillion? But I got this e-mail that says we're looking at a national debt of $56 trillion...
Wow. That's a big, scary number, all right. It's also a perfect example of one of the classic ways people lie with statistics.
This particular mathematical confection was whipped up by Wall Street billionaire and former Nixon Commerce Secretary Pete Peterson, whose Peterson Foundation is the driving force behind the effort to defund Social Security. According to this group, "As of September 30, 2008, the federal government was in a $56 trillion-plus fiscal hole based on the official financial consolidated statements of the U.S. government. This amount is equal to $483,000 per household and $184,000 per American."
This "fact" is only true if you're willing to do a reckless amount of time traveling. The $56 trillion number is what you get if you project the entire U.S. debt a full 75 years into the future, which is how far out you have to go before you can get into numbers that big. In other words: we're not in that hole now -- but we might be in 2084, if we keep going the way we're going now.
Of course, it should be obvious that we're not going to keep going that way -- and that's the other fatal flaw. Peterson's calculations assume that there will be exactly no changes in Social Security and Medicare policy or inputs in the next 75 years -- something that has almost a zero chance of actually happening. Also, there's the usual problem with any kind of long-range projection: even a small error in the calculations at the start will compound over time, creating enormous errors at the end of the range. If he's off by even one percent (which is highly likely), the projection's worthless, even 20 years down the road.
Peterson and his posse are laying bets that Americans are too mathematically and logically challenged to notice the flaws in his reasoning -- even though the holes are big enough to drive an entire generation of retired Boomers through.
4. Whatever. It's still irresponsible to take on that much debt.
Even John McCain's economic adviser thinks this one's wrong. Here's what Mark Zandi said about the U.S. national debt on the February 1 edition of Meet The Press:
It's 40 percent of GDP now. If the projections are right, we get to 60, maybe 70 percent of GDP, which is high, but it's manageable in our historic -- in our history we've been higher, as you pointed out. And moreover, it's very consistent with other countries and their debt loads. And more -- just as important, investors understand this. They know this and they're still buying our debt and interest rates are still very, very low. So we need to take this opportunity and be very aggressive and use the resources that we have at our disposal.
To repeat: Debt is never a good thing; but history is on our side here. We've carried a lot more debt than this in the past; and so have other fiscally responsible countries. And the world's investors are still flocking to buy U.S. bonds -- even though with inflation, they're getting slightly negative interest rates, which means they're effectively paying us to use their money. If they have that much faith in our economy, we're probably not wrong to have a little faith in ourselves. By world standards, we're still looking like a very good bet.
5. But Social Security is headed for disaster. It's out of control!
It's a testament to the short attention spans of the media that the cons try to launch this talking point every six months or so -- and every damned time, the punditocracy goes running flat-out after the bait, fur flying, like an eager but not particularly bright Irish Setter. And then people like us need to collar them, make them sit, scratch their ears, and calmly explain all over again (as if it were brand-new information) that Social Security is in perfectly fine shape, and the conservatives are making much ado about nothing -- again.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that the Social Security trust fund will continue to run a surplus until 2019. (More conservative fund trustees put the date at 2017.) The fund's total assets should hold out until 2046. And that's assuming that nothing changes at all.
If it turns out we do need to make adjustments, there are two very simple ones that will more than make up the difference. One is that we could raise the cap. Right now, people only pay Social Security taxes on the first $102,000 they earn; everything over that goes into their pockets tax-free. Increasing that amount would cover even a fairly large shortfall. And in the unlikely event that fails, we can talk about raising the retirement age to 70 -- a sensible step, given how much longer we live now.
6. Ending Social Security would be well worth it, because putting those deductions back in people's pockets would provide a big enough stimulus to get us out of this mess.
Anyone who spouts this is apparently not counting on the 70 million Boomers whose wallets would snap shut permanently if you withdrew their retirement benefits just a few years before they're going to need them. As Digby put it:
Boomers are still sitting on a vast pile of wealth that's badly needed to be put to work investing in this country. But it's shrinking dramatically and it's making people very nervous. As [Dean] Baker writes, if one of the purposes of the stimulus is to restore some confidence in the future, then talk of fiddling with social security and medicare is extremely counterproductive. If they want to see the baby boomers put their remaining money in the mattress or bury in the back yard instead of prudently investing it, they'd better stop talking about "entitlement reform." This is a politically savvy generation and they know what that means.
