- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
RIGHT:As a parent she should be able to choose whether to submit her child to indoctrination and whether to submit her to vaccination.
WRONG:However, she is only one parent and she ignored the father's "equal" parental rights. (Rarely are the fathers rights considered equal unless it increases the power of government agencies, imo.)
WRONG: The government is creating racist propaganda to justify the actions it is taking.
What was that gibberish about wanting her to learn about the Confederacy but not black history? The two are kinda, sorta somewhat linked, I would say.
Is she also going to be taught Filipino history? Eskimo history? Asian history? And if so, why?
I'd kidnap her to keep her out of preschool, period. A child has no business in school before the age of six.
And anyone who claims that our schools are not indoctrination centers is either a complete idiot or a complete liar.
She would have been just as justified if the father had been molesting the child; in a way, he was, by sticking her in preschool, he was molesting her mind.
And the mother's motivations are irrelevant. Even if she took the child away for reasons that had nothing to do with preventing the child from seeing her father, if the result is that the child doesn't see her father, then the mother is violating the terms of the court order, as well as the rights of the father.
I sound like a conspiracy theorist?
In the 1960s, Heinlein and his wife visited the Alma Ata collective farm in the Soviet Union. The schoolchildren there put on skits for the tourists. Some recited poems, some sang songs... Heinlein's wife spoke Russian; every last one of them dealt with the need to protect the revolution, or with the next five year plan.
The children started school at 15 months of age, and afterwards saw their mothers perhaps 2 hours a day thereafter.
While they were there, the U2 incident happened. Before the incident, everyone was relatively friendly and open with them. The night after, they were given the cold shoulder and treated rudely....
Then the next day, after the government adopted the tolerant regret official response, everyone became friendly again.
One night on the way to the opera, a group of Red Army cadets accosted them, all excited over the man they put in orbit.
The next day, there were news reports of the unmanned capsule the Soviets lost, and their intourist guide looked them up to assure them that the cadets were wrong, that it was an unmanned capsule.
Time and again governments have tried to control the minds of the population, from ancient times to present. This isn't conspiracy theory; this is just history.
It's just that it's now our turn in the barrel.
Meanwhile, my mother, their sister, didn't, and didn't.
(aside: My aunts were also convinced that their seatbelts rubbing against their (brassiere-encased) breasts gave them breast cancer... new studies show that some of the chemicals in support bras can cause cancer...)
http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/search...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/02/lan...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immuni...
Should a parent allow others to determine what their children are subjected to? Including putting foreign substances in their bodies and foreign thoughts in their minds?
Please don't misconstrue that as bigotry or racism. But don't parents have the right to choose to what their children are exposed? And if not, then who gets the right to determine? If you say the "state" then aren't you just another collectivist?