RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: More Titor Debunk Evidence - Gay Marriage Issu
Hi Roel:
I respect your difference of opinion. But it seems we have come full-circle with:
Misuse and abuse of guns has steadily increased over the years. It has seen esepcially enormous increases since the 70s and 80s. Correlating factor? How about families where there was no parent in the home to raise the child? When women began to "shed" the more traditional role of staying home and raising the kids, and instead went to work along with their husbands, suddenly there was no one home to mind junior. Another correlating factor? Single parent households. Don't believe me? Care to take a guess at what kind of households the students (Kliebold and Harris) who murdered fellow students at Columbine High School came from? Yep. Both came from single parent households. Think this is insignificant, and just a "blip on the radar"? Then it may be eye-opening to research the home lives of several of the students who have committed similar crimes. Another high school boy who killed at his school in Mississippi was only raised by his mother. A study was once performed to examine potential motivating factors for serial rapists. Quite a few of the subjects they studied were men who were raised by only their mother. One of the most infamous serial rapist and murderer, Ted Bundy, also falls into this category.
The facts and evidence for how erosions of morality, at least in child rearing, is all out there. However, as much as the media "enjoys" broadcasting the news of horrible events by twisted individuals, they are less interested in broadcasting the "news" about what has statistically been shown to be relevant to our moral degradation as a society. Poor parenting.
My point here is: While there may be many people/countries around the world who feel it is better for the world if a democrat is in the White House, the issue is what is best for America! History has shown that when we are threatened, or feel threatened, most Americans would rather have a Republican in the White House. Clinton pretty much showed the terrorists we did not have the will to take them on. Clinton pulled us out of Mogadishu when things got rough. That place is STILL a snake pit of terrorists and criminals. Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles at Osama Bin Laden, and he thought that would be enough to "scare" him. Fat chance. It only pissed him off more.
The decision to go into Iraq had many facets with regard to its purpose. One which is evident to anyone who studies terrorism is this: Bush has put ALL terrorists in the world on notice. He is NOT Clinton. He has the will to reign-in terrorist-sponsoring states, and one aspect of taking out Saddam was to make a clear example of him to others like him. Did it work? Well, maybe the best person to answer that would be Libya's Colonel Qaddafi! He sure did change his stripes awfully fast, didn't he? It would seem he is more interested in retaining power and living the good life of a dictator, than he is in trying to terrorize the world! He certainly did not show any inklings to a change of heart under Clinton! Bush means business.
No offense to our Dutch allies, or any of our allies in Europe, but it is important to review history, as we learn much from it. TWO world wars erupted in Europe, and your own country was invaded in both of these wars. The reason these wars got this far was because the governments of Europe refused to unite against facism. Quite simply, the strongest countries who COULD do something about it (and they speak French in that country!) did nothing...they coddled the tyrants. TWICE the US had to come in and spank some behinds. TWICE we donated OUR MONEY to help rebuild Europe after the mess was cleaned up. Is it any wonder that the majority of the American public was collectively shaking our heads when France AND Germany opposed us in taking out Saddam? It almost seems as if they have yet to learn their lesson. I am sorry for the length of this, and I do not mean to sound all high and mighty. But let's face it...America is the defender of the free world. No one else shows the will to act when it is needed the most. Our service men and women die in Iraq...and the rest of the world scoffs at us and tells us it "serves us right". Perhaps we should interview some Kurds, or some Shia Muslims in southern Iraq? Perhaps THEY see the sacrifice that America (and its staunch allies like Britian, Italy, Poland, Australia...who have also lost service men) are making to help them live a normal life, free of fear?
Again...I mean no offense. But I am tired of the rest of the world complaining about America. If we were to step back, retreat, and await for some OTHER country to "do the dirty work", who do you think would step-up to the task? The French have a term: Lassaie Faire (spelling?). Do we really think the world would be a better place if we just "left averyone alone"? I submit that there are bodies in WWI and WWII cemetaries that are the evidence of what happens when we "leave everyone alone".
Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
Hi Roel:
I respect your difference of opinion. But it seems we have come full-circle with:
And herein lies the big issue with morality, and how a child is raised. When one looks at American history, we see that guns have always been a part of our social fabric. In fact, guns were MUCH more visible, and easy to get, in the days of the "old west". Heck, most everyone wore one on their hip, right there for everyone to see. And yet was there a problem with "mass killings" at schools by students? No. In fact, until the 1950s, rural Americans rarely even locked the doors to their homes or cars.