If they perceive that social security is now on the menu, after losing vast amounts in real estate and stocks, you can bet those who still have a nestegg are going to start hoarding their savings and refusing to put it back into the economy. They'd be stupid not to.
Bad economies get that way because people no longer trust the future, and refuse to take on the risks associated with spending, lending, or investing. Social Security was created in the first place because FDR understood that a guaranteed old-age income is a major risk-reducer -- not just for elders, but also for their working adult children. And it still is. Affirming the strength of Social Security not only raises the confidence of the Boomers, as Dean and Digby have pointed out, but also of their Xer and Millennial children, who are going to have to add "looking after Mom and Dad" to their list of big-ticket financial obligations if that promise is broken.
Breaking a 70-year-old generational promise for the sake of a little temporary financial stimulus is the very definition of penny-wise and pound-foolish.
7. OK, forget I even mentioned Social Security. Besides, the real problem is Medicare.
Finally, we come down to the truth. There's no question that exponentially rising health care costs -- both Medicare and private insurance -- are unaffordable in the long term; and that getting ourselves back on track financially means getting serious about addressing that.
On close examination, even Peterson's figures eventually reveal this truth. (About 85% of his projected 2084 debt comes from expected Medicare.) Unfortunately, though, most of his materials lump Social Security and Medicare together, creating a fantasy figure that blows the real problem so far out of proportion that you can't even begin to have a rational conversation about it -- which was, of course, the whole point of ginning those numbers up in the first place.
8. Next, you're going to tell me that some kind of government-sponsored health care is the answer.
Yes, we are. The Congressional Budget Office notes that health care costs were only 7 percent of the GDP in 1970 -- and are over double that, at 14.8 percent, now.
Much of that increase came about because in 1970, most health care providers ran on a not-for-profit basis. Hospitals were run by governments, universities, or religious-based groups; in some states, private for-profit care was actually illegal. Even insurance companies, like Blue Cross, were non-profit corporations. AdminIstrators and doctors were still paid handsomely; but there were no shareholders in the picture trying to pull profits out of other people's misfortune.
The first step to restoring affordability is to kick the profiteers out of the system. (According to the most conservative estimates, this one step would drop the national health care bill by at least $200 billion a year.) The second is to put it in the hands of administrators whose first concern is providing high-quality care instead of big bottom lines; and who are accountable to the voters if they fail to perform. Our experience with Medicare and the VA -- which, between them, currently provide care to over 70 million Americans, or about 22% of the country -- proves that we are perfectly capable of providing first-class, affordable care through the government.
If Costa Rica and Canada can manage this, why can't we?
9. But this Peterson guy's a billionaire Wall Streeter. Obviously, he knows something about finance...
Let's punt this one to William Greider:
Peterson, who made his fortune on Wall Street, never raised a word about the dangers of hyper leveraged finance houses gambling other people's money. He never expressed qualms about the leveraged buyout artists who were using debt finance to rip apart companies. He didn't fund an all out effort to stop Bush from raiding the Social Security surplus to pay for tax cuts for the rich.
But now he wants folks headed into retirement who have already prepaid a surplus of $2.5 trillion to cover their Social Security retirements to take a cut and to work a few years longer to cover the money squandered on bailing out banks, wars of choice abroad, and tax cuts for the few.
Basically, we're only having this conversation in the first place because a conservative ideologue was willing to pony up $1 billion of his own money to fund a "foundation" devoted to killing Social Security. Given that most politicians -- both Democrat and Republican -- are extremely unwilling to touch the notorious "third rail of politics," it's pretty clear that next Monday's "fiscal responsibility summit" wouldn't even be happening if Peterson wasn't bankrolling the Beltway buzz on this terrible idea.
10. OK -- if killing Social Security isn't the answer, just how do you propose to get us out of this?
The idea of a White House summit on fiscal responsibility is a good one -- but only if it focuses on real solutions to our real problems.
Cutting health care costs by getting all Americans into a rationally-managed system that puts delivering excellent care above delivering shareholder profits has to be a central part of any long-term economic health strategy. We're also about 15 years overdue for a complete overhaul of our military budget, too much of which is still focused on fighting the Soviet Union instead of responding to the actual challenges we're currently facing. Finally, it's time to ask the wealthy -- who've profited more than anyone from the past 15 years, and yet haven't paid anywhere near their fair share -- to step in a pay up for the system that enabled them to build that pile in the first place.
