NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all, I don't want anyone to think that this guy is indicative of the Republican party as a whole. I don't believe that for a second. Most individual Republicans aren't assholes (though there are some around here who would accuse me of arguing just that). But man, this dad is an asshole. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-teddy_11met.ART.North.Edition2.f615355.html)
Ted Gambordella dislikes the idea that his only son, a Highland Park High junior, is a Democrat. He loathes it so much that he has flat-out refused to pay for his son's college education unless he becomes a Republican.

"Yeah, I'm serious," said Mr. Gambordella, a 57-year-old martial arts expert. "He's got to earn his own way."

That suits Teddy just fine.

The 17-year-old said there's no way he'll switch to the GOP just to get his father's financial backing. He recently started a Web site – onemillionreasonswhy .com – to raise money for college.

"It's not about the money," said Teddy, who spent two years wrestling for W.T. White High before joining Highland Park's team last fall. "It's about spreading knowledge about Bush and his administration and proving my dad wrong. It's more of a principle thing." Now I don't have the financial wherewithal to help my daughter a ton with college--she'll be going on scholarships, or at the university where I'm a teacher more than likely. But she could be the most hardcore of hardcore Republicans and I wouldn't deny her whatever I had so she could get an education. Family is more important than political disagreements.

also in California a woman was fired from her job for having an AirAmerica bumpersticker on her car--her employer was quoted as saying "The country is on a high state of alert. For all I know, you could be al-Qaida."

:gundge:

First of all, I don't want anyone to think that this guy is indicative of the Republican party as a whole. I don't believe that for a second. Most individual Republicans aren't assholes (though there are some around here who would accuse me of arguing just that). But man, this dad is an asshole. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-teddy_11met.ART.North.Edition2.f615355.html)
Now I don't have the financial wherewithal to help my daughter a ton with college--she'll be going on scholarships, or at the university where I'm a teacher more than likely. But she could be the most hardcore of hardcore Republicans and I wouldn't deny her whatever I had so she could get an education. Family is more important than political disagreements.
some people just make me wonder...granted, I would probably register republican, take my father for every cent I could, and just vote how I wanted. But I'm also a bastard like that.

Regardless of politics, that man is a douche.

First of all, I don't want anyone to think that this guy is indicative of the Republican party as a whole. I don't believe that for a second. Most individual Republicans aren't assholes (though there are some around here who would accuse me of arguing just that). But man, this dad is an asshole. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-teddy_11met.ART.North.Edition2.f615355.html)
Now I don't have the financial wherewithal to help my daughter a ton with college--she'll be going on scholarships, or at the university where I'm a teacher more than likely. But she could be the most hardcore of hardcore Republicans and I wouldn't deny her whatever I had so she could get an education. Family is more important than political disagreements.

Well, this is hardly a surprise.

For all the Republicans' talk about family values and "protecting the family," what they don't want you to realize is that they're actually talking about "The Family." As in "Don't go against the Family."

To them, family is not ties of love and loyalty and more-than-average blood ties. Family to them is about a man being able to give orders to women, children and grown men who are younger than he is and expect to have those orders carried out. Republicans today who complain about family being under attack are the same ones who used to think that their children were their property to beat to death if they so chose. They thought that raping your wife was a matter that neighbors should mind their own business about.

When they say that they care about family, in the context of political loyalty, what they're saying is "I'm a coward with no power in the real world, so I want the right to take it out on my family." That's why hard core repubs like Eutrusca say that they'd "divorce the bitch" if they held political beliefs far enough away from their own.

It's quite sad really. But I think we've reached the point that the Republican party ought to be considered an organization that has risen up against the government as the reconstruction amendments bar from political office.

some people just make me wonder...granted, I would probably register republican, take my father for every cent I could, and just vote how I wanted. But I'm also a bastard like that.
I can really relate to the kid in a sense. About 11 years ago, I left my church--I was a Jehovah's Witness, and when you do that, your family cuts you off. I could have gone back long enough to have gotten back into the church, and then disappeared, and my parents would accept me and talk to me, but I felt I'd be living a lie to do that. I still stay in contact with them, through my sister and the occasional phone call, but I refused to be someone I wasn't just so they would talk to me. I thought that was crap, and I still do, all these years later.

Regardless of politics, that man is a douche.
Yeah, ain't it the truth.

The son sounds a little contrary just for the sake of being contrary. After all, he said "It's about ... proving my dad wrong. It's more of a principle thing." I think we could substitute many different topics for the ellipsis and still be making a true statement. But that's the way some families are. If I had a child with that attitude, (s)he'd be attending college on his nickel, too.

I can really relate to the kid in a sense. About 11 years ago, I left my church--I was a Jehovah's Witness, and when you do that, your family cuts you off. I could have gone back long enough to have gotten back into the church, and then disappeared, and my parents would accept me and talk to me, but I felt I'd be living a lie to do that. I still stay in contact with them, through my sister and the occasional phone call, but I refused to be someone I wasn't just so they would talk to me. I thought that was crap, and I still do, all these years later.hmm...never knew that about ya. Congrats.
The way I was raised is that being a good person is above anything else. My family would never cut off ties with me for any reason, and for that I consider myself very lucky...unfortunatly that comes with the trait of being more stubborn than a mule. I don't mind it, but some of my friends might disagree...haha

I can really relate to the kid in a sense. About 11 years ago, I left my church--I was a Jehovah's Witness, and when you do that, your family cuts you off. I could have gone back long enough to have gotten back into the church, and then disappeared, and my parents would accept me and talk to me, but I felt I'd be living a lie to do that. I still stay in contact with them, through my sister and the occasional phone call, but I refused to be someone I wasn't just so they would talk to me. I thought that was crap, and I still do, all these years later.
You grew up JW? :eek: No wonder you are soe F*cked up. ;)

Oh well. I suppose trading 144,000 for DU/Kos is a fair exchange of psychoses... :p :p

Yeah, ain't it the truth.

But I have sort of started to think - what if I had a child that ended up being the most awful of awfuls, a Christian Democrat. I'd have a hard time with it, wondering where I had failed to instil a respect for everyone's equal value in my child... Ugh, perish the thought!

The son sounds a little contrary just for the sake of being contrary. After all, he said "It's about ... proving my dad wrong. It's more of a principle thing." I think we could substitute many different topics for the ellipsis and still be making a true statement. But that's the way some families are. If I had a child with that attitude, (s)he'd be attending college on his nickel, too.
Agreed. It's my money to do with as I please. You want to be a Democrat, learn what it's like to actually have no money before trying to take mine.

(If there's one thing I hate it's silver-spoon Socialists... :mad: )

The son sounds a little contrary just for the sake of being contrary. After all, he said "It's about ... proving my dad wrong. It's more of a principle thing." I think we could substitute many different topics for the ellipsis and still be making a true statement. But that's the way some families are. If I had a child with that attitude, (s)he'd be attending college on his nickel, too.

He's not being democrat to spite - it seems he's refusing to become republican to spite his father's attempt to force him to be one.

The son sounds a little contrary just for the sake of being contrary. After all, he said "It's about ... proving my dad wrong. It's more of a principle thing." I think we could substitute many different topics for the ellipsis and still be making a true statement. But that's the way some families are. If I had a child with that attitude, (s)he'd be attending college on his nickel, too.
Really? I always thought you had a thicker skin than that.

Agreed. It's my money to do with as I please. You want to be a Democrat, learn what it's like to actually have no money before trying to take mine.

(If there's one thing I hate it's silver-spoon Socialists... :mad: )
it would seem that if you have a computer with internet, you are hardly without any money. And I would be damned to the blackest parts of hell before I would ever refuse my child simply for political belifes.

The son sounds a little contrary just for the sake of being contrary. After all, he said "It's about ... proving my dad wrong. It's more of a principle thing." I think we could substitute many different topics for the ellipsis and still be making a true statement. But that's the way some families are. If I had a child with that attitude, (s)he'd be attending college on his nickel, too.
I'd say the son isn't being contrary for the sake of being contrary, but instead has dug his heels into the mud and is just unwilling to budge. I say good.

Agreed. It's my money to do with as I please. You want to be a Democrat, learn what it's like to actually have no money before trying to take mine.

(If there's one thing I hate it's silver-spoon Socialists... :mad: )
I didn't know that all Democrats were poor.

And the Lame Dad award goes to...

it would seem that if you have a computer with internet, you are hardly without any money. And I would be damned to the blackest parts of hell before I would ever refuse my child simply for political belifes.
When did a college education become the responsibility of the parent :confused: After 18, you are an adult. If someone wants to gift you X$, great. But Secondary Education is not mandatory, therefore not somthing a parent should feel beholden to.

What if your kid wanted to use that education to become a Lawyer in order to overturn Roe v. Wade... or enforce Sodomy laws... or some other Liberal bugaboo?

The only reason this situation is an issue (here) is because it's a Conservative trying to deny Liberal. :rolleyes:

I didn't know that all Democrats were poor.We aren't. Some are actually quite well off, as a matter of fact. But it's a tenet of faith among pseudo-libertarians that Democrats are de facto communists who want to take every penny that they've made (with no help from government, of course) and give it to poor people who do nothing but lay around and smoke crack and fuck all day so they can get ever larger welfare checks.

Really? I always thought you had a thicker skin than that.
Actually, I don't know what I'd do. Two of the three are very neutral politically, and the third is a centrist libertarian. I figure I'd probably do what I do now -- write as many checks as I need to.

I didn't know that all Democrats were poor.
No duh. The Kennedy's of the world would just rather spend MY (limited) money than their massive bank accounts. :rolleyes:

When did a college education become the responsibility of the parent :confused: After 18, you are an adult. If someone wants to gift you X$, great. But Secondary Education is not mandatory, therefore not somthing a parent should feel beholden to.

What if your kid wanted to use that education to become a Lawyer in order to overturn Roe v. Wade... or enforce Sodomy laws... or some other Liberal bugaboo?

The only reason this situation is an issue (here) is because it's a Conservative trying to deny Liberal. :rolleyes:
I'm not saying a parent has to pay for their childs education. What I am saying is that if you reject your child because of, and ONLY because of their political belifes, then yes, you are a poor excuse for a parent, and as far as I'm concerned, a human being.

honestly, I hope that my child will be more liberal than I am. That would make me happy. If they were to turn out conservative, hell, even neocon, they are still my child. I don't know if I will be in the position to pay for their education, but I intend to help them as much as I can. If their dream is to make abortion illegal (I really hope we're beyond that by the time my child is in college...but hey, this is America...) so be it. I may argue against them, I may try to debate them. But I will never tell them they are wrong or stupid or that I deny them because they disagree with me. That is a sophomoric attempt for power and essentially, a pissing contest.

And I would be just as pissed if some liberal parent denyed their conservative child. They are your child. The rest is just bullshit compared to that.

I've heard that similar stuff used to happen in the UK when they still had the grant system. 'You had a grant system and this still happen?!' I hear you say. Well, the grant system was only for students from poorer backgrounds. So those with richer parents had to submit to their whims, which often included which course they would do, their politics and who they lived with.

This is the one improvement of the loans system that anyone can just about manage to be financially independent from their parents if they wish. Admitedly this can real hard, but still possible.

We aren't. Some are actually quite well off, as a matter of fact. But it's a tenet of faith among pseudo-libertarians that Democrats are de facto communists who want to take every penny that they've made (with no help from government, of course) and give it to poor people who do nothing but lay around and smoke crack and fuck all day so they can get ever larger welfare checks.
Why are they so "well off" if they are dedicated to "helping those who didn't win at life's lottery"? COuld it be because it's easier to keep flush if you tax everyone else to pay for your own "white guilt"? :headbang:

When did a college education become the responsibility of the parent :confused: After 18, you are an adult. If someone wants to gift you X$, great. But Secondary Education is not mandatory, therefore not somthing a parent should feel beholden to.

What if your kid wanted to use that education to become a Lawyer in order to overturn Roe v. Wade... or enforce Sodomy laws... or some other Liberal bugaboo?

The only reason this situation is an issue (here) is because it's a Conservative trying to deny Liberal. :rolleyes:
Responsibility? Not necessarily, but I feel that part of my duty as a parent is to help my daughter reach her highest potential. Of course, I'm not a selfish prick either. And it wouldn't matter what my daughter decided to do with her education--she's a free individual. I might be disappointed if she did such a thing as you describe, but she'd still be my daughter and I'd support her all I could.

Why are they so "well off" if they are dedicated to "helping those who didn't win at life's lottery"? COuld it be because it's easier to keep flush if you tax everyone else to pay for your own "white guilt"? :headbang:

Oh, there came the racism with the implication that it's those awful black people who might benefit. Heaven forbid!

Why are they so "well off" if they are dedicated to "helping those who didn't win at life's lottery"? COuld it be because it's easier to keep flush if you tax everyone else to pay for your own "white guilt"?
Careful you don't set yourself on fire while you're burning up all those straw men. :rolleyes:

He has a website to collect money and his story made the news.
I would say he will have enough money to make it through graduate school, but colleges ring you for money like you would ring the water out of a wet towel. He might get 2 years worth.