Misuse and abuse of guns has steadily increased over the years. It has seen esepcially enormous increases since the 70s and 80s. Correlating factor? How about families where there was no parent in the home to raise the child? When women began to "shed" the more traditional role of staying home and raising the kids, and instead went to work along with their husbands, suddenly there was no one home to mind junior. Another correlating factor? Single parent households. Don't believe me? Care to take a guess at what kind of households the students (Kliebold and Harris) who murdered fellow students at Columbine High School came from? Yep. Both came from single parent households. Think this is insignificant, and just a "blip on the radar"? Then it may be eye-opening to research the home lives of several of the students who have committed similar crimes. Another high school boy who killed at his school in Mississippi was only raised by his mother. A study was once performed to examine potential motivating factors for serial rapists. Quite a few of the subjects they studied were men who were raised by only their mother. One of the most infamous serial rapist and murderer, Ted Bundy, also falls into this category.
The facts and evidence for how erosions of morality, at least in child rearing, is all out there. However, as much as the media "enjoys" broadcasting the news of horrible events by twisted individuals, they are less interested in broadcasting the "news" about what has statistically been shown to be relevant to our moral degradation as a society. Poor parenting.
Well, we are certainly not "perfect". While I agree that this Janet Jackson fiasco was blown way out of proportion, I can also understand how parents (who have a hard enough time raising their children these days) can get upset that such gimmicks are permitted to occur when those producing/presenting such a show KNOW that so MANY people (and so MANY children) are watching! It would have been more appropriate if there had been some "warning" for parents, so at least they were informed about what was going to take place. And if there was such warning, you know it would have never been approved. Yes, we are a bit puritanical about nudity here in this country. I don't think it is a "normal" thing to be so uptight about the human body, but again, I think it is the right of parents to be able to shield their kids from this, if they so choose.
That's another debateable point. Are you aware of the facts of the Clinton administration when it comes to intelligence (CIA)? Through 8 years of his presidency, we saw the CIA lose much of its capability to track "the bad guys" outside our borders. People may not like the CIA, but they protect us. Just like a friend of mine in Amsterdam, who is an officer on the Dutch contingent of Interpol, helps protect you from "nasties". There is a very good case for the belief that Clinton's inattention to CIA capabilities in the arena of "human intelligence" (spies) in terrorist states/organizations could have helped lead to the events of 9/11. Clinton signed an order that exlicitly prohibited the CIA from developing human intelligence agents within such groups.It's just that I think the world is much better off with a democrat in charge of your country.
My point here is: While there may be many people/countries around the world who feel it is better for the world if a democrat is in the White House, the issue is what is best for America! History has shown that when we are threatened, or feel threatened, most Americans would rather have a Republican in the White House. Clinton pretty much showed the terrorists we did not have the will to take them on. Clinton pulled us out of Mogadishu when things got rough. That place is STILL a snake pit of terrorists and criminals. Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles at Osama Bin Laden, and he thought that would be enough to "scare" him. Fat chance. It only pissed him off more.
The decision to go into Iraq had many facets with regard to its purpose. One which is evident to anyone who studies terrorism is this: Bush has put ALL terrorists in the world on notice. He is NOT Clinton. He has the will to reign-in terrorist-sponsoring states, and one aspect of taking out Saddam was to make a clear example of him to others like him. Did it work? Well, maybe the best person to answer that would be Libya's Colonel Qaddafi! He sure did change his stripes awfully fast, didn't he? It would seem he is more interested in retaining power and living the good life of a dictator, than he is in trying to terrorize the world! He certainly did not show any inklings to a change of heart under Clinton! Bush means business.
No offense to our Dutch allies, or any of our allies in Europe, but it is important to review history, as we learn much from it. TWO world wars erupted in Europe, and your own country was invaded in both of these wars. The reason these wars got this far was because the governments of Europe refused to unite against facism. Quite simply, the strongest countries who COULD do something about it (and they speak French in that country!) did nothing...they coddled the tyrants. TWICE the US had to come in and spank some behinds. TWICE we donated OUR MONEY to help rebuild Europe after the mess was cleaned up. Is it any wonder that the majority of the American public was collectively shaking our heads when France AND Germany opposed us in taking out Saddam? It almost seems as if they have yet to learn their lesson. I am sorry for the length of this, and I do not mean to sound all high and mighty. But let's face it...America is the defender of the free world. No one else shows the will to act when it is needed the most. Our service men and women die in Iraq...and the rest of the world scoffs at us and tells us it "serves us right". Perhaps we should interview some Kurds, or some Shia Muslims in southern Iraq? Perhaps THEY see the sacrifice that America (and its staunch allies like Britian, Italy, Poland, Australia...who have also lost service men) are making to help them live a normal life, free of fear?
Again...I mean no offense. But I am tired of the rest of the world complaining about America. If we were to step back, retreat, and await for some OTHER country to "do the dirty work", who do you think would step-up to the task? The French have a term: Lassaie Faire (spelling?). Do we really think the world would be a better place if we just "left averyone alone"? I submit that there are bodies in WWI and WWII cemetaries that are the evidence of what happens when we "leave everyone alone".
Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