There's plenty we can be doing to actually reduce the national debt, and really stimulate the economy for both the short run and the long haul, without ending Social Security and sending hundreds of millions of Americans into sudden panic over their retirement. True "fiscal responsibility" can never be achieved by breaking promises.
Sara Robinson is a Fellow at the Campaign for America's Future, and a consulting partner with the Cognitive Policy Works in Seattle. One of the few trained social futurists in North America, she has blogged on authoritarian and extremist movements at Orcinus since 2006, and is a founding member of Group News Blog.
Two reasons.........
Democrats want MORE votes, looking toward the next election as well. They want the Latino vote and by blocking the "legal" process, the one that uses common sense, they can look forward to more votes from the "illegal" community to put their sorry butts back into office again.....
Also, that puts ACORN in a great position to go in and do just what they have been doing all along illegally..... signing folks (make believe and otherwise) up to vote that aren't citizens or are brought over from another state to vote illegally in order to push the vote in Democrat's favor.
That is the very reaso ACORN has been under investigation for years and is STILL under investigation and have had indictments as well. They are a purely racist group in the first place........
Now, if the KKK were standing around the street corners signing up folks to vote, do you think for one minute Obama wouldn't be jumping on that one? But it's the black vote he wants added, illegal or not, and he will never see to it that ACORN is stopped from their illegal doings.
Two reasons, I think............. sm
The first and foremost is appearance. Obama's black ancestory is more prominent in his appearance and therefore makes him appear to be a black person. Secondly, I think his own statements against his mother's people spoke volumes about how he feels about his Caucasian blood.
While it is a historical event to have a black man or person of mixed race in the WH, I have to wonder, would a Chinese American or Native American have garnered as much attention were they elected? I have to say probably not, but the black man's history in this country is no more or less tragic than that of the Chinese or Native Americans.
Yes, I can understand your reasons very well!
I see the neocons have been trashing you on their board.......again, insisting that my posts were posted by YOU, which you and I both know isn't true. 
Yes, Democrat, the reasons you
that unhealthy foods are inexpensive. I've read many articles like the one below that show how difficult it can be for poorer people to get to a market where they can get healthier foods such as fruits and vegetables. The fact is, though, that people are just getting fat across the board regardless of their income level - 1/3 of the ENTIRE population is overweight. It is hardly a problem that affects only the poor.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/190061_obesity09.html
One of the reasons you are not hearing as much sm
about the Republicans, especially the current administration, is that they have been very effective at almost completely shutting up any voices of dissent. When Clinton was in office we heard about him nonstop.
10 Reasons to Impeach
Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dik CheneyI ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons:
1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.
2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.
4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.
6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.
7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.
8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.
9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an AL Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.
40 reasons not to vote for...
Barrack Obama....please see link below.
A couple of reasons
I am a transcriptionist, but I only graduated in May, so I am not up to the speed some of you seasoned MTs are. I'm getting better everyday, but I am still in school to finish my Psych degree so I can only work part time. My husband just graduated in May also and since the job market is so bad he is having trouble finding a job (he is a history major so that's hard enough as it is!) He currently works for his dad building houses for $300 a week. We were renting a house right before we got married and we happened to find a house for sale that was as much in mortgage as we were paying in rent, so we decided to purchase it (fixed interest, not subprime or balloon) and have an investment rather than renting and never seeing that money again.
Of course when my husband finds a career position we will be better off (I pray!) but as it stands right now we will probably make $33,000 between us before taxes if he doesn't.
Believe me, I would love to get checks in the mail, but it's just not fair. I'm finishing my psych degree because I want to be able to help people (and I do want to be able to make more). I love MT, but at the rate we are going, I don't know if we will be around much longer.
But lets put it this way, with your 40K this year, and me making 30K for the sake of simplicity, would it be fair for you to give me 5K so we both have 35K? That would probably really upset you. You would probably tell me to work more if I wanted as much as you, right?
And shoot, if I could get that, then why don't I just make 20K, and you can give me 10K, so we both have 30K?
In the perfect world where EVERYONE worked to get up in life, then yes, "sharing the wealth" may work. Unfortunately, there are to many lazy people out there that will see that they are getting something for nothing and will just continue to do nothing. Not fair to hard working individuals like yourself and myself (I consider myself hard working since I do work part time 7 days a week and take classes!) :)
Whew sorry that was so long!
This is one of the biggest reasons
I'm not voting for him. I understand we cannot do away with abortion completely (as much as I wish we could) but to just have open season on killing babies? Whew.