Why are they so "well off" if they are dedicated to "helping those who didn't win at life's lottery"? COuld it be because it's easier to keep flush if you tax everyone else to pay for your own "white guilt"? :headbang:
right...my white guilt. despite the fact that many people on welfare are, in fact, white?

"Want to play ball, scarecrow?"

<snip>Even if they were a fascist and held openly racist beliefs? If it want that far then I might have trouble... I'm sure I'd want the best for my children, but if they went as far to want to... I'm not sure what I'm talking about. I think I'm just saying I wouldn't help them to impinge on a fundamental right of another person.

Oh, there came the racism with the implication that it's those awful black people who might benefit. Heaven forbid!
:confused:

Doesn't matter who benefits. If you are rich, it is hypocritical that you demand I give away my limited resources when you don't.

IMO anyone who lives lavishly while demanding that the plebes cover their programs is a hypocrite.

Careful you don't set yourself on fire while you're burning up all those straw men. :rolleyes:
I'll take that chance. At least I can drop and roll... unlike Kennedy.

I can really relate to the kid in a sense. About 11 years ago, I left my church--I was a Jehovah's Witness, and when you do that, your family cuts you off. I could have gone back long enough to have gotten back into the church, and then disappeared, and my parents would accept me and talk to me, but I felt I'd be living a lie to do that. I still stay in contact with them, through my sister and the occasional phone call, but I refused to be someone I wasn't just so they would talk to me. I thought that was crap, and I still do, all these years later.

Somewhat the same for me. My parents threw me out my senior year after I finally snapped and hit my step-dad back. My mother put me in a half-way house with the drug addicts and used the money my dead father had saved from his pay for my college to finance the little sojourn.

:confused:

Doesn't matter who benefits. If you are rich, it is hypocritical that you demand I give away my limited resources when you don't.

IMO anyone who lives lavishly while demanding that the plebes cover their programs is a hypocrite.

Let me guess, you don't understand the progressive tax system?

Even if they were a fascist and held openly racist beliefs? If it want that far then I might have trouble... I'm sure I'd want the best for my children, but if they went as far to want to... I'm not sure what I'm talking about. I think I'm just saying I wouldn't help them to impinge on a fundamental right of another person.
if they don't hurt someone, then it isn't my choice. I may disagree...hell, I may detest their position. I may try my entire life to change their mind. The moment they hurt someone else or infringed on other peoples rights, then it becomes an issue for the law and out of my hands. I would still support them the best I could (or atleast I like to think I would.)

:confused:

Doesn't matter who benefits. If you are rich, it is hypocritical that you demand I give away my limited resources when you don't.

IMO anyone who lives lavishly while demanding that the plebes cover their programs is a hypocrite.
I'm pretty sure everyone pays taxes...

if they don't hurt someone, then it isn't my choice. I may disagree...hell, I may detest their position. I may try my entire life to change their mind. The moment they hurt someone else or infringed on other peoples rights, then it becomes an issue for the law and out of my hands. I would still support them the best I could (or atleast I like to think I would.)Hmm... Good answer.

First of all, I don't want anyone to think that this guy is indicative of the Republican party as a whole. I don't believe that for a second. Most individual Republicans aren't assholes (though there are some around here who would accuse me of arguing just that). But man, this dad is an asshole. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-teddy_11met.ART.North.Edition2.f615355.html)
Now I don't have the financial wherewithal to help my daughter a ton with college--she'll be going on scholarships, or at the university where I'm a teacher more than likely. But she could be the most hardcore of hardcore Republicans and I wouldn't deny her whatever I had so she could get an education. Family is more important than political disagreements.

Well Nazz, I usually disagree with you but I do admit I agree with you on this. Dad is an ass He want's his son to become a robot and not think for himself.

Well Nazz, I usually disagree with you but I do admit I agree with you on this. Dad is an ass He want's his son to become a robot and not think for himself.
Ironic that he uses university as leverage, considering that is where one learns to think for themselves on higher and deeper levels...

Ironic that he uses university as leverage, considering that is where one learns to think for themselves on higher and deeper levels...

You forget that people like this man see universities and academia as a liberal ivory tower bent on corrupting their children and luring them to the dark side, full of civil rights protections and notions of equality.

You forget that people like this man see universities and academia as a liberal ivory tower bent on corrupting their children and luring them to the dark side, full of civil rights protections and notions of equality.
Well, they see all those courses--Advanced America Blaming*, Applied Appeasement of Terrorists*, and of course, Fidel and Che, the True American Heroes and they rightly go ballistic.

*Course titles stolen from Michael Berube's blog.

But I have sort of started to think - what if I had a child that ended up being the most awful of awfuls, a Christian Democrat. I'd have a hard time with it, wondering where I had failed to instil a respect for everyone's equal value in my child... Ugh, perish the thought!

As my son grew up he developed a reasonable Republican philosophy. Hell, he even listend to Rush for a while. Then he went to college where he took liberal arts taught by left wing liberals. Now his political philosophy is the polar opposite of mine. I don't agree with most of his political views, but I love him, I am proud of him and what he has accomplished, and I'm glad he has learned to think for himslef. Love you son.

I didn't know that all Democrats were poor.

Teddy, John, and Hillary are poor? :D

You forget that people like this man see universities and academia as a liberal ivory tower bent on corrupting their children and luring them to the dark side, full of civil rights protections and notions of equality.
ahh...Now I see my error...You see, I am one of those New England intellectual liberal elite, and so am clearly out of touch with the "true" Americans. And it only takes a Swede to show me the light;)

As my son grew up he developed a reasonable Republican philosophy. Hell, he even listend to Rush for a while. Then he went to college where he took liberal arts taught by left wing liberals. Now his political philosophy is the polar opposite of mine. I don't agree with most of his political views, but I love him, I am proud of him and what he has accomplished, and I'm glad he has learned to think for himslef. Love you son.Ya know, I go to a very liberal school in a very liberal part of the country...and I've never had a professor really display their political colors in class. I've had the occasional comment or jab here or there, but in general, they are very careful to keep politics out of the class (unless it is a political class, of course). they are also pretty quick to play devils advocate if needed in a political debate.

As my son grew up he developed a reasonable Republican philosophy. Hell, he even listend to Rush for a while.

Rush? *filthy foreigner here*

Then he went to college where he took liberal arts taught by left wing liberals. Now his political philosophy is the polar opposite of mine.

Kudos, higher learnin'! ;)

I don't agree with most of his political views, but I love him, I am proud of him and what he has accomplished, and I'm glad he has learned to think for himslef. Love you son.

Aww. That's cute. But there is a difference between meekly liberal, and Christian Democrat. The Christian Democrats are as close to evil as I can allow myself to acknowledge without actually believing in evil in the Swedish parliament. They are just awful people. :(

ahh...Now I see my error...You see, I am one of those New England intellectual liberal elite, and so am clearly out of touch with the "true" Americans. And it only takes a Swede to show me the light;)

I've always found it funny how they get away with that, claiming to be "true Americans" and accusing New England of being fake in some sense, when in fact, the North East states founded the US... It's as if they don't even think of why all the monuments are there.

Teddy, John, and Hillary are poor? :D
Hardcore Socialists, didn't you know?

The whole not paying for college thing occurs in my hometown not only if an elephant goes donkey, but if a Spartan becomes a wolverine. Crazy, huh?

Rush? *filthy foreigner here*
Rush Limbaugh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh). Like O'Riley, except with twice the douch power.

Ya know, I go to a very liberal school in a very liberal part of the country...and I've never had a professor really display their political colors in class. I've had the occasional comment or jab here or there, but in general, they are very careful to keep politics out of the class (unless it is a political class, of course). they are also pretty quick to play devils advocate if needed in a political debate.
Good teachers do that, because it forces students, who aren't used to having to think from multiple perspectives, to do so, to see the world through the eyes of someone who disagrees with you. It also forces you to challenge your own beliefs and defend them.

I've always found it funny how they get away with that, claiming to be "true Americans" and accusing New England of being fake in some sense, when in fact, the North East states founded the US... It's as if they don't even think of why all the monuments are there.
It is even better than that..the US Constitution is based on the one from my home state, Connecticut. Hence why we are the charter oak state. I've never understood how there can be "real" and "fake" Americans...if you are American, and don't just exist in someones imagination, then how can you be a "fake" American?

Good teachers do that, because it forces students, who aren't used to having to think from multiple perspectives, to do so, to see the world through the eyes of someone who disagrees with you. It also forces you to challenge your own beliefs and defend them.
thats the way I was always taught to argue...first learn the opposing view, then learn yours, then study the opposing view again. At that point, you will be able to argue effectively.

@People: American is just as hard to define as European. Thus, the problem.

Ya know, I go to a very liberal school in a very liberal part of the country...and I've never had a professor really display their political colors in class. I've had the occasional comment or jab here or there, but in general, they are very careful to keep politics out of the class (unless it is a political class, of course). they are also pretty quick to play devils advocate if needed in a political debate.

I've graduated from two Colleges, Louisiana Tech and Oklahoma State University. I do not recall any professor, even the most liberal ever discussing their personal political philosophy in class. When I talked about my son taking liberal arts and being taught by liberal professors I forgot to show you all the tong in my cheek. :D

Rush Limbaugh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh). Like O'Riley, except with twice the douch power.

Oh, him. I've heard a bit of and by him, most of it risible.

I've graduated from two Colleges, Louisiana Tech and Oklahoma State University. I do not recall any professor, even the most liberal ever discussing their personal political philosophy in class. When I talked about my son taking liberal arts and being taught by liberal professors I forgot to show you all the tong in my cheek. :D
haha...gotcha...my bad.

*shuffles off awkwardly*

All fathers turn into dickheads when you're about fifteen or so. They're usually over it by the time you're twenty. :p

Rush Limbaugh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh). Like O'Riley, except with twice the douch power.

Oh no, not like Bill at all. Bill is a bleeding heart left wing liberal compared to Rush. :D

Oh no, not like Bill at all. Bill is a bleeding heart left wing liberal compared to Rush. :D
Yeah, but when it comes to pure, unadulterated douchebaggery, they're about even.:D

All fathers turn into dickheads when you're about fifteen or so. They're usually over it by the time you're twenty. :p
nah...I'd say it starts around 13 or so. I was over it around 16.

Oh no, not like Bill at all. Bill is a bleeding heart left wing liberal compared to Rush.It is a sad sad day when O'Riley could be called a pinko commie by someone...

Good teachers do that, because it forces students, who aren't used to having to think from multiple perspectives, to do so, to see the world through the eyes of someone who disagrees with you. It also forces you to challenge your own beliefs and defend them.

Had one professor in an education class set up teams for a debate over educational philosophy. The way he set up the teams, each team had to defend a position that was the direct opposite of their personal philosophy. It sure was fun and interesting to debate for something you did not directly support. It was also a great learning experience.

Had one professor in an education class set up teams for a debate over educational philosophy. The way he set up the teams, each team had to defend a position that was the direct opposite of their personal philosophy. It sure was fun and interesting to debate for something you did not directly support. It was also a great learning experience.
I've done that as well. I got their positions in advance and then turned them on themselves. Some of them hated it, but most wound up seeing the value of the exercise.

All fathers turn into dickheads when you're about fifteen or so. They're usually over it by the time you're twenty. :p

I can relate to that. My son was surprised how intelligent I became by the time he was in his late 20's. Hell, he even started asking me for my advice on things. Amazing how much I learned in about 10 years. :D But I don't think this dad will learn anything in the next 15 or 20 years. He is doomed to be a dumbass forever.

:gundge:

LOL!

:confused:

Doesn't matter who benefits. If you are rich, it is hypocritical that you demand I give away my limited resources when you don't.

IMO anyone who lives lavishly while demanding that the plebes cover their programs is a hypocrite.

Not if they're willing to contribute the same proportion of their income. Especially if they're rich and favor progressive income taxes, as most liberals, even the rich ones, do.

If I won the lottery tommorow I would still believe in a progressive income tax used to fund social welfare programs. Would that make me a hypocrite when now I would only stand to benefit from them?

It's small wonder that so many conservatives are such complete hypocrites. They literally don't know the meaning of the word.

The whole not paying for college thing occurs in my hometown not only if an elephant goes donkey, but if a Spartan becomes a wolverine. Crazy, huh?

Yes to both. Michigan and Michigan State hate one another just like Dems and Reps (the hardcore ones at least) Don't like eachother either.

The dad here is a class A idiot for not paying for his son's college education. If I had a kid and he was a dem, I'd still pay for his education.

I've always found it funny how they get away with that, claiming to be "true Americans" and accusing New England of being fake in some sense, when in fact, the North East states founded the US... It's as if they don't even think of why all the monuments are there.

I find myself thinking the same thing almost every time I post in this forum.

some people just make me wonder...granted, I would probably register republican, take my father for every cent I could, and just vote how I wanted. But I'm also a bastard like that.

