It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by tnhiker
I wouldn't support this bill based on the fact that Campfield is the one sponsoring it. He is a shame and an embarrassment to this state.
His famous "dont say gay" bill, his gay airline attendant with a monkey speech, Kicked out of a restaurant and many other idiotic things. He is a dangerous idiot.
That said, this bill is another in a long line of stupid. What if the kids have undiagnosed medical conditions? What if the parents are disabled and can barely keep the lights on as is?
No matter how you look at it, the kids will be the ones that suffer. And the parents that are really trying to do better. The ones its "designed" to punish will be the ones that don't care anyway.
Does it not lead to a more productive society by mandating that parents be involved in their children's education?
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ButterCookie
Does it not lead to a more productive society by mandating that parents be involved in their children's education?
With all due respect, government should not mandate that parents be involved.
Yes, parents should be involved. But you cannot mandate responsibility.
Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by beezzer
National Healthcare MANDATES responsibility. They are not supposed to be able to, that does not stop them.
Originally posted by ButterCookie
Originally posted by tnhiker
I wouldn't support this bill based on the fact that Campfield is the one sponsoring it. He is a shame and an embarrassment to this state.
His famous "dont say gay" bill, his gay airline attendant with a monkey speech, Kicked out of a restaurant and many other idiotic things. He is a dangerous idiot.
That said, this bill is another in a long line of stupid. What if the kids have undiagnosed medical conditions? What if the parents are disabled and can barely keep the lights on as is?
No matter how you look at it, the kids will be the ones that suffer. And the parents that are really trying to do better. The ones its "designed" to punish will be the ones that don't care anyway.
Typical straw-man fallacy.
Attack the bill, not the man.
Actually Jim, you have it Butt-Backward.
Originally posted by jimmiec
The fear of being poor would do more to decrease the number of poor drastically. That is the way it used to be until the government got involved and morphed it into a huge voting block.