I'm telling you, next we will be aborting the elderly! Anyone of inconvenience will be getting a needle in the head!
That's an odd take on the reasons Obama would
If it is sincerely for the right reasons
i.e. the best interests of this country it "sounds" good to me too but I have my reservations. More realistically it sounds to me like the Bush/Clinton alliance and I doubt that it will be helpful to the American people...good for Bush/Clinton/McCain/Obama and their good buddies for sure.
Of course not. That's one of the main reasons
what you seem to be missing is the fact that NOTHING has been decided on the fate of those prisoners in terms of where they will be housed OR how their trials will or (in some cases, in the absence of evidence) will not progress.
You want to get your drawers in an uproar? Here's the reality of the situation. Our legal system will ultimately be upheld and its integrity will be restored. Inthe process, it is quite possible that some of those prisoners will be released and never face a legitimate trial BECAUSE of the botch job the shrub did with this fiasco. We may very well find ourselves back at square one with some of them, but for me, preserving the integrity of our constitution/legal system and restoring human rights back into the equation is worth the price we may end up paying.
One of the reasons shrub said we are in Iraq..
is to fight the terrorists on "their turf so we don't have to fight them here." Hmmmmmm.....
There ARE reasons beyond blaming Bush...
for the haves and the have nots. How many of those people wandering the streets worked hard in school, applied for FREE tuition at the local college (which they most certainly qualify for based on income), waited until they were married to have kids, and on and on? WIth 70% of African-American babies born to single women these days, it's no wonder that poverty runs rampant among the African-American communities. It's sad, it's tragic, and I'd go there right now to give ANY of those people all the food and water I have in my house right now, but you cannot totally blame others for their financial position... Most of it comes from poor personal choices. This is a country of opportunity and people only need to be smart and avail themselves of it.
I'm with you on that. One of the reasons I'm glad I'm not Christian
I'm not Athiest, but I'm also not a Christian or any other other religious denomination. The Christians that I know can be some of the meanest hurtful people. They serve only themselves. They won't listen to reason and will cut you down in a second if you don't believe what they do. When I'm called a "Heathen" by my family with a disgusted look on their face I just sit and smile and say "Thank you, that is the nicest compliment you could pay me". This board is something else though.
That's okay, too. You just stated you wanted our reasons
why, so I stated mine. Won't let that happen again, though. From now on, I think I'll just read and not post. I didn't think my reasons would be dissected. I thought this was only a poll. Have a blessed day! 
My reasons for not standing behind Obama.......... sm
In no particular order of importance.
1. Lack of qualification, even by his own admission as recently as 2004 when he accepted his Senate seat and stated that he felt he would not be qualified for POTUS.
2. Past associations.
3. Current associations and financial backers.
4. His stance on abortion.
5. His stance on gay marriage.
6. His lack of knowledge of foreign policy. He thinks he can just "sit down and negotiate" with the biggest terrorist nations on earth.
7. Lack of proof of citizenship.
8. Questionable background in terms of religion, which lies deeper than just whether he is Protestant or Catholic or nondenomianational.
9. Issues with many of his campaign "promises" not limited to the Civil Defense Service.
None of my issues with Obama center on anything other than the above. Simply put, I don't trust him.
And you my dear are one of the top reasons I'm voting for McCain
Backwards thinking is those people like yourselves who won't admit that your candidate has flaws. Truth is he has more flaws than McCain. - you know is it too much to ask to get his name correct. I know people think its cute to put Mc in front of other words, but the guy was a vietnam war hero. He deserves the respect. Otherwise we can go on down that road and start putting names at the end of Obama's name (Ono, Obrother, Oliar, Osocialist, etc. The names could go on and on), but at least the conservatives are respectful of the candidates.
As for his age, then you can say do we realy want someone of Biden's age to be one heartbeat away from being president, after all anything could happen to Obama. (don't go down that road unless your ready for the mud).
Obama is a radical. Sure he wants change - but change for the worse and for everyone else except he and his 1% rich friends. I'm sorry but I don't want to live in a socialist country where our health care is now been socialized. I had it with being in the poor house the last time we had a democrat president. Truth is looking at Obama is more like voting in Bush again. Obama and Bush have agreed on stuff and this bail out plan is one of the biggest. The people who own Obama are the same people that own Bush. The same people that are telling Bush he better fix it because they want their money are the same ones who are running Obama telling him he better vote for it. If your going to link anyone to Bush you should link Obama. McCain has always been in the middle. You can stop spreading the lies that they voted the same cos they didn't. McCain has gone against both dems and pubs.