I second that. In my junior year, my parents told me they wouldn't pay for me to live on campus (I had an almost full scholarship for undergrad, but it didn't cover housing) unless I stopped dating this guy I didn't like. So we dated "secretly" until my parents had already paid in advance for my senior year expenses, then did the "guess what?" on them. :cool:

If I had a kid and he was a dem, I'd still pay for his education.
What if your child betrayed your beloved alma mater? Would you disown them? :p
*gives thanks pa went to some college I can't remember in Detroit*

What if your child betrayed your beloved alma mater? Would you disown them? :p
*gives thanks pa went to some college I can't remember in Detroit*

Nope! I wouldn't do that either. I'll just play my alma mater at full blast throughout the house everytime he is home. :D

Nope! I wouldn't do that either. I'll just play my alma mater at full blast throughout the house everytime he is home. :D
What to do families get when a child breaks away from the mold? A richer the family life. Its a win-win situation! :)

I find myself thinking the same thing almost every time I post in this forum.

There's your problem right there: this forum makes you think.

There's your problem right there: this forum makes you think.

Yes, usually it makes me think "What the fuck?"

Yes, usually it makes me think "What the fuck?"

That ended for me some five thousand posts ago. It'll come to you too. ;)

The whole not paying for college thing occurs in my hometown not only if an elephant goes donkey, but if a Spartan becomes a wolverine. Crazy, huh?

Of course, if they were to become a Buckeye it'd be grounds for a lynching.

That ended for me some five thousand posts ago. It'll come to you to.
When people now bring up quite crazy things in real life I'm totally uneffected. I've been NS-desensitised. :p
Then again, that could have came from my real life as well...

That ended for me some five thousand posts ago. It'll come to you too. ;)

You'd think it would have come to me before you, since I've been around here longer.

Of course, if they were to become a Buckeye it'd be grounds for a lynching.
That made me laugh rather loudly. :p We got some Buckeyes in my neck of the woods. You'd think they'd know better!

That made me laugh rather loudly. :p We got some Buckeyes in my neck of the woods. You'd think they'd know better!

GO PENN STATE

You'd think it would have come to me before you, since I've been around here longer.

Some of us are just faster learners. :p

GO PENN STATE
Meh. I've never had to be predjudice on some Penn Stater in my non-internet life, so I'm not going to start here. Its generally a bad way to start things. But rest assured, that if we ever do meet and this topic comes up, we'll have a jolly good "discussion". ;)

Meh. I've never had to be predjudice on some Penn Stater in my non-internet life, so I'm not going to start here. Its generally a bad way to start things. But rest assured, that if we ever do meet and this topic comes up, we'll have a jolly good "discussion". ;)

At least your not a WVU person I hope so no worries here :)

Now I don't have the financial wherewithal to help my daughter a ton with college--she'll be going on scholarships, or at the university where I'm a teacher more than likely. But she could be the most hardcore of hardcore Republicans and I wouldn't deny her whatever I had so she could get an education. Family is more important than political disagreements.
I agree. I like to think that I've taught my children to be independent for a reason. If they disagree with me, ( as they have from time to time ), but can explain to me why, we may reach agreement, or we may agree to disagree, but neither would ever form a basis for my refusing to help them in whatever way I could.

I was in much the same boat as you when mine were college age. I couldn't afford to send them, especially since we had five. We helped them all we could, but most of the money had to come from scholarships, loans and jobs. I personally think they're better off for having had to work a bit to get their education. Then again, I'm so proud of them it could just be ego on my part. :D

I personally think they're better off for having had to work a bit to get their education.

Which is probably true, but at least you weren't pig-headed enough to refuse them money because they disagreed with you. This guy isn't really teaching his kid the value of hard work by refusing to help him whatsoever. He's teaching his kid that his father is a douchebag.

At least your not a WVU person I hope so no worries here :)
I'm more of feudal Michigan State or Michigan University, with a lot of bias towards Michigan State, but hold a lot of respect for Cornell. I'm no WVU groupie. Its safe.

I once did a non-scientific study over the course of a month to see which groups have more pride, Spartans or Wolverines. In the end, Wolverine merchandise outnumbered Spartan merchandise 5/1. My thesis was supported. Surprise, surprise.

I seriously don't see the problem. It's not like he is entitled to having someone else pay for his college, much less his father. Sometimes if you want to do what you want to do you have to make sacrifices.

Which is probably true, but at least you weren't pig-headed enough to refuse them money because they disagreed with you. This guy isn't really teaching his kid the value of hard work by refusing to help him whatsoever. He's teaching his kid that his father is a douchebag.
LMAO! Perhaps.

My own father was a bit of a douchebag, but I didn't hold it against him. I just figured he had been raised in a different time and place. :)

I seriously don't see the problem. It's not like he is entitled to having someone else pay for his college, much less his father. Sometimes if you want to do what you want to do you have to make sacrifices.
It's not the fact that his college wasn't being paid for, it's the reason why.

It's not the fact that his college wasn't being paid for, it's the reason why.
The reason doesn't matter to me, it's his father's money, if he doesn't want to pay for the son's college for any reason whatsoever that's his right. Even if we all agree it's a stupid reason, it's still his right not to pay. It annoys me more that the son expects it and is throwing a fit about it than it does that the father is sorta being a jerk about it.

Then again I got kicked out of church for listening to secular music, so I figure if you choose to do something then you have to deal with the consequences of your choice, it's obviously important to him to be registered as a democrat, so if he has to give something up to do that then that's just life isn't it?

The reason doesn't matter to me, it's his father's money, if he doesn't want to pay for the son's college for any reason whatsoever that's his right. Even if we all agree it's a stupid reason, it's still his right not to pay. It annoys me more that the son expects it and is throwing a fit about it than it does that the father is sorta being a jerk about it.

Then again I got kicked out of church for listening to secular music, so I figure if you choose to do something then you have to deal with the consequences of your choice, it's obviously important to him to be registered as a democrat, so if he has to give something up to do that then that's just life isn't it?

The son is not throwing a fit. He's earning his college money championing that greatest of Republican causes, capitalism. His father should be proud.

The son is not throwing a fit. He's earning his college money championing that greatest of Republican causes, capitalism. His father should be proud.
if he really wasn't throwing a fit then we wouldn't know about "how mean his daddy is" now would we?

Adults deal with life as it comes, change the things they can, accept the things they can't and move on. Spoiled brats whine about "how mean daddy is" as loud as they can to anyone who will listen to try to get their way.

I'm curious, is the father not paying for college because the son is of different political philospohy, or because he is being disrespectful of his father?

Because, as much as I want to say I'd back my kid no matter what, I have my breaking points.

I have to admit, if my son or daughter asked for my help for college, I'd only help if they agreed to take at least one semester of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and discrete math.

Then, they could major in whatever field they love, be it theatre, history, English, French literature, comparative religion, or even (shudder) business.

But if they chose, of their own passion, to go into science and/or engineering, I'd give them a car, too.

EDIT: [After a brief discussion with my partner, it has been explained to me that my policy of requiring coursework in the natural sciences is unreasonable and will not be enacted. I tried a filibuster, but I was summarily vetoed and removed from the floor. As a result, I will evidently be paying for my child's education regardless of his/her chosen curriculum, with only the petty science and math requirements of the regional accreditation boards to solace me. But dammit, I confess I WOULD'VE required it. ]

if he really wasn't throwing a fit then we wouldn't know about "how mean his daddy is" now would we?

Adults deal with life as it comes, change the things they can, accept the things they can't and move on. Spoiled brats whine about "how mean daddy is" as loud as they can to anyone who will listen to try to get their way.
It's a well established tradition for parents to contribute at least a little to their kids' college education. That is, if they're good parents in wanting their kids to be educated and find high paying jobs rather than learn that their father is a douchebag.

The son sounds a little contrary just for the sake of being contrary. After all, he said "It's about ... proving my dad wrong. It's more of a principle thing." I think we could substitute many different topics for the ellipsis and still be making a true statement. But that's the way some families are. If I had a child with that attitude, (s)he'd be attending college on his nickel, too.

Yet you wanted the Iraq bloodshed to happen for the sake of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION?

Fuck yourself with a fire extinguisher!

It's a well established tradition for parents to contribute at least a little to their kids' college education. That is, if they're good parents in wanting their kids to be educated and find high paying jobs rather than learn that their father is a douchebag.
I know nothing of this tradition. I am a good parent and I want my child to be educated, but I will not be guilted into paying for it. I have had to work for just about everything I have ever had from age 15 on, I grew up fine. I don't see any obligation that a parent has to pay for higher education, nor do I see how not paying for it makes you somehow a bad parent.

The reason doesn't matter to me, it's his father's money, if he doesn't want to pay for the son's college for any reason whatsoever that's his right. Even if we all agree it's a stupid reason, it's still his right not to pay. It annoys me more that the son expects it and is throwing a fit about it than it does that the father is sorta being a jerk about it.
I agree but ...

I got kicked out of church for listening to secular music.
Say WHAT??? :eek:

if he really wasn't throwing a fit then we wouldn't know about "how mean his daddy is" now would we?

Adults deal with life as it comes, change the things they can, accept the things they can't and move on. Spoiled brats whine about "how mean daddy is" as loud as they can to anyone who will listen to try to get their way.

We know about "how mean his daddy is" because of the website he has set up to earn money to go to college on his own. I don't see how he's a spoiled brat. He's not trying to get his dad to pay for his school. He's found a way to do it on his own. Why should he either resign himself to not paying for school or becoming daddy's little robot? He's found a way that allows him to go to school without compromising what he believes, and you call him a spoiled brat for it.

I know nothing of this tradition. I am a good parent and I want my child to be educated, but I will not be guilted into paying for it. I have had to work for just about everything I have ever had from age 15 on, I grew up fine. I don't see any obligation that a parent has to pay for higher education, nor do I see how not paying for it makes you somehow a bad parent.
Parents do not "owe" their children anything except to love them and provide care for them until they are able to care for themselves. Yes, I would have loved to have the option of paying for college for those of my children who wanted to go and had demonstrated their willingness to work toward it. But did I "owe" it to them? Hell no!

I know nothing of this tradition. I am a good parent and I want my child to be educated, but I will not be guilted into paying for it. I have had to work for just about everything I have ever had from age 15 on, I grew up fine. I don't see any obligation that a parent has to pay for higher education, nor do I see how not paying for it makes you somehow a bad parent.

The reasoning behind it. Not paying because his son doesn't think the way he wants him to. That's what makes him a bad parent. He doesn't want his son to be an independent person. He wants his son to be like him, or else.

I know nothing of this tradition. I am a good parent and I want my child to be educated, but I will not be guilted into paying for it. I have had to work for just about everything I have ever had from age 15 on, I grew up fine. I don't see any obligation that a parent has to pay for higher education, nor do I see how not paying for it makes you somehow a bad parent.
Then perhaps I'm not thinking of the cheap-o "UofWhatever", where it'd be realistic for students (who should be studying, not working) to pay for their tuition and everything else.

The reasoning behind it. Not paying because his son doesn't think the way he wants him to. That's what makes him a bad parent. He doesn't want his son to be an independent person. He wants his son to be like him, or else.
Exactly, he would've pitched in for his son's college education, but because he's a douche and his son is a Democrat, he's not going to. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

Say WHAT??? :eek:
yep, kicked out, removed from the roll books, no longer welcome at that church and in fact until I appealed no longer welcome as a Southern Baptist, because if the church kicks you out the convention assumes that they had good reason, I appealed saying it wasn't the secular music but the particular kind, and was able to prove that if it had been music more to the preacher's liking but still secular, that he would have been fine with it. They decided that he was biased in the situation and while I am still unwelcome at that church, I can be a member of another church "if they will have me", my current church doesn't see the point in the former churches ruling anyway so not a problem currently.

Then perhaps I'm not thinking of the cheap-o "UofWhatever", where it'd be realistic for students (who should be studying, not working) to pay for their tuition and everything else.
I fail to see your point here. Albert Einstein barely finished the equivalent of high school. It's possible to educate yourself quite effectively without attending an Ivy League university.

Well, this is hardly a surprise.

For all the Republicans' talk about family values and "protecting the family," what they don't want you to realize is that they're actually talking about "The Family." As in "Don't go against the Family."

To them, family is not ties of love and loyalty and more-than-average blood ties. Family to them is about a man being able to give orders to women, children and grown men who are younger than he is and expect to have those orders carried out. Republicans today who complain about family being under attack are the same ones who used to think that their children were their property to beat to death if they so chose. They thought that raping your wife was a matter that neighbors should mind their own business about.

When they say that they care about family, in the context of political loyalty, what they're saying is "I'm a coward with no power in the real world, so I want the right to take it out on my family." That's why hard core repubs like Eutrusca say that they'd "divorce the bitch" if they held political beliefs far enough away from their own.

It's quite sad really. But I think we've reached the point that the Republican party ought to be considered an organization that has risen up against the government as the reconstruction amendments bar from political office.


