next »

[johnstevenson]

"Holy S***! She swung that kid so hard she knocked her shoes off!"

It may looked like that to people who don't have their own kids ;).

[kiana]

This thread makes me glad I'm not a parent. I don't get how y'all can do it and still keep your sanity.

What makes you think they keep their sanity?

[polly_mer]

This thread makes me glad I'm not a parent. I don't get how y'all can do it and still keep your sanity.

What makes you think they keep their sanity?

I've only been a parent for a month and I'm pretty sure my sanity is gone.

[august]

On another note... democrats want less government... ?

Are y'all just not paying attention? How much BIGGER has government gotten under Bush? How many times has Obama said--most recently in his speech accepting the nomination--that it is a priority of his to cut pork-barrel spending, including cutting entire programs if need be, and make the government programs we need to have work more efficiently (less expensively)?

It takes about two seconds of googling to find plenty about how Bush and his party have made the government balloon...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9307-2005Feb8.html
"President Bush's second-term agenda would expand not only the size of the federal government but also its influence over the lives of millions of Americans by imposing new national restrictions on high schools, court cases and marriages." (Washington Post, Feb. 2005)

Oh, I agree with you.  However, here dems are not so different from W's. 

[prof_mom]

First, let me say that I agree completely with grasshopper about judging parents without knowing the full context.

The child walked around for 2 hours saying she was hungry and tired and wanted to go home.

While I agree with much of what you say, profmom, especially the part about single parents having to make greater sacrifices than people who have a partner with whom to share child-rearing responsibilities, and the fact that agreeing to raise a special-needs or any other child isn't the same as doing it well, this sentence I've quoted seems to carry a lot more weight with you than it does for me.  Yes, mom should have brought some food along--but for all we know, she offered, kid said no, and then kid got hungry (and bored) after the game started.  Okay, maybe mom should have known and brought food along anyway, knowing this might happen.  Still, no kid has ever died from being hungry for two hours.  We're not talking two days here.  And I got dragged to plenty of places I didn't want to go when I was a kid--sometimes on a school night--and if I complained of being tired, I was told to go lie (or sit) quietly and rest.  No reason this kid couldn't lie down on the bench or ground (or in the car) and take a little snooze.

One thing I'm curious about, though:  How old a child are we talking about?  The kid's age would certainly have some relevance here.

The child was maybe 5 or 6. The first thought I had was that the child was saying she was tired because she was bored and wanted to go home. Kids will pull that. I understand. The kid kept saying she was hungry. The kid was otherwise in good shape. I'm sure she isn't starving. I just know I couldn't have my child that unhappy and enjoy myself. I had trouble enjoying myself when someone else's kid is that unhappy.

I kept thinking that my kids always say they are hungry when they are bored and this is why I always bring snacks and activities for them when I take them somewhere they don't want to be. I sometimes drag them to my office on a weekend or to other not so fun activities that have to be done but I always bring them a bag of goodies (including toys) to entertain them. This kid didn't have a ball, a book, or even water to drink.

I think I was more annoyed that I had to listen to a whining child during what was supposed to be my time away from kids. This was not a place for kids. Some people think they should be able to bring their children anywhere. I tend to believe there are some locations and activities where children do not belong.

[acrimone]

I of course cannot speak for all Republicans, but those of my acquaintance and myself all find President Bush's expansion of government to be (for the most part) abhorrent.

His incompetent brand of big-government conservatism, however, was seen by us as a necessarily evil to getting someone in office who isn't going to spend the entire four years being a "U.N. pussy" as the cartoon so eloquently put it.

And we at no time thought that things would be any better under a Kerry administration, although obviously there is no way to prove that for certain at this point.

[oldchair]

I of course cannot speak for all Republicans, but those of my acquaintance and myself all find President Bush's expansion of government to be (for the most part) abhorrent.

His incompetent brand of big-government conservatism, however, was seen by us as a necessarily evil to getting someone in office who isn't going to spend the entire four years being a "U.N. pussy" as the cartoon so eloquently put it.

And we at no time thought that things would be any better under a Kerry administration, although obviously there is no way to prove that for certain at this point.

How would our lives be worse if we had had a "U. N. pussy" in office? 

[acrimone]

I of course cannot speak for all Republicans, but those of my acquaintance and myself all find President Bush's expansion of government to be (for the most part) abhorrent.

His incompetent brand of big-government conservatism, however, was seen by us as a necessarily evil to getting someone in office who isn't going to spend the entire four years being a "U.N. pussy" as the cartoon so eloquently put it.

And we at no time thought that things would be any better under a Kerry administration, although obviously there is no way to prove that for certain at this point.