So irresponsible is voting in a new guy with no experience who is going to raise your taxes, socialize our health care, all while trying to convince us is the patriotic thing to do by having the government steal our hard earned money so they can give to the poor less advantaged individual. So now instead of working 60 hours a week to make ends meet you are going to have to work 80 hours. Cripes, when are you going to sleep? Let alone any relaxation time. Under the Clinton years my tax bracket was over 40% and even that wasn't enough cos at the end of the year I had to take out a loan to pay the extra $2500 that I didn't pay throughout the year. Each year I kept having them take out an extra $40 per paycheck over what was normally taken out and I still got socked with having to pay extra every year.
You want someone who is going to destroy the military so our country will not be safe anymore like Clinton did, then by all means vote in Barack OBush
Reasons there would be a constitutional crisis according to one expert...
The Consequences of “Forgetting”
There are factual economic, social, Constitutional, military and financial consequences of forgetting what damage an ineligible POTUS will do to our Country and the Constitution. These consequences are so serious that our government will not exist if we forget the rule of law, and what our Constitution demands. These are succinctly addressed in an article by Edwin J. Viera, Jr. entitled “Obama must step up or stand down now”.
Of the nine (9) reasons why Obama should step down if he has not proven his eligibility, the two that most notably concern me are:
No laws of Congress are valid
“Congress can pass no law while a usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to a usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”
And
He Could not be Removed Except by Force
If Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.
Bear in mind that as an imposter Commander–in-Chief of the Armed Forces, “he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives” (Viera, J.).
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/stand-by-me/
Obama got my vote for none of the reasons you listed.
My vote is between myself and the canddiate. He is my voice. On any given subject, I could start a sentence that he can finish the same way I would. This has not happened for me in my entire adult lifetime. I was a few years shy of voting age in 1960. Kennedy was the only other candidate that gave me voice. That is why there is nothing anybody could say to sway me one way or the other and I find it sad that those who would try do not seem be able to understand that I am not the only one who feels this way about supporting this remarkable man.
I am interested why any of us should know his personal reasons for EVERYTHING he believes in? sm
It does seem that President Obama is now under a microscope and every tiny minute aspect of his life, any beliefs he holds, are scrutinize for a NEFARIOUS HIDDEN MEANING? yes, perhaps it is a religious belief, I have a close girlfriend who was born Catholic and has been a Jehovah Witness for several years, but is that wrong? The focus of their lives, their spending, etc., is around Our Savior and they minimize celebrations of self, as I understand. Would that be bad or evil in some way? I have been silently reading this board since the primaries first started, and it seems that ever since Mr. Obama became a frontrunner, candidate, and finally president, people are picking apart EVERY SINGLE area of his life. Why? Would anyone want to live under this scrutiny? Why not just pray for him he has a HUGE job ahead of him that I personally would never want, judge him by his policies, his intentions for this country, the way he represents our country, for his proposals and hard work, but not his personal beliefs which should be private, as my religion is to me. What's next, analyzing his favorite color for hidden meaning? I am really praying hard for a successful and safe presidency.
People have tons of reasons to discredit him.
nm
I think it wasn't discovered earlier for several reasons. sm
Iwas a healthy 20-something, no risk factors nor known; no particular reason to do US. Back in the day, US wasn't done routinely like now.
If any good could have come from it, I would have let it go to full-term, but you are not allowed to donate organs from an anencephalic child after birth. Maybe that has changed.
As for Patty - wow, if you are an example of pro-life / christian values, I don't want in to *your* heaven. Why do you get to judge me? Isnt' that between me and God?
Trolls like YOU (and the lack of an ignore button) are the reasons
I can't stand it here any more. You do nothing but troll this board, stalk and attack posters. You add nothing of an intelligent or substantive nature to anything you post. Coming to this board used to be nice, but now it's like standing in a field as flies leave a nearby manure pile and suddenly hover around me and my friends, and I wind up spending too much time swatting them away. You simply can't be nice and civil to people. Nobody wants to subject themselves to that all the time. You've been relentless in your attacks against gt, and all it does is make you look like a horrible person, whether you realize it or not.
As far as debate, I'd love to debate issues, but personal attacks based on one's views is NOT debate, and that's all you do.