I find that a little hard to stomach. I am a Republican, albeit a moderate one, and I am offended that you typify every Republican in such a manner. My kids are my kids no matter what their political/religious beliefs are. I might debate them, I would never disown them.

The actions of the man who won't help his son through college are not those of a "Republican" but those of a spoiled, authoritarian child who's not getting his way.

I imagine, from your words, that if a Democrat refused help to his Republican son/daughter through college, it would be justifiable. The issue here being not right and wrong, but whose ox is being gored.

yep, kicked out, removed from the roll books, no longer welcome at that church and in fact until I appealed no longer welcome as a Southern Baptist, because if the church kicks you out the convention assumes that they had good reason, I appealed saying it wasn't the secular music but the particular kind, and was able to prove that if it had been music more to the preacher's liking but still secular, that he would have been fine with it. They decided that he was biased in the situation and while I am still unwelcome at that church, I can be a member of another church "if they will have me", my current church doesn't see the point in the former churches ruling anyway so not a problem currently.
Good grief. [ shakes head sadly ] When I was going to church, we use to refer to that as "rampant legalism." Sigh. :(

We know about "how mean his daddy is" because of the website he has set up to earn money to go to college on his own. I don't see how he's a spoiled brat. He's not trying to get his dad to pay for his school. He's found a way to do it on his own. Why should he either resign himself to not paying for school or becoming daddy's little robot? He's found a way that allows him to go to school without compromising what he believes, and you call him a spoiled brat for it.
if he were an honorable person he would have been able to find a way to pay for college without trying to make out his dad as the bad guy. Part of being a spoiled brat is whining when you don't get your way (which he is doing) and the other part is trying to guilt, manipulate, or just plain defame someone else while still trying to get your way (which he is also doing) if he were being enterprising and just trying to find a way out of a "bad situation" then he should be able to do it without bringing his father's name into it at all.



Then perhaps I'm not thinking of the cheap-o "UofWhatever", where it'd be realistic for students (who should be studying, not working) to pay for their tuition and everything else.

Life isn't fair, and it isn't easy, grown ups realize this and do the best they can with what they have. If you don't have funding for an expensive college you don't go, if you have to work to get through college then you do that. It's all about being an adult.

The reasoning behind it. Not paying because his son doesn't think the way he wants him to. That's what makes him a bad parent. He doesn't want his son to be an independent person. He wants his son to be like him, or else.
shouldn't the father be free to spend his money on what he wants? where exactly in the scheme of a free country do you get to dictate to a man what he should spend his money on?

I fail to see your point here. Albert Einstein barely finished the equivalent of high school. It's possible to educate yourself quite effectively without attending an Ivy League university.
Obviously. A lot of large public Universities don't require that much in tuition, somewhere along the lines of ~$5,000 instate. That's it. I never claimed that Ivy League schools have better quality education than state Universities. I guess I just forgot that so many are so cheap, thus I was trying to apologize for that.

Here:
I HEREBY ADMIT THAT I FORGOT THAT SO MANY UNIVERSITIES ARE SO CHEAP, THUS IT IS POSSIBLE FOR STUDENTS TO PAY FOR THEIR TUITION AND EVERYTHING IN FULL WITHOUT THEIR PARENTS' AID
happy? Good. :D

I was in much the same boat as you when mine were college age. I couldn't afford to send them, especially since we had five. We helped them all we could, but most of the money had to come from scholarships, loans and jobs. I personally think they're better off for having had to work a bit to get their education. Then again, I'm so proud of them it could just be ego on my part. :D

I used to send my kid food because I knew if I sent money he would spend it on other things. All the store brand food came in yellow boxes and yellow cans. He had one of the brightest yellow kitchens in town. :)

Life isn't fair, and it isn't easy, grown ups realize this and do the best they can with what they have. If you don't have funding for an expensive college you don't go, if you have to work to get through college then you do that. It's all about being an adult.
Well excuuuuuse me for not remembering that not all colleges are as expensive as the one I'm going to. I myself need my parents to pay for some of my college costs, because I can't very well shell out $23,000 / year, after most of my scholarships.

Well excuuuuuse me for not remembering that not all colleges are as expensive as the one I'm going to. I myself need my parents to pay for some of my college costs, because I can't very well shell out $23,000 / year, after most of my scholarships.
so, you expect your parents to pay? interesting.

if he were an honorable person he would have been able to find a way to pay for college without trying to make out his dad as the bad guy. Part of being a spoiled brat is whining when you don't get your way (which he is doing) and the other part is trying to guilt, manipulate, or just plain defame someone else while still trying to get your way (which he is also doing) if he were being enterprising and just trying to find a way out of a "bad situation" then he should be able to do it without bringing his father's name into it at all.

If his father were an honorable person, he wouldn't make his son's higher education contingent on his political leanings. The son has found a perfectly acceptable to pay for school in lieu of his father. If his father did not want his name involved, then he wouldn't have agreed to the interview with the Dallas Morning News. I suppose you would have a better alternative for this kid to raise the money necessary to pay for four years of college for himself AND his sister and still be able to actually attend college?


shouldn't the father be free to spend his money on what he wants? where exactly in the scheme of a free country do you get to dictate to a man what he should spend his money on?

I doubt the father really needs your help to get up on that cross. No one is dictating how this man must spend his money. That's why he's perfectly able to withdraw his support for his son's future. But we're also perfectly able to pass judgement on his selfish decision. My disapproval does not force him to pay for his son's education.

Obviously. A lot of large public Universities don't require that much in tuition, somewhere along the lines of ~$5,000 instate. That's it. I never claimed that Ivy League schools have better quality education than state Universities. I guess I just forgot that so many are so cheap, thus I was trying to apologize for that.

Here:
I HEREBY ADMIT THAT I FORGOT THAT SO MANY UNIVERSITIES ARE SO CHEAP, THUS IT IS POSSIBLE FOR STUDENTS TO PAY FOR THEIR TUITION AND EVERYTHING IN FULL WITHOUT THEIR PARENTS' AID
happy? Good. :D
ROFLMAO! Ouch! Point taken. [ massages eyes gently to relieve the impact of massive words ] :p

I used to send my kid food because I knew if I sent money he would spend it on other things. All the store brand food came in yellow boxes and yellow cans. He had one of the brightest yellow kitchens in town. :)
LOL! And I bet he hates the color yellow to this day! :D

so, you expect your parents to pay? interesting.Is that worse than them expecting me to pay some ungodly amount of money? Besides, they said they would on their own will. Perhaps my parents are jsut nice and don't want to see me get in thousands of dollars of debt (with flexible interest as high as 8%, thank you Bush) and work for ten years before I can finally pay it all off when they easily have the resources to cover my expenses. But perhaps you just like watching your kids suffer before smacking them by saying "THAT'S THE REAL WORLD BITCHES!!!!" anyways, I'm not going to continue this debate because it's obviously drifted far from baing rational.

If his father were an honorable person, he wouldn't make his son's higher education contingent on his political leanings. The son has found a perfectly acceptable to pay for school in lieu of his father. If his father did not want his name involved, then he wouldn't have agreed to the interview with the Dallas Morning News. I suppose you would have a better alternative for this kid to raise the money necessary to pay for four years of college for himself AND his sister and still be able to actually attend college?
I don't see how deciding not to spend money on something you aren't required to pay for makes you less than honorable.

I stand by my statement that if you make a decision you must deal with the consequences. I don't think that whining on the internet about how "daddy won't support me so please give me money" is honorable, but I guess it's a free country and if he wants to act like a spoiled brat it's his right. I figure though he could just as well work his way through college like my grandparents did, like my parents did, like I am, and like my children will.

ROFLMAO! Ouch! Point taken. [ massages eyes gently to relieve the impact of massive words ] :p
Sorry, I'm just a bit flustered by some of the insensitivity, not just in this thread, but elsewhere. :D

Is that worse than them expecting me to pay some ungodly amount of money? Besides, they said they would on their own will. Perhaps my parents are jsut nice and don't want to see me get in thousands of dollars of debt (with flexible interest as high as 8%, thank you Bush) and work for ten years before I can finally pay it all off when they easily have the resources to cover my expenses. But perhaps you just like watching your kids suffer before smacking them by saying "THAT'S THE REAL WORLD BITCHES!!!!" anyways, I'm not going to continue this debate because it's obviously drifted far from baing rational.
You think 8% interest is high??? :eek:

I was paying about 12% on my first house back in 1977, for crying out loud! :(

Sorry, I'm just a bit flustered by some of the insensitivity, not just in this thread, but elsewhere. :D
Ouch ... again. Sorry about that. My bad. :(

I don't see how deciding not to spend money on something you aren't required to pay for makes you less than honorable.

I stand by my statement that if you make a decision you must deal with the consequences. I don't think that whining on the internet about how "daddy won't support me so please give me money" is honorable, but I guess it's a free country and if he wants to act like a spoiled brat it's his right. I figure though he could just as well work his way through college like my grandparents did, like my parents did, like I am, and like my children will.

Hinging your son's future on your political beliefs is selfish and assinine. Your statement is crap. The kid made a decision, and now he is dealing with the consequences. You just don't like the way he's dealing with the consequences. The kid has found a way to raise money for school, and just because it's not the way you think he should do it, you call him a spoiled brat. We're all very impressed that your grandparents worked their way through college. Surprisingly, we don't all have to do things the same way as you.

I have to admit, if my son or daughter asked for my help for college, I'd only help if they agreed to take at least one semester of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and discrete math.

Then, they could major in whatever field they love, be it theatre, history, English, French literature, comparative religion, or even (shudder) business.

But if they chose, of their own passion, to go into science and/or engineering, I'd give them a car, too.

I always told my kids, "I don't care what profession you choose in life as long as you do the best you can possibly do in that profession." One of them asked me one day, "Dad, you mean I can become a garbage man if I want?" I replied, "Yes, just as long as you become the best garbage man you can be." (He didn’t become a garbage man,)

To tell your kids what career they should peruse is wrong. To intimidate them into taking courses you want them to take that they have no interest in or ability in is just wrong. IMHO

Is that worse than them expecting me to pay some ungodly amount of money? Besides, they said they would on their own will. Perhaps my parents are jsut nice and don't want to see me get in thousands of dollars of debt (with flexible interest as high as 8%, thank you Bush) and work for ten years before I can finally pay it all off when they easily have the resources to cover my expenses.
why shouldn't they expect you to pay? it's your education. If they are doing it out of their own free will and you realize that they are doing it because they love you that's one thing, if you expect them to pay because "it's their job" or " I don't want to work" that's quite another.

But perhaps you just like watching your kids suffer before smacking them by saying "THAT'S THE REAL WORLD BITCHES!!!!" anyways, I'm not going to continue this debate because it's obviously drifted far from baing rational.
I enjoy watching my children succeed, I would hope that I raise them to realize the risks of their behavior and the realistic consequences of their actions so they don't have to suffer. My children are pretty independent, they want to work for what they have and earn their keep in the household, but maybe I am raising them wrong, I was pretty proud yesterday when my 4 year old started a savings account for her education though.

I know nothing of this tradition. I am a good parent and I want my child to be educated, but I will not be guilted into paying for it. I have had to work for just about everything I have ever had from age 15 on, I grew up fine. I don't see any obligation that a parent has to pay for higher education, nor do I see how not paying for it makes you somehow a bad parent.

I paid for my college and my oldest son paid (and is still paying for) his. Not paying for your kids college education does not a bad parent make.

Hinging your son's future on your political beliefs is selfish and assinine.
it's his kids life, his kid makes the choices, it's not his responisibility to go around trying to keep the kid from screwing up. I fail to see how it's his responsibility, so therefore I don't see how he is being selfish.


Your statement is crap.
now that's just not nice.


The kid made a decision, and now he is dealing with the consequences. You just don't like the way he's dealing with the consequences. The kid has found a way to raise money for school, and just because it's not the way you think he should do it, you call him a spoiled brat. We're all very impressed that your grandparents worked their way through college. Surprisingly, we don't all have to do things the same way as you.
I don't like how he is doing it, that's true. I have the right to think he is a spoiled brat, just like he has the right to be one. I do realize that everyone doesn't have to do things just the way I think they should be done......do you realize that? do you accept the fact that sometimes a kid might actually need to pay for their own crap instead of expecting someone else to bail them out?

I always told my kids, "I don't care what profession you choose in life as long as you do the best you can possibly do in that profession." One of them asked me one day, "Dad, you mean I can become a garbage man if I want?" I replied, "Yes, just as long as you become the best garbage man you can be." (He didn’t become a garbage man,)

To tell your kids what career they should peruse is wrong. To intimidate them into taking courses you want them to take that they have no interest in or ability in is just wrong. IMHO
[ stands and applauds Celtlund, cheering wildly ]

I did much the same thing when my older son was fascinated by the prospect of being a long-haul truck driver. One of the secrets to being a good parent is to know your children well enough to be able to help them find pathways through life that they will enjoy and do well at.

I paid for my college and my oldest son paid (and is still paying for) his. Not paying for your kids college education does not a bad parent make.
Perxactly.