How would our lives be worse if we had had a "U. N. pussy" in office? 

Of course we can never know whether our counterfactual speculations are true or not, but it's my opinion that electing Kerry would have resulted in more terrorist attacks on United States soil.  I considered that vote as sort of like the choice Lincoln made about Grant.  Yeah, he had all sorts of problems.  But he couldn't spare the man because "he fights".

[oldchair]

I of course cannot speak for all Republicans, but those of my acquaintance and myself all find President Bush's expansion of government to be (for the most part) abhorrent.

His incompetent brand of big-government conservatism, however, was seen by us as a necessarily evil to getting someone in office who isn't going to spend the entire four years being a "U.N. pussy" as the cartoon so eloquently put it.

And we at no time thought that things would be any better under a Kerry administration, although obviously there is no way to prove that for certain at this point.

How would our lives be worse if we had had a "U. N. pussy" in office? 

Of course we can never know whether our counterfactual speculations are true or not, but it's my opinion that electing Kerry would have resulted in more terrorist attacks on United States soil.  I considered that vote as sort of like the choice Lincoln made about Grant.  Yeah, he had all sorts of problems.  But he couldn't spare the man because "he fights".

Are there specific positions that Kerry championed that would have made us more susceptible to terrorist attacks? 

[polly_mer]

I think I was more annoyed that I had to listen to a whining child during what was supposed to be my time away from kids. This was not a place for kids. Some people think they should be able to bring their children anywhere. I tend to believe there are some locations and activities where children do not belong.

I completely agree.  I like kids, but I wish more people would think through the appropriateness of taking their children to some clearly "big people only" events.  Some events are family-friendly and some are grownup time.

[anthroid]

I think I was more annoyed that I had to listen to a whining child during what was supposed to be my time away from kids. This was not a place for kids. Some people think they should be able to bring their children anywhere. I tend to believe there are some locations and activities where children do not belong.

I completely agree.  I like kids, but I wish more people would think through the appropriateness of taking their children to some clearly "big people only" events.  Some events are family-friendly and some are grownup time.

I like your style, Polly (especially given that you are a brand new parent!).  I know way too many parents who think that their little snowflakes belong absolutely everywhere.  I'm all for a child-comfortable society, by the way--and we don't have one--but in a true child-comfortable society, there are all kinds of caretakers around, including siblings and cousins who feel free to play with kids away from parents. 

I don't want a child-centered society.  It's bad enough that I live in a childish-wishes-centered society, and that so many of my fellow adults feel free to indulge in their childish wishes.  On my highways, in my grocery stores, at my churches, etc.....

Are there no adult places (other than strip joints) left in the US?

[prof_mom]

Are there no adult places (other than strip joints) left in the US?

Apparently not. Even the Republican Convention welcomes certain children to sit and listen to hours of speeches. I am now watching it and that 5 month old baby is in the arms of her sister. Of course, the sister is sitting next to her brother and boyfriend, and Cindy McCain. Why would anyone want to sit through 2+ hours of speeches while holding an infant? Right. The family is not part of this campaign.

Oh, wait! Cindy McCain is now holding the baby. How cute is that?

[infopri]

I think I was more annoyed that I had to listen to a whining child during what was supposed to be my time away from kids. This was not a place for kids. Some people think they should be able to bring their children anywhere. I tend to believe there are some locations and activities where children do not belong.

I completely agree.  I like kids, but I wish more people would think through the appropriateness of taking their children to some clearly "big people only" events.  Some events are family-friendly and some are grownup time.

Agreed.  One-hundred percent agreed.

[collegekidsmom]

I remember going to the movies to see Pulp Fiction. In the seats behind me were families who brought little children. At one point, two of the children(maybe 4 and 5 years old) started crying and begging to go. I think someone was shooting someone's brains out on the screen. The kids kept saying, "please can we go?" Mom and Dad said no, the movie is not over and we want to see it.
They were all perfectly comfortable with their little kids sitting through that violence, language, sex, etc.

That was a place I felt children shouldn't be. I was quite disturbed by their crying on many levels.

[robert_smithson]

Apparently not. Even the Republican Convention welcomes certain children to sit and listen to hours of speeches. I am now watching it and that 5 month old baby is in the arms of her sister. Of course, the sister is sitting next to her brother and boyfriend, and Cindy McCain. Why would anyone want to sit through 2+ hours of speeches while holding an infant? Right. The family is not part of this campaign.

Oh, wait! Cindy McCain is now holding the baby. How cute is that?

Right. They are not part of the campaign, even though they were undoubtedly mandated to be there so they could be seen on tv.