Here's an example of a post on Maher's board by an intelligent conservative who I believe I could learn a lot from. Note the EXTREME difference in this person's communication skills, compared to yours and those of your ilk on this board.
This poster generates interest and respect. Your posts generate disgust.
******
The Republicans Here Are Fake
I just came to this board today. I watched Real Time with Bill Maher for the first time last night and really enjoy it. While I do not agree with him on his views, I enjoy listening to politcal arguments and he does make strong cases.
I have been a life long Republican and served on numerous state campaigns as both a volunteer and paid worker. I know the value of a true debate and what it yields.
I searched for Bill Maher this morning and immediatley found this board. I have spent the last couple hours reading through countless posts and views of people from both sides of the political aisle. It is truly a shocking and numbing experience.
I see that most from the left provide a rational view and expressed opinions, but then I see the right has no true representation here. I have come across a few posters that say they are Republicans, but as a Republican I can assure you they do not stand for our parties beliefs.
A couple of the names I have seen include; helloinfidels, ketchupholic, mudwhistle, and theraceman.
While I am only passing by, I wanted to share with you my views on these individuals, as a person with a strong politcal background. I have a few explanations into the actions of these individuals and would like to post them for you.
-These people only argue because they purely like to argue with no goal in mind except to upset other.
-These individuals are truly Democrats, posing as Republicans in an attempt to smear the Republican party
- These people truly do not know what the Republican party stands for
In any of the above cases, we would rather they not try to represent our party, as they are actually mis-representing it.
I have been a member of numerous political forums, and I assure you that we would not allow any of these people to exist on our boards. They give no basis of fact with their arguments and only make them to hear themselves self promote a disturbing agenda.
I hope the majority of the people on here do not lend credit to their foolish assertions and realize they represent no party in this country.
Thank you for hearing from me and I look forward to some civil political debate on here without the rhetoric those few seem to rely upon.
Reasons Why Chavez Is Up For Noble Peace Prize
An article published in VHeadline.com on November 26
last year, headlined Venezuela's President Hugo
Chavez Frias proposed for the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize aroused great interest
Since that piece was published, Chavez has continued
his humanitarian projects, the most recent of which
are extending Mission Miracle in alliance with Cuba to
correct blindness and sight disorders to the whole of
the American continent, including the US and the
Caribbean. He has also offered crude oil, gasoline and
heating oil at preferential, financed rates to smaller
Caribbean countries, as well as Uruguay and Paraguay
which are struggling with the sky high price of
energy.
The improvement in cash flow of these countries
generated by the financing aspect at 1% per year,
allows their governments to use this surplus to invest
in social programs.
This initiative has also taken into account poor
communities, schools, hospitals, old peoples homes
facing a predicted brutally cold winter in the United
States ... part of this program includes donations of
heating oil as well as financing part of the
deliveries from CITGO, a 100%-owned US-based
Venezuelan company based in Houston with 8 refineries
delivering to over 14,000 gasoline stations. Pilot
projects will be underway in Chicago and Boston as of
October 14.
As per the Nobel Peace Prize website the 2004 winner
was Wangari Maathai of Kenya for her contribution to
sustainable development, democracy and peace.
If these three qualities are key to winning the Nobel
Peace Prize then Chavez has all these in abundance ...
and more. He must be the world's leading democrat
having been to the polls 9 times since 1998. He
promotes peace by asking for troops out of Afghanistan
and Iraq, so that these sovereign nations can exercise
self-determination and define their own path in the
future.
Other accomplishments, which have been pushed by
Chavez' personal leadership in Venezuela are the
Social Missions, all grouped under the humanitarian
banner of Mision Cristo (Christ's Mission). The most
important of these, Mision Robinson has taught 1.4
million Venezuelans to read and write; Mision Barrio
Adentro (Neighborhood Within) offers free primary
healthcare in the poor areas and is now reaching 14
million Venezuelans out of a population of
approximately 25 million; Mision Mercal sells cheap
staple foods and has impacted more than half the
population at the time of writing.
Chavez, however, is up against some very stiff
competition including Colin Powell (for his efforts to
end the 21-year civil war in Sudan); the ex-governor
of Illinois, George Ryan (for his campaign to abolish
the death sentence in the US); Israeli Mordechai
Vanunu (for denouncing the existence of nuclear
weapons in his country); the Japanese Hidankyo group
(survivors of the US' atomic bombs dropped on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
Eloquent post. Many valid reasons why I hope
Some of the sweetest and most devoted couples I know are same-sex. They pay taxes, are all highly educated and make my community a better place. They adore their children, their pets, their friends. To think they're denied the simple right of marriage, is heartbreaking.