Good grief. [ shakes head sadly ] When I was going to church, we use to refer to that as "rampant legalism." Sigh. :(

You never got your hand smacked by a Nun with a ruler during Sunday morning kids Mass did you. :rolleyes: (but sister I didn't do it honest...smack...that's another one for talking back during Mass..)

You never got your hand smacked by a Nun with a ruler during Sunday morning kids Mass did you. :rolleyes: (but sister I didn't do it honest...smack...that's another one for talking back during Mass..)
Uh ... no. I seem to have missed that part of things.

The church my grandmother dragged me to for most of my childhood, while fundamentalist Baptist, didn't expect kids to be anything other than kids, thank God! :)

Here:
I HEREBY ADMIT THAT I FORGOT THAT SO MANY UNIVERSITIES ARE SO CHEAP, THUS IT IS POSSIBLE FOR STUDENTS TO PAY FOR THEIR TUITION AND EVERYTHING IN FULL WITHOUT THEIR PARENTS' AID
happy? Good. :D

The word CHEAP is so demeaning. Inexpensive would have been a better choice of words, more PC. :) :D (I just couldn't restrain myself.) (Oh no Sister! Not...smack...the ruler.):D

You think 8% interest is high??? :eek:

I was paying about 12% on my first house back in 1977, for crying out loud! :(

And you can still pay up to 23% plus for credit cards today. :( Thank you PFCU for 9.9% on credit cards. :)

so, you expect your parents to pay? interesting.
When you file for financial aid, in the awards statement they have a little deduction in the award that says "Expected Parental Contribution"-so it's not just him.

Uh ... no. I seem to have missed that part of things.

The church my grandmother dragged me to for most of my childhood, while fundamentalist Baptist, didn't expect kids to be anything other than kids, thank God! :)
I think I got hold of a crazy preacher, he called me a slut for going to the prom, and then tried to get my mom to let him burn my "evil CD's" which she would have too if she had been able to actually find them.

it's his kids life, his kid makes the choices, it's not his responisibility to go around trying to keep the kid from screwing up. I fail to see how it's his responsibility, so therefore I don't see how he is being selfish.

It is selfish because dad obviously has the means to help his son pay for college, and would be willing to pay if his son were to change political parties. It is selfish because he wants his son to think just like he does and not make his own choices and decisions.

I paid my own way through college, although the first two years I did live at home and was spared the necessity of paying rent, etc.

In the '60s it was possible to work your way through school and still live, not well, but still live.

Even with financial aid and a job, getting through college now, at least in Southern California, is nearly impossible. My daughter is bringing home about $1400 in financial aid and salary (she's going to get dinged on financial aid because I got a raise and she made too much money last year). Rent for an unfurnished studio apartment is as much as $700/mo., food, clothing, utilities, car, health care, etc. will cost about another $800. This doesn't even cover tuition, fees and books (she pays sometimes as much as $200 for a used book, and because she's a science major, used books aren't generally useful). If I didn't have her living with me for nominal rent (yes, she does have to contribute to the household, but it's about 1/3 what she would pay on her own), she wouldn't be able to go to school.

Helping a child through school is not the same as paying his/her way. And my decision to help her was based on the fact that she is my daughter, not on her politics or what she's majoring in.

I think I got hold of a crazy preacher, he called me a slut for going to the prom, and then tried to get my mom to let him burn my "evil CD's" which she would have too if she had been able to actually find them.
Your mom sounds a bit too ... suggestible. :rolleyes:

Helping a child through school is not the same as paying his/her way. And my decision to help her was based on the fact that she is my daughter, not on her politics or what she's majoring in.
and since you are doing it because you love her, and she knows that it's a big huge thing you are doing, then it's helpful. Paying for her because she guilted you into it imo would be harmful to her later in life.

See? he is a good parent.....goooood parent.

sorry couldn't help it.

and since you are doing it because you love her, and she knows that it's a big huge thing you are doing, then it's helpful. Paying for her because she guilted you into it imo would be harmful to her later in life.

See? he is a good parent.....goooood parent.

sorry couldn't help it.

Typical. The guy doesn't pay to force his son into changing political parties, it's ok. His son complains about it and starts a website, he should be hanged.

With all this rationalization, the people that think the dad is in the right here should admit that they want the son not to get an education, nay, not to live, only because of him being a democrat.

Oh, you freedom-loving Republicans!

Your mom sounds a bit too ... suggestible. :rolleyes:
she is. I used to be able to use it to my advantage when I was young and stupid.

(she's going to get dinged on financial aid because I got a raise and she made too much money last year)

Don't declare her as a dependant on your taxes, that way your income will not have any effect on her financial aid. Doing that actually increased my son's loans and grants. Have her check into it and if necessary amend your 2006 tax returns. You might have to pay a little more tax, but it could help her in the end.

I could have gone back long enough to have gotten back into the church, and then disappeared, and my parents would accept me and talk to me, but I felt I'd be living a lie to do that.
Politics and religion are not similar. Religion is much more personal.

Dad is Republican, son is Democrat. Both parties support most of the same policies. What are they fighting about?

Agreed. It's my money to do with as I please. You want to be a Democrat, learn what it's like to actually have no money before trying to take mine.

(If there's one thing I hate it's silver-spoon Socialists... :mad: )
Unlike the Republicans, who of course do not implement 90% of the same policies as Democrats and certainly do want a small government. :rolleyes:

When did a college education become the responsibility of the parent :confused: After 18, you are an adult. If someone wants to gift you X$, great. But Secondary Education is not mandatory, therefore not somthing a parent should feel beholden to.
That's not the argument. We're talking about how petty this dad is being; he would fork out the cash if his son was a Republican but not a Democrat.

Why are they so "well off" if they are dedicated to "helping those who didn't win at life's lottery"? COuld it be because it's easier to keep flush if you tax everyone else to pay for your own "white guilt"? :headbang:
Everyone pays taxes. Taxes are not about compassion, they're about pragmatism. There's no need to bring race into this.

IMO anyone who lives lavishly while demanding that the plebes cover their programs is a hypocrite.
I totally agree. This is why rich people should pay higher tax rates.

@People: American is just as hard to define as European. Thus, the problem.
It's made easier by the fact that the USA is one country and Europe is not.

she is. I used to be able to use it to my advantage when I was young and stupid.

Shouldn't this skill work BETTER now? I mean, most skills IMPROVE with intelligence...

she is. I used to be able to use it to my advantage when I was young and stupid.
Hehehe! I won't ask. :p

Typical. The guy doesn't pay to force his son into changing political parties, it's ok. His son complains about it and starts a website, he should be hanged.

With all this rationalization, the people that think the dad is in the right here should admit that they want the son not to get an education, nay, not to live, only because of him being a democrat.

Oh, you freedom-loving Republicans!
I didn't advocate hanging anyone.

I don't see how witholding funds for college and wanting your child "not to live" are in fact the same thing.

I do love freedom, I love that the father has the freedom to spend his money on what he wants to. yep. freedom.

Shouldn't this skill work BETTER now? I mean, most skills IMPROVE with intelligence...
Yes, but she was trying to say that now that she is wise enough to know that her mother actually had her best interests at heart, it would be unkind to try and take advantage of her mother's suggestibility. :p

Shouldn't this skill work BETTER now? I mean, most skills IMPROVE with intelligence...
I no longer think it's wise or honorable to manipulate people into doing what you want them to, I believe that people should have a choice and you should let them choose whether you think they are making a stupid choice or not. (I do however reserve the right to complain about it......construtively of course)

I didn't advocate hanging anyone.

The son is supporting himself, and you insult him for that, crying for the poor father that tried to force his kid into a political party.

I don't see how witholding funds for college and wanting your child "not to live" are in fact the same thing.

I'm saying YOU would like to see him dead.

I do love freedom, I love that the father has the freedom to spend his money on what he wants to. yep. freedom.

The son's freedom to pick what political party he belongs to doesn't count, though, right? How nice. Yet you claim to have "liberated" Iraq...

The son is supporting himself, and you insult him for that, crying for the poor father that tried to force his kid into a political party.

I'm saying YOU would like to see him dead.

The son's freedom to pick what political party he belongs to doesn't count, though, right? How nice. Yet you claim to have "liberated" Iraq...
Oh, GROAN! You're at it again. Surely even you can discern that refusing to pay for a kid's college education does not even come close to equating to denying him the freedom to choose his political affiliation! Jeeze, man. Get a frakkin' GRIP! :headbang:

The son is supporting himself, and you insult him for that, crying for the poor father that tried to force his kid into a political party.
the reason for the father's witholding of the money isn't any of our business, he has his own reasons and it's his own money. I am not insulting the son for trying to support himself, I am just saying his effort seems less than honorable. Just like I wouldn't insult a hooker for having a job, but would question the means by which she makes her money.


I'm saying YOU would like to see him dead.
I don't want to see anyone dead.



The son's freedom to pick what political party he belongs to doesn't count, though, right? How nice. Yet you claim to have "liberated" Iraq...
his freedom to pick his party hasn't been compromised, he registered didn't he?

he doesn't have a right to free education, so no his freedom isn't being compromised at all.

Oh, GROAN! You're at it again. Surely even you can discern that refusing to pay for a kid's college education does not even come close to equating to denying him the freedom to choose his political affiliation! Jeeze, man. Get a frakkin' GRIP! :headbang:
Fom the article:
Ted Gambordella dislikes the idea that his only son, a Highland Park High junior, is a Democrat. He loathes it so much that he has flat-out refused to pay for his son's college education unless he becomes a Republican.

the reason for the father's witholding of the money isn't any of our business, he has his own reasons and it's his own money. I am not insulting the son for trying to support himself, I am just saying his effort seems less than honorable.

I see. So you criticize the son's effort, but not the father's reasons?

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, DOUBLE and STANDARD!

I seriously don't see the problem. It's not like he is entitled to having someone else pay for his college, much less his father. Sometimes if you want to do what you want to do you have to make sacrifices.
Surely the father should be equally adamant not to pay for his son's education even if he was an ideological clone? This father has no principles other than forcing his son to conform.

shouldn't the father be free to spend his money on what he wants? where exactly in the scheme of a free country do you get to dictate to a man what he should spend his money on?
Hold tha phone, G. I haven't seen anyone say that the government should punish him for being such a bad dad. Incidentally, in "free" countries you don't get to just spend your money however. For example in my country at least 20% of your money (or 42% if you have more of it) is going to be taken out of your hands altogether. What money remains may not be spent on sex, abortions, drugs or guns.

I don't expect parents to pay for university education. I expect the government to, as they do in my country. Educating the youth is in the national interest, which is the government's job to look out for.

I see. So you criticize the son's effort, but not the father's reasons?

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, DOUBLE and STANDARD!
I said earlier that I thought it was a stupid reason for witholding the money, how exactly is that not criticism?

I don't expect parents to pay for university education. I expect the government to, as they do in my country. Educating the youth is in the national interest, which is the government's job to look out for.
you and I will have to disagree there since I don't expect the government to provide free education either, I don't see how it's the government's job to do that.

Surely the father should be equally adamant not to pay for his son's education even if he was an ideological clone?
why should the father have to conform to your idea of what is right?

This father has no principles other than forcing his son to conform.
he is not forcing his son to do anything but work for what he wants, which is something that everyone has to do at some point, saying "my money my rules' is the same to me as "my house my rules"

he is not forcing his son to do anything but work for what he wants, which is something that everyone has to do at some point, saying "my money my rules' is the same to me as "my house my rules"

Not only he is in contradiction with the party that allegedly started a war with Iraq for FREEDOM OF DISSENT, his attempt to control his son's politics is against everything your forefathers stood for. And "my money my rules" doesn't hold water either. It's unethical to try to control people with money, and ethics is NOT up to the individual to decide, much like "my house, my rules" would be a pretty por defense of someone that chopped up a guy in his house...

he is not forcing his son to do anything but work for what he wants, which is something that everyone has to do at some point, saying "my money my rules' is the same to me as "my house my rules"
No he's blackmailing his son. Become republican or go fuck yourself. What a model father.

Not only he is in contradiction with the party that allegedly started a war with Iraq for FREEDOM OF DISSENT, his attempt to control his son's politics is against everything your forefathers stood for. And "my money my rules" doesn't hold water either. It's unethical to try to control people with money, and ethics is NOT up to the individual to decide, much like "my house, my rules" would be a pretty por defense of someone that chopped up a guy in his house...
he isn't manipulating his son, he is saying that he won't spend his money on something he doesn't agree with.

"My house my rules" does hold up when you are dealing with a child.

No he's blackmailing his son. Become republican or go fuck yourself. What a model father.
I never said he was a model father, he is not blackmailing his son. You should look up blackmail. He is saying that he isn't going to pay for college, there is a difference.

he isn't manipulating his son,
No, he is just withholding money for college unless his son becomes Republican.

he is saying that he won't spend his money on something he doesn't agree with.
He isn't buying his son a stripper for his birthday, he is refusing to pay for him going to college for the specific reason that he is a Democrat.
"Them thar Democrats don't deserve no college edumacation!"