Interestingly, I only have only one couple of friends who are married, who are same RACE. All the rest are black & white, white & Asian, Asian & Latino, Filippino and black, etc. I remember back when I was a teen, my parents actually didn't want me hanging out with a certain friend because her parents were a mixed-race couple. They thought it was 'scandalous'.
Well, that has all changed, and you better believe that every vote I cast will hopefully work towards bringing about equality in marriage for ALL couples.
Same reasons I pulled straight democrat ticket.
make it through the House and Senate. No more shrub veto.
For many reasons, the fact that Israel is a successful democracy
in the midst of tyrannical middle eastern governments. The fact that the U.S. supports Israel. The fact that Israel has turned their once arid country into a fertile landscape and have managed to become a wealthy nation despite it's geographical short-comings and to the dismay of their neighbors. Also because the palestinians have managed to paint themselves as the underdog in a battle that has long been a land dispute and not an "occupation." And I have even begun to touch on the religious and scriptural reasons for the hatred.
Great and really informative article, but the reasons we find the economy in this problem....sm
is all the banking deregulation that has taken place over the past 9 years or so....without any regulations at all, the banks have had free reign to wallow in their greed, invest their investor's money in very speculative and dangerous deals trying to make as much quick money as possible, and when it all blew up in their face, we all are expected to rescue these despicable creatures because the econmomy and wellfare of the nation, its homeowners, small businesses, etc., will just be the true victims suffering every greater losses. Yes, I agree that soem of the article's highlighted practices are very frightening for us, but right now we are facing an unprecedented financial tragedy in this country....blame all the banking deregulation, and those who proposed/allowed it as "free enterprise (interpreted=unbridled greed and robbery) as the horrid lesson here.
Huh.......must be that PT mother you so
xx
How many did your mother have?
xx
Does your mother know you are up
x
Does your mother know
su
They are all in this together, even the mother, ..sm
The mother should have told her..'I am not going to take care of your 6 children anymore, stop having babies', BEFORE she went through IVF.
This are all poor people who use this 'babymaking scheme'
to abuse teh welfare system.
Origin of Mother's Day.
Published on Friday, August 26, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
Mother's Day in Crawford
by Medea Benjamin and Gayle Brandeis
When Cindy Sheehan marched into Crawford, Texas to ask President Bush why her son died in Iraq, it was Mother's Day. Not the Hallmark-infused, soft focus, breakfast-in-bed Mother's Day that shows up on the calendar in May. This was the day that Julia Ward Howe envisioned when she created Mother's Day in 1870 as a time for all the mothers who lost their sons in the Civil War to protest the senseless violence.
Howe's Mother's Day Proclamation begins:
Arise then... women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts!
Cindy Sheehan has risen up against the senseless violence of this war in Iraq, and countless women and men have risen up with her. The numbers at Camp Casey continue to swell, and support pours in from all corners of the globe. While George Bush says he feels Sheehan's pain but must get on with his life, Sheehan's supporters are uprooting themselves from their lives-often at great personal sacrifice-- to vigil beside her in the hot Texas sun. Tired of seeing our soldiers and countless Iraqis die in an unjustified war, millions of Americans-especially mothers--are joining Sheehan's revolution of the heart. And in the process, they're exposing Bush's own heartlessness for refusing to meet with a grieving mother, and more tragically, for needlessly putting our sons and daughters in harm's way.
Those in the smear-Cindy camp have told Sheehan, in no uncertain terms, that she should go back home, where she belongs. But Sheehan has followed Julia Ward Howe's imperative:
As men have often forsaken
the plough and the anvil
At the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great an earnest day of counsel.
Sheehan's hoped-for day of counsel with Bush may never arrive. But another sort of counsel is taking place, the sort that Howe imagined:
Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace.
This is precisely what is happening at the vigil in Crawford, Texas. Women are running the camp itself, organizing Sheehan's schedule, holding women's circles to share their grief and hope, writing letters appealing to Laura Bush, and strategizing ways to broaden and deepen this movement for peace.