"My house my rules" does hold up when you are dealing with a child.
That is a shitty, immature household.

he isn't manipulating his son, he is saying that he won't spend his money on something he doesn't agree with.

"My house my rules" does hold up when you are dealing with a child.

He either agrees with his son getting an education, or he doesn't. His son's political affiliation has NOTHING to do with that. I'd have no problem with him if he refused to pay altogether. Trying to force his son into becoming a Republican is wrong. Just as wrong as it would be trying to make his son a Democrat through force. Period. And "my house my rules" doesn't make the rules necessarily ethical either. "I'll rape my 4-year old, and she'll like it! My house, my rules!" comes to mind.

Good night y'all, I'm going to ZZZland.

He either agrees with his son getting an education, or he doesn't. His son's political affiliation has NOTHING to do with that. I'd have no problem with him if he refused to pay altogether. Trying to force his son into becoming a Republican is wrong. Just as wrong as it would be trying to make his son a Democrat through force. Period.
he isn't trying to force him, he is trying to entice him, I feel that his reasoning is stupid, but it's his right, and the child needs to learn that it's not daddy's responsibility to pay his way. Kid wants to be a democrat fine, dad doesn't want to pay if he is fine. see?


"I'll rape my 4-year old, and she'll like it! My house, my rules!" comes to mind.
Either A you don't understand when "my house my rules" even comes into play, or B you are trying to piss me off or maybe C you don't have a real response so you are going to extreme in the opposite direction.

here let me give you an example. When I was 14 1/2 my mom found out that I was smoking crack in her garage, she gave me 6 months to quit, I didn't, she kicked me out. Now, was it my choice to smoke crack? sure. I chose to and she kicked me out, even though I felt I had the right to ruin my body in any means I saw fit. You want to know why she kicked me out? "Her house her rules" if I was unable to follow her rules then I would be unable to live in her house.

No, he is just withholding money for college unless his son becomes Republican.
money that it's his choice to use however he wants.


He isn't buying his son a stripper for his birthday, he is refusing to pay for him going to college for the specific reason that he is a Democrat.
so?

I still don't see the problem. It's not like he is required to pay, he made a choice.


That is a shitty, immature household.
you have kids?

if so/ if you did would you want them to follow your rules?

it's a respect thing. My kids may not understand why we do things the way we do, but they do understand it's my house, I pay for it, they need to respect my authority.

he isn't trying to force him, he is trying to entice him, I feel that his reasoning is stupid, but it's his right, and the child needs to learn that it's not daddy's responsibility to pay his way. Kid wants to be a democrat fine, dad doesn't want to pay if he is fine. see?



Either A you don't understand when "my house my rules" even comes into play, or B you are trying to piss me off or maybe C you don't have a real response so you are going to extreme in the opposite direction.

here let me give you an example. When I was 14 1/2 my mom found out that I was smoking crack in her garage, she gave me 6 months to quit, I didn't, she kicked me out. Now, was it my choice to smoke crack? sure. I chose to and she kicked me out, even though I felt I had the right to ruin my body in any means I saw fit. You want to know why she kicked me out? "Her house her rules" if I was unable to follow her rules then I would be unable to live in her house.

Belonging to a political affiliation is not like smoking crack unless said political affiliation advocates hurting random people. And, again, it's not about the father not paying the thing, it's about the father not paying the thing to FORCE HIS SON TO JOIN AN OPPOSITE PARTY! Where's the freedom the Republicans claimed to defend???

Ouch ... again. Sorry about that. My bad. :(
Ah, don't feel it. 'Tis nothing compared to what we did to you yesterday. :(

money that it's his choice to use however he wants.
Which doesn't mean he isn't trying to manipulate the kid.



so?

I still don't see the problem. It's not like he is required to pay, he made a choice.
What does that have to do with him not paying for something he disagrees with?



you have kids?

if so/ if you did would you want them to follow your rules?

it's a respect thing. My kids may not understand why we do things the way we do, but they do understand it's my house, I pay for it, they need to respect my authority.
Oh, so you have rules in your house that your children have to follow your political/religious ideaology or they receive no support from you?

Belonging to a political affiliation is not like smoking crack unless said political affiliation advocates hurting random people. And, again, it's not about the father not paying the thing, it's about the father not paying the thing to FORCE HIS SON TO JOIN AN OPPOSITE PARTY! Where's the freedom the Republicans claimed to defend???
and joining a political party is nothing like raping a 4 year old girl.




Okay, I very much have to leave this conversation before I loose all faith I have left in grown ups.

Teh_pantless_hero: Like always I enjoyed our short debate, thank you for making intelligent points, you lessened my frustration. ;)

Oh, so you have rules in your house that your children have to follow your political/religious ideaology or they receive no support from you?
nope, but like I was told earlier "not everyone has to do things like you do"

and this guy doesn't.

and joining a political party is nothing like raping a 4 year old girl.




Okay, I very much have to leave this conversation before I loose all faith I have left in grown ups.

Teh_pantless_hero: Like always I enjoyed our short debate, thank you for making intelligent points, you lessened my frustration. ;)

How nice, you still didn't explain the father's contradiction ("I support the party that liberated Iraq, but I won't allow my son to be free to disagree with me."), but you did manage to toss an ad hominem as a smokescreen while leaving the argument.

he isn't trying to force him, he is trying to entice him, I feel that his reasoning is stupid, but it's his right, and the child needs to learn that it's not daddy's responsibility to pay his way. Kid wants to be a democrat fine, dad doesn't want to pay if he is fine. see?

Actually he is pretty simple minded for that kind of reasoning and he is a horrible parent if he expects his children to act and think the way he does.

Daddy's job is supposed to be a "wise" councellor and use his lifes experience to help his child find his place in the world. If the child want's to be a democrat then so be it.

Daddy's "job" is usually trying to make sure his children have a better life then he had. So he is pretty childish to withhold money because he doesn't like the democrats.

But hey it's his household and he has every right to be simple minded.

How nice, you still didn't explain the father's contradiction ("I support the party that liberated Iraq, but I won't allow my son to be free to disagree with me."), but you did manage to toss an ad hominem as a smokescreen while leaving the argument.
I really don't think that you can talk to me about my debating style.

if you want some real ad hominem you might want to look back at your posts in this thred that attack the point of view just because it comes from a Republican.

Actually he is pretty simple minded for that kind of reasoning and he is a horrible parent if he expects his children to act and think the way he does.

Daddy's job is supposed to be a "wise" councellor and use his lifes experience to help his child find his place in the world. If the child want's to be a democrat then so be it.

Daddy's "job" is usually trying to make sure his children have a better life then he had. So he is pretty childish to withhold money because he doesn't like the democrats.

But hey it's his household and he has every right to be simple minded.
I can agree with you, esp. with the portion that I bolded.

and joining a political party is nothing like raping a 4 year old girl.


Which is why withhold money for joining a party makes absolutely NO SENSE.

Not that many people join one party for life.

The simpleton should be happy his kid even wants to be envolved in politics.....

nope, but like I was told earlier "not everyone has to do things like you do"

and this guy doesn't.
Having to do your own laundry is a house rule. Coming back before time X is a house rule. Believe what I believe or receive no support is immature and moronic. Though I do enjoy your excess sophistry in trying to defend this guy.

Having to do your own laundry is a house rule. Coming back before time X is a house rule. Believe what I believe or receive no support is immature and moronic. Though I do enjoy your excess sophistry in trying to defend this guy.
thanks. I was mostly not defending the guy (I really do think it's an idiotic reason) but more his right to be an idiot.

oh, and trying to voice my opinion that it's not the kid's right to have college paid for by his father therefore his rights technically aren't being taken away.

thanks. I was mostly not defending the guy (I really do think it's an idiotic reason) but more his right to be an idiot.
You most certainly are defending him.

oh, and trying to voice my opinion that it's not the kid's right to have college paid for by his father therefore his rights technically aren't being taken away.
Who is arguing the kid has a right to have a college education paid for by his father? The argument is the father would pay for the education if the kid was a Republican, and that is the problem.

thanks. I was mostly not defending the guy (I really do think it's an idiotic reason) but more his right to be an idiot.

oh, and trying to voice my opinion that it's not the kid's right to have college paid for by his father therefore his rights technically aren't being taken away.
Obviously he has a right to be a douchebag, that's not really what we're arguing (at least that wasn't my main point), we're trying to reiterate how stubborn, hypocritical and close-minded his actions were.

And no, it's not a kid's right to have college paid for, it's customary for parents to at least chip in a little to their childrens' education, especially if it's not an inexpensive public school, though it's obviously not mandatory. Glad to see you're willing to understand things, though. :)

thanks. I was mostly not defending the guy (I really do think it's an idiotic reason) but more his right to be an idiot.

oh, and trying to voice my opinion that it's not the kid's right to have college paid for by his father therefore his rights technically aren't being taken away.

Sorry but Pantless is correct in his claim of sophistry.

The major aspect of giving your child an advantage in life is a college education. There are some parents that can not pay(mine for example) and there are those that can. The fact he can says he is a sorry excuse of a parent and you do yourself a diservice defending him. Which you are doing.

A parent should mostly be happy if his children are happy in life. If his boy is happy being a democrat then so be it. Making him fund his own education because he doesn't like the democrats is nothing more then an attempt to control his views on life.

The sad thing is this simpleton will not have a good relationship with his boy and will regret it latter on.

You most certainly are defending him.
where? when?

I am defending his right to withold money from his son, that is his for any dumbass reason he chooses. I am not defending his choice. There is a difference.

It's kinda like how I think abortion is murder, but I am pro choice, see I don't like that they do it, but I think it's their right to make that choice for themselves even though I might not like what they choose.

Actually he is pretty simple minded for that kind of reasoning and he is a horrible parent if he expects his children to act and think the way he does.

Daddy's job is supposed to be a "wise" councellor and use his lifes experience to help his child find his place in the world. If the child want's to be a democrat then so be it.

Daddy's "job" is usually trying to make sure his children have a better life then he had. So he is pretty childish to withhold money because he doesn't like the democrats.

But hey it's his household and he has every right to be simple minded.

Maybe he thinks his kid's life will be better if he becomes a republican, and withholding money is his way of nudging his son towards that end. I have to say that all of you who feel this kid is being forced into something are silly... I mean MOST people's parents cant or dont pay for thier college education anyway so to me its not that big a deal.

I really don't think that you can talk to me about my debating style.

if you want some real ad hominem you might want to look back at your posts in this thred that attack the point of view just because it comes from a Republican.

1- Yes I can, because you so far failed to address anything I actually said.

2- I said that it'd be just as wrong if it was a Democrat father and a Republican son. Celtlund and Eutrusca support Bush and disagree with you.

3- I'm not attacking your point of view because you're a Republican, I'm attacking your point of view because you're a moron.

4- There, now THAT was ad hominem, yes. :p

where? when?

I am defending his right to withold money from his son
The difference on this point isn't real - there is nothing else to defend him on.

And no, it's not a kid's right to have college paid for, it's customary for parents to at least chip in a little to their childrens' education, especially if it's not an inexpensive public school, though it's obviously not mandatory. Glad to see you're willing to understand things, though. :)

Well it is kind of manditory by the fact you want you children to have a better life then you had.

My grandparents didn't have an education. My mom has a 2 year degree. My sister and I have 4 year degrees. My wife was the first in her family to have a college education.

Our daughter hopefully will have a higher degree.

The claim of "rights" is nothing more then sophistry.

Well it is kind of manditory by the fact you want you children to have a better life then you had.

My grandparents didn't have an education. My mom has a 2 year degree. My sister and I have 4 year degrees. My wife was the first in her family to have a college education.

Our daughter hopefully will have a higher degree.

The claim of "rights" is nothing more then sophistry.

You see, the father WANTS his son to have a good life as long as he's a republican.

Well it is kind of manditory by the fact you want you children to have a better life then you had.

My grandparents didn't have an education. My mom has a 2 year degree. My sister and I have 4 year degrees. My wife was the first in her family to have a college education.

Our daughter hopefully will have a higher degree.

The claim of "rights" is nothing more then sophistry.
Well, yeah. It's encouraged. It's obviously not in the constitution or anything that says "Thou shalt pay for thy child's college education."

Well, yeah. It's encouraged. It's obviously not in the constitution or anything that says "Thou shalt pay for thy child's college education."
Maybe in the US, but here in Holland you can sue your parents to pay up. :D

Maybe he thinks his kid's life will be better if he becomes a republican, and withholding money is his way of nudging his son towards that end. I have to say that all of you who feel this kid is being forced into something are silly... I mean MOST people's parents cant or dont pay for thier college education anyway so to me its not that big a deal.

One position in life is not controlled by ones politics. The couple that founded our company are worth about 180 million. They are democrats and they came from average middle class families.

The kid is not being forced as the kid is going on without dad.

Can't pay is very different from won't pay.

Just goes to show there are many bad parents out there.