During the Vietnam era, the anti-war movement was fueled primarily by students. Today, the anti-war movement is being fueled largely by mothers. Look at some of the organizations that have been created in the last few years: CODEPINK: Women for Peace, Gold Star Families for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, Raging Grannies. All of them reflect a mother's intense desire to not only shield her children from harm but to stop her children from doing harm to others.
Again, we hear the voice of Julia Howe.
We, the women of one country,
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs.
In a recent statement urging Americans to listen to Cindy Sheehan, Elizabeth Edwards said, If we are decent and compassionate, if we know the lessons we taught our children, or if, selfishly, all we want is the long line of the brave to protect us in the future, we should listen to the mothers now. Thanks to Cindy Sheehan, the mothers have arisen. Thanks to Cindy Sheehan, the world can't help but listen. Hopefully, George Bush is also hearing the message.
Medea Benjamin and Gayle Brandeis are members of CODEPINK: Women for Peace, a group that has been actively involved in the vigil in Crawford, Texas. Medea Benjamin is co-founder of CODEPINK, founder of Global Exchange, and nominee for the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize. Gayle Brandeis is the author of The Book of Dead Birds, which won Barbara Kingsolver's Bellwether Prize for Fiction in Support of a Literature of Social Change.
I bet you have. Your mother must be so proud. nm
nm
As the mother of an interracial son
I can tell you that I see my son as biracial but the world sees my son as black. No matter how much I stress to him how special he is to be of both races when we fill out school papers, doc office papers, etc. we are forced to choose between black or white. This is a visual world we live in and if Obama was running around calling himself a white man then people would have a problem with thst too.
I am a mother...So flame me if you want..however. sm.
Our son is 11 and can debate the pros and cons of both Obama and McCain, Biden and Palin with the best of them. We have taught him that conservativism is the way we think, but everybody is entitled to their own opinion. We are a minority - being conservative in a rapidly turning libral world. And my husband is one of those people railed about...an "angry, white male who clings to his guns and religion."
Our country is going down the tubes, politicians and bankers are raping our country and getting away with it, we owe our souls to the company store aka China et al, and who pays for it??? We do..our children, grand-children, and gg-children.
To those who think that Obama walks on water...google Ayers, Rzko, Wright, Soros, and You-Tube. Listen to any conservative talk show..if you can find any, and listen. With all the overwhelming evidence about Obama and his "friends" etc, we are on a long, slippery slope to destruction of the greatest country there ever was. The founding fathers are spinning in their graves with what our country has become.
Ok, off my soapbox.
does your mother know you are on this board?
how old are you?
and my mother recently said to me (sm)
It doesn't matter who wins...when it is time it is going to happen, regardless of what we do. If he is meant to be in office he will be. God's plan will come to pass no matter what.
Recollections of my mother
Her mother got $.25 a week for groceries to feed 8 kids. Many a night they had ketchup bread or if they had it, sugar bread (toast with butter and sugar), potato or pea soup. Meat was a luxury and they might have had chicken once a month.
They worse shoes with cardboard in them when the soles wore out. Everybody wore the next-in-line older siblings child's clothes when they outgrew them unless they were . My aunt stated by the time the clothes got to her, they were patched so many times the thread hurt her skin.
Their idea of play was to go to the coal yards and pick the best coal they could and get it home without getting caught by the Iron Police.
They didn't have a car. They didn't have a radio. They would hear news by going to the store and listening to their radio.
All the kids had to quit school when they were 16 so they could get a job and help out at home. At that time, the only jobs for boys were in the coal holes as breaker boys and slate pickers and the females cleaned houses or worked in the garmet factories. They would hand over their paychecks when they got paid (which was not on a regular schedule, either). My mom worked for $.10/hour cleaning homes 5 days a week. My aunt made $.08/hour 6 days a week in the garment factory. Out of the pay, they would receive $.50 to do with what they wanted and it had to last until the next payday.
His MOTHER was a U.S. citizen
Good Lord, this gets more ridiculous every day.
No, her mother did not.......posters like YOU did!
xx
As a mother of 2 teenagers . . .
I have had many discussions with them regarding the responsibility that comes with trying any substance, and I told them that if they were going to experiment with something, I would much prefer they smoke pot than drink alcohol, as in my state the rate of alcohol-related teenage deaths is alarming. Of course, I told them that, unfortunately, pot is illegal and so using it would constitute breaking the law. But we as parents know that our kids are going to be exposed to all manner of things and I would rather they be intelligently informed of all consequences.
|