Maybe in the US, but here in Holland you can sue your parents to pay up. :D

I think you probably could sue here as well. We sue for just about anything.

I always told my kids, "I don't care what profession you choose in life as long as you do the best you can possibly do in that profession." One of them asked me one day, "Dad, you mean I can become a garbage man if I want?" I replied, "Yes, just as long as you become the best garbage man you can be." (He didn’t become a garbage man,)

To tell your kids what career they should peruse is wrong. To intimidate them into taking courses you want them to take that they have no interest in or ability in is just wrong. IMHO

[EDIT: After a brief discussion with my partner, it has been explained to me that my policy of requiring coursework in the natural sciences is unreasonable and will not be enacted. I tried a filibuster, but I was summarily vetoed and removed from the floor. As a result, I will evidently be paying for my child's education regardless of his/her chosen curriculum, with only the petty science and math requirements of the regional accreditation boards to solace me. But dammit, I confess I WOULD'VE required it. ]


Sure, its wrong of me. But I admit that I'd do it (although I think of it as bribing, not intimidating, since there's no threat involved, just the bargain that I'll pay for any field of study as long as their elective selections include a few things I want them to browse).

Its certainly prejudiced, on my part, to make my funding so conditional, but I can be conditional with my money, just not my love.

Its similar to my bias against cats. I'm sure cats are every bit as loving and enjoyable as dogs. But if my son or daughter wants a dog, I'll pay. If they want a cat, they can go talk to their mother.

Can't pay is very different from won't pay.


and "can pay" is different than "have to pay" that's all I am saying.

Don't declare her as a dependant on your taxes, that way your income will not have any effect on her financial aid. Doing that actually increased my son's loans and grants. Have her check into it and if necessary amend your 2006 tax returns. You might have to pay a little more tax, but it could help her in the end.

I don't declare her as a dependent. But she's going to a private university (It's the only one in the area with her major and is actually less expensive than going out of state to school, besides the school is one of the best in the country for what she's studying.) and for some reason, even though, she's not officially my dependent, they count my income - go figure.

I am defending his right to withold money from his son, that is his for any dumbass reason he chooses. I am not defending his choice. There is a difference.

I agree... this IS the heart of it.

The kid doesn't HAVE to go to college. If he DOES go to college, he has various choices to make. He must procure funding somehow, and the USUAL avenue is through the parents.

If the parent refuses to pay, that really is his choice... no matter how difficult that makes it for his son.

From a personal point of view, I like to think it is not something that I would do, but THAT is MY choice... and no one can make THAT choice for ME, either.

I agree... this IS the heart of it.

The kid doesn't HAVE to go to college. If he DOES go to college, he has various choices to make. He must procure funding somehow, and the USUAL avenue is through the parents.

If the parent refuses to pay, that really is his choice... no matter how difficult that makes it for his son.

From a personal point of view, I like to think it is not something that I would do, but THAT is MY choice... and no one can make THAT choice for ME, either.
Oh, thank God! I have been saying it and saying it and everyone thinks I am crazy (or worse a moron).

You said exactly what I was trying to (although much more clear and concise like usual) maybe they will understand now (maybe.)

Oh, thank God! I have been saying it and saying it and everyone thinks I am crazy (or worse a moron).

You said exactly what I was trying to (although much more clear and concise like usual) maybe they will understand now (maybe.)

I have the benefit of not being clearly tied to a political agenda (although some posters tell me I'm a 'liberal', or question my 'democrat' leanings, just because I am... for example... pro-choice.

As an outsider to the American political structure, I'm looking at what equates to a matter of choice. The father COULD be saying he won't pay for his gay son to go to college, unless he starts dating girls. The father COULD be saying he won't pay his daughter's college fees, unless she stops hanging with those coloured kids, and gets some 'white' friends.

In each case, it may not be a choice I'd condone... I may find the angle hard to fathom, and harder to sympathise with... but the 'right' belongs to the parents to help their kids or not.

(Thanks for the compliment, by the way).

Oh, thank God! I have been saying it and saying it and everyone thinks I am crazy (or worse a moron).

You said exactly what I was trying to (although much more clear and concise like usual) maybe they will understand now (maybe.)
That's what the rest was saying too. The only thing they were arguing was that the father was a .|. for forcing his son to become republican if he wanted his college payed for.

(Thanks for the compliment, by the way).
yep. it's true.


That's what the rest was saying too. The only thing they were arguing was that the father was a .|. for forcing his son to become republican if he wanted his college payed for.
and I have said repeatedly that I think it's an idiotic reason, but that it's his right to be an idiot, which you all seem to percieve as me defending his choice, instead of me defending his right to choose. I don't think he is a bad parent on the basis that he won't pay, maybe his reason for not paying is pretty stupid, but choosing not to pay doesn't make him a bad parent, it makes him someone who chooses not to pay.

and I have said repeatedly that I think it's an idiotic reason, but that it's his right to be an idiot, which you all seem to percieve as me defending his choice, instead of me defending his right to choose. I don't think he is a bad parent on the basis that he won't pay, maybe his reason for not paying is pretty stupid, but choosing not to pay doesn't make him a bad parent, it makes him someone who chooses not to pay.

If your political leanings are more important to you than your son's education then that makes you a bad parent. If it's more important that your son thinks the same way as you do than it is that he gets a good education and a good job, then that makes you a bad parent. Choosing to hold something like college education over his son's head like makes him a bad person.

Spiting your son is pretty pathetic. "You think you're so smart, Mr. Democrat? Well then you find a way to pay for college."

No one has advocated forcing the guy to pay for his kid's education. That's a claim you made up for us. But we do reserve the right to think he's a douchebag for his idiotic decision.

If your political leanings are more important to you than your son's education then that makes you a bad parent. If it's more important that your son thinks the same way as you do than it is that he gets a good education and a good job, then that makes you a bad parent. Choosing to hold something like college education over his son's head like makes him a bad person.

Spiting your son is pretty pathetic. "You think you're so smart, Mr. Democrat? Well then you find a way to pay for college."

No one has advocated forcing the guy to pay for his kid's education. That's a claim you made up for us. But we do reserve the right to think he's a douchebag for his idiotic decision.
Precisely the reason I posted the article in the first place.

If your political leanings are more important to you than your son's education then that makes you a bad parent. If it's more important that your son thinks the same way as you do than it is that he gets a good education and a good job, then that makes you a bad parent. Choosing to hold something like college education over his son's head like makes him a bad person.

nevermind. I give up. I am not going to be able to explain myself sufficiently this evening.

Here's the thing, it you don't treat your children with respect when you have $$$ and they don't, things will turn on you. One day they will have $$$, and you will be old and broke. When you die, they will not pay for your funeral if you have been a complete a**hole to them.

nevermind. I give up. I am not going to be able to explain myself sufficiently this evening.
:eek:

nevermind. I give up. I am not going to be able to explain myself sufficiently this evening.

You think we're not understanding you when in fact we're disagreeing with you. Nothing you say is going to make me get it because I already get it and I disagree. As much as it is his choice to not pay, he's very much a dickhead of a father if he refuses to pay for the reasons he refuses. I get it that he's not obligated; lord knows you said that enough. I understand that you don't think it makes him a bad person. I even get your inexplicable argument that the kid is somehow the bad guy here for wanting to go to college. I just think you are very much wrong in your assessment, and I question your values as a human being.

Here's the thing, it you don't treat your children with respect when you have $$$ and they don't, things will turn on you. One day they will have $$$, and you will be old and broke. When you die, they will not pay for your funeral if you have been a complete a**hole to them.
Reminds me of a bumper sticker: Be nice to your kids. They choose your nursing home.

You think we're not understanding you when in fact we're disagreeing with you. Nothing you say is going to make me get it because I already get it and I disagree. As much as it is his choice to not pay, he's very much a dickhead of a father if he refuses to pay for the reasons he refuses. I get it that he's not obligated; lord knows you said that enough. I understand that you don't think it makes him a bad person. I even get your inexplicable argument that the kid is somehow the bad guy here for wanting to go to college. I just think you are very much wrong in your assessment, and I question your values as a human being.
I don't think he is a bad person for not paying, I think he has an idiotic reason for not paying. I think on a very basic level we do agree, and on that note I am going to bed (for real this time).

it is very sad that you question my values as a human being though, really really sad. :(

Reminds me of a bumper sticker: Be nice to your kids. They choose your nursing home.

So true. Do things for the benefit of the future generation, not pure self-indulgence.

I don't think he is a bad person for not paying,
I think he is a bad person for not paying because of the reason he is not paying.
The point here is that he would pay if his son was Republican. He is a bad father and person, and an immature asshole to boot.

I think he is a bad person for not paying because of the reason he is not paying.
The point here is that he would pay if his son was Republican. He is a bad father and person, and an immature asshole to boot.

I disagree.

I don't think much of his reasoning, but I don't think that makes him a 'bad parent'.

Personally, I hate the idea that people 'raise' their children into a religion... I consider it to be tantamount to brainwashing... attacking the childs susceptablities before they know how to differentiate truth from fiction, before they can make up their own minds.

But - I do not think that someone who raises their child in a religion is a 'bad parent'.

Lots of people make decisions about their children's educations. Some people refuse to allow their children to go to non-religious schools. SOme refuse to allow their children to go to religious schools.

When you make these decisions, you are doing what you THINK is best for your child. You are giving them the best approach you can, given what you know.

The father in question believes that his son has been led astray in some fashion, and he is willing to help his child IF he comes 'back to the fold'.

You could argue the guy is small-minded. You could argue his reasons are poor, and his reasoning faulty. You could argue the guy is an asshole.

But NONE of that equates to 'bad parenting'.

I disagree.

I don't think much of his reasoning, but I don't think that makes him a 'bad parent'.

Personally, I hate the idea that people 'raise' their children into a religion... I consider it to be tantamount to brainwashing... attacking the childs susceptablities before they know how to differentiate truth from fiction, before they can make up their own minds.

But - I do not think that someone who raises their child in a religion is a 'bad parent'.

Lots of people make decisions about their children's educations. Some people refuse to allow their children to go to non-religious schools. SOme refuse to allow their children to go to religious schools.

When you make these decisions, you are doing what you THINK is best for your child. You are giving them the best approach you can, given what you know.

The father in question believes that his son has been led astray in some fashion, and he is willing to help his child IF he comes 'back to the fold'.

You could argue the guy is small-minded. You could argue his reasons are poor, and his reasoning faulty. You could argue the guy is an asshole.

But NONE of that equates to 'bad parenting'.
I think it depends on the continuum upon which you judge parenting (coincidentally, like politics). This guy isn't as bad of a parent, to my mind, as one who physically abuses his children for imagined infractions, so on the continuum which includes physical abuse on one side, and no abuse on the other end, this guy likely falls on the "good parent" side. But if the continuum is measured on a scale that starts with "threatens child with economic sanctions if he doesn't change political affiliation" and continues to "supports child's desires for higher education regardless of political beliefs," then this guy falls squarely in the "bad parent" category.

First of all, I don't want anyone to think that this guy is indicative of the Republican party as a whole. I don't believe that for a second. Most individual Republicans aren't assholes (though there are some around here who would accuse me of arguing just that). But man, this dad is an asshole. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-teddy_11met.ART.North.Edition2.f615355.html)
Now I don't have the financial wherewithal to help my daughter a ton with college--she'll be going on scholarships, or at the university where I'm a teacher more than likely. But she could be the most hardcore of hardcore Republicans and I wouldn't deny her whatever I had so she could get an education. Family is more important than political disagreements.
Did you check out the video (http://www.onemillionreasonswhy.com/video/)the kid made? Very interesting.

I guess daddy didn't realize that his (non)actions would create a monster? :D

Did you check out the video (http://www.onemillionreasonswhy.com/video/)the kid made? Very interesting.

I guess daddy didn't realize that his (non)actions would create a monster? :D
That was pretty funny. That's the whole "careful what you wish for" in a nutshell.

I don't think he is a bad person for not paying, I think he has an idiotic reason for not paying. I think on a very basic level we do agree, and on that note I am going to bed (for real this time).

it is very sad that you question my values as a human being though, really really sad. :(

Actually he is a bad person for the very reason he is not paying. If the kid said he was a republican there would be no story here.

He is a bad father plain and simple.

I disagree.

I don't think much of his reasoning, but I don't think that makes him a 'bad parent'.

Yes he is a bad parent. A "good" parent wants their child to suceed. Especially when he can help.


When you make these decisions, you are doing what you THINK is best for your child. You are giving them the best approach you can, given what you know.


Ahh the sophistry. Politics in this country does not define ones status in society. You can make it no matter the party affiliation.


The father in question believes that his son has been led astray in some fashion, and he is willing to help his child IF he comes 'back to the fold'.

You could argue the guy is small-minded. You could argue his reasons are poor, and his reasoning faulty. You could argue the guy is an asshole.

But NONE of that equates to 'bad parenting'.

Led astray? That's good. We are not talking about somebody who joined a Religious cult. We are not talking about a guy who declared himself to be gay.

All he said was he was a democrat. To punish your child over a political party?

Sorry he is a bad parent and a small minded asshole as Pantless succently described him.

I think it depends on the continuum upon which you judge parenting (coincidentally, like politics). This guy isn't as bad of a parent, to my mind, as one who physically abuses his children for imagined infractions, so on the continuum which includes physical abuse on one side, and no abuse on the other end, this guy likely falls on the "good parent" side. But if the continuum is measured on a scale that starts with "threatens child with economic sanctions if he doesn't change political affiliation" and continues to "supports child's desires for higher education regardless of political beliefs," then this guy falls squarely in the "bad parent" category.

Rubbish. It's still nothing to do with 'bad parenting'.

If the guy believes that there is really something empirically flawed about 'buying into' Democrat politics, then he is literally doing everything he can to protect his child.

How do you feel about cults? How do you feel about 'interventions'?

You can argue with the guy's politics, or his reasoning... even his 'reason', maybe.

But his 'parenting' is not even close to the issue.

Actually he is a bad person for the very reason he is not paying. If the kid said he was a republican there would be no story here.

He is a bad father plain and simple.

You are wrong. Plain and simple.

The father is a petty cretin, unquestionably. Anyone who fails to raise their kids to think for themselves is just undeserving of the title parent. I may be a bit biased, as I grew up in a family of intellectuals, but all the same, A parent who raises his kids to be little clones of himself hasn't fulfilled his duties as a parent. I tend to think that giving your kid what education you can is a good thing for a parent to do, but I know that teaching your kid to think for themselves is the duty of a parent (not by sending them to college, if that's what it appears I'm implying. I simply mean by letting them make their own choices, and sometimes their own mistakes.)

Rubbish. It's still nothing to do with 'bad parenting'.

If the guy believes that there is really something empirically flawed about 'buying into' Democrat politics, then he is literally doing everything he can to protect his child.

How do you feel about cults? How do you feel about 'interventions'?

You can argue with the guy's politics, or his reasoning... even his 'reason', maybe.

But his 'parenting' is not even close to the issue.
By your logic--taken to its absurd limit--the mother who drowns her children because they'll be better off in heaven isn't a bad parent either.

Rubbish. It's still nothing to do with 'bad parenting'.

If the guy believes that there is really something empirically flawed about 'buying into' Democrat politics, then he is literally doing everything he can to protect his child.


Yes it is bad parenting. We are not talking about a child that doesn't have any knowlege to evaluate the situation. The boy is old enough to make decessions and the father is punishing him because he has issues with a political party.

He is glossing over the whole package called his son.

It's a political party; not a cult. Many kids join one party and eventually switch as they feel the goals don't fit what they want.


How do you feel about cults? How do you feel about 'interventions'?

Good sophistry that is!


You can argue with the guy's politics, or his reasoning... even his 'reason', maybe.

But his 'parenting' is not even close to the issue.

Yes it is actually.

Yes he is a bad parent. A "good" parent wants their child to suceed. Especially when he can help.


In your opinion. A good parent may want their child to do well... but, at what cost?

Do you think Traci Lord's parents imagined their newborn baby daughter 'doing well' by selling herself? Do you think that might be one of those cases where one might prefer NO 'success' for their child?


Ahh the sophistry. Politics in this country does not define ones status in society. You can make it no matter the party affiliation.


And?

I assume there was a point to that.... and to the 'sophistry' comment also.

You might want to address them.


Led astray? That's good. We are not talking about somebody who joined a Religious cult. We are not talking about a guy who declared himself to be gay.


Curious that you lump 'being gay' in with 'being in a cult', and use them BOTH as 'bad' alternatives to being a Democrat...


All he said was he was a democrat. To punish your child over a political party?

Sorry he is a bad parent and a small minded asshole as Pantless succently described him.

In your opinion. What if the party had been a Neo-Nazi party? What if the 'political group' had been a 'white supremacist' group?

You are pleading 'special exception', I think.

You are wrong. Plain and simple.

Punishing your child over politics?

Actually I am right.

I am beginning to think both are manipulative pricks...perhaps the nut doesn't fall all too far from the tree.

The father IS manipulative. College is very expensive. Face it, even the most inexpensive schools are around $5000 a year. That isn't exactly petty cash. The offer to have part or all of it covered carries alot of weight. Alot. The father is saying "agree with me, and you get money. Disagree, and you get debt". that is manipulative.

The son is equally manipulative by making the father look like the bad guy.

Are either "wrong"? I'd say more the father, as his choice is what dictated the sons options.

Oh, and smunkee...I can't find where you said it, but I personally do not expect my parents to pay for my college tuition. They offered, saying that I should go to school where I want and where it is best for me, not a place that I have to settle on. This was great. I go to an expensive school, and without their help, would not be able to go where I do. I don't expect it, but I am greatful for their help. Even with their help, I will still be in debt because of the loans I have.

ETA: the father is not a bad father because he won't pay for his sons college. He is a bad father because he is trying to force ideals onto his child. That is just sophomoric.

By your logic--taken to its absurd limit--the mother who drowns her children because they'll be better off in heaven isn't a bad parent either.

Strawman. Reductio ad absurdum.

I'm not paying for you to go to college. I'm not hurting you.

There is no parallel.

Strawman. Reductio ad absurdum.

I'm not paying for you to go to college. I'm not hurting you.

There is no parallel.
You're the one who raised the strawman in the first place--don't blame me for showing you where that logical path leads.

And if the father makes the offer to pay for college and then withdraws it over a question of politics, then the father is indeed hurting the son, even if it is being done in the attempt to "protect" him.

Punishing your child over politics?

Actually I am right.

Where is the punishment?

Is the team that doesn't win at the Superbowl being 'punished'?

You seem to have entitlement issues.... 'NOT being rewarded' is not the same as 'being punished'.

If the guy believes that there is really something empirically flawed about 'buying into' Democrat politics, then he is literally doing everything he can to protect his child.
It’s all a matter of perspective. Everything is a matter of perspective.

In your opinion. A good parent may want their child to do well... but, at what cost?

A political party membership means very little for ones station in life here.


Do you think Traci Lord's parents imagined their newborn baby daughter 'doing well' by selling herself? Do you think that might be one of those cases where one might prefer NO 'success' for their child?


Ahh sophistry.


And?

I assume there was a point to that.... and to the 'sophistry' comment also.

You might want to address them.

Don't need to. The definition explains itself.


Curious that you lump 'being gay' in with 'being in a cult', and use them BOTH as 'bad' alternatives to being a Democrat...

Nice attempt to change the subject.


In your opinion. What if the party had been a Neo-Nazi party? What if the 'political group' had been a 'white supremacist' group?


The neo-nazis aren't a political party here. The KKK aren't a political party.

Nice try.

You are pleading 'special exception', I think.

You're the one who raised the strawman in the first place--don't blame me for showing you where that logical path leads.

And if the father makes the offer to pay for college and then withdraws it over a question of politics, then the father is indeed hurting the son, even if it is being done in the attempt to "protect" him.

I raised no such strawman... I mentioned nothing about drowning children.

There is no parallel. Your point does not follow 'logically' from anything I said.

Where is the punishment?

Is the team that doesn't win at the Superbowl being 'punished'?

You seem to have entitlement issues.... 'NOT being rewarded' is not the same as 'being punished'.
having a large sum of money dangled infront of you, and removed for such juvinile reasons seems quite like a punishment to me...

Yes it is bad parenting. We are not talking about a child that doesn't have any knowlege to evaluate the situation. The boy is old enough to make decessions and the father is punishing him because he has issues with a political party.

He is glossing over the whole package called his son.

It's a political party; not a cult. Many kids join one party and eventually switch as they feel the goals don't fit what they want.


No, it is not bad parenting. Merely repeating it doesn't make it true. No matter how 'forcefully' you state it. Raised voices are not equivalent to facts.


Good sophistry that is!


I'm beginning to wonder if you think that means something other than... well, what it means...


Yes it is actually.

How?

Where is the punishment?

Somebody else replies:


ETA: the father is not a bad father because he won't pay for his sons college. He is a bad father because he is trying to force ideals onto his child. That is just sophomoric.


Is the team that doesn't win at the Superbowl being 'punished'?

You seem to have entitlement issues.... 'NOT being rewarded' is not the same as 'being punished'.

You do like the sophistry don't you?

He has the ability to pay and won't because of a political party choice? Sorry he is a small minded ass simply because he would have paid if the boy said he was a repub.

No, it is not bad parenting. Merely repeating it doesn't make it true. No matter how 'forcefully' you state it. Raised voices are not equivalent to facts.

The fact you agree with him hardly dismisses the claim


I'm beginning to wonder if you think that means something other than... well, what it means...

Stop doing it then I won't have to mention it.

How?

Yet again. In this country a political party has no bearing on ones potential.

A political party membership means very little for ones station in life here.


Like George Bush, for example? His party membership makes no difference to his day-to-day life?

It isn't ALL about the tangible. The American 'fear of communism' is about the 'ideals', not the physicality.


Ahh sophistry.


I invoke Montoya.


Don't need to. The definition explains itself.


Excellent. Refusal to back an argument, by invoking it's 'self-evidence' as a reason to need no proof.


Nice attempt to change the subject.


Curious. I'd expected at least a token refutation...


The neo-nazis aren't a political party here. The KKK aren't a political party.


First, I said [a] Neo-Nazi party...

Second, http://www.americannaziparty.com/


Nice try.

Glad you appreciate it.

I raised no such strawman... I mentioned nothing about drowning children.

There is no parallel. Your point does not follow 'logically' from anything I said.
As the line goes, "let's go to the tape."
If the guy believes that there is really something empirically flawed about 'buying into' Democrat politics, then he is literally doing everything he can to protect his child.

How do you feel about cults? How do you feel about 'interventions'?
I focused in on the notion that you raised that the father is justified in his actions if he truly believes that he is protecting his child. But believing that you're protecting your child is not enough when it comes to parenting--there has to be some empirical evidence that you're doing your child some good, or you can wind up down that path where you're drowning your kids because they'll have a better life in heaven.

Now here's the thing you need to realize about this discussion. I don't think this guy is the evilest parent on earth. Hell, he's not even in the top 10 percentile, probably not even in the top half.

But he is a bad parent because he's punishing a teenager for having his own ideas, and that's the primary responsibility of any parent--encourage your kids to think for themselves. This kid seems to have succeeded in spite of, not because of, his father.

The father is by all accounts not a crackhead, not an abuser or molester, hasn't sold his children into slavery or locked them in closets for months at a time--he's not evil. But that doesn't necessarily make him a good parent either.

having a large sum of money dangled infront of you, and removed for such juvinile reasons seems quite like a punishment to me...

I have had banks turn me down for loans, for 'juvenile' reasons before... like my nationality, or my 'credit score' (a rumour spread by a third party about how trustworthy THEY think I am).

When you are giving someone something, you have a certain amount of control.

And, if you place conditions upon the 'gift'... they can either MEET the conditions, or they can do without the gift.

It's not a punishment, it's a fact of life.

He has the ability to pay and won't because of a political party choice? Sorry he is a small minded ass simply because he would have paid if the boy said he was a repub.

I've said that his attitudes are arguable. That makes no difference to his 'parenting' qualification.

The fact you agree with him hardly dismisses the claim


I do not agree with him. I have stated as much.

Nice evasion.


Yet again. In this country a political party has no bearing on ones potential.

Which is, a) rubbish, and b) irrelevent.

I have had banks turn me down for loans, for 'juvenile' reasons before... like my nationality, or my 'credit score' (a rumour spread by a third party about how trustworthy THEY think I am).

When you are giving someone something, you have a certain amount of control.

And, if you place conditions upon the 'gift'... they can either MEET the conditions, or they can do without the gift.

It's not a punishment, it's a fact of life.
and you argue that the bank has in no way punished you for your credit score or nationality?

There is also a huge, glaring difference between a bank (a financial institution established to make money) and a parent (one who raises children). A parent has no direct gain from having a child at any time. A bank has a tangible gain from its clientel. As such, the parent does things for the emotional value.

Lets flip this around for a hot sec.
the father, 30 or 40 years from now has to go into a nursing home. He asks his son to help pay. His son responds "If you will become a democrat, I will pay for whatever nursing home you want. Otherwise, you are on your own." After all, the father could get a job, take out loans, and has a steady income in the form of social security that probably exceeds the income the boy can make as a part time worker, full time student.

Like George Bush, for example? His party membership makes no difference to his day-to-day life?


Oh only if that example had any merit here. Does the father hold political office. Is it an old polictical family like the Bushes? Is the boy destined for office?

Nice try.


It isn't ALL about the tangible. The American 'fear of communism' is about the 'ideals', not the physicality.


Fear of the commies is so last decade.


I invoke Montoya.

Ok you got me there. Care to explain.


Excellent. Refusal to back an argument, by invoking it's 'self-evidence' as a reason to need no proof.

Let's see you raised the specter of cults, interventions, the neonazis and ponorgraphy. There is nothing I need to defend.


Curious. I'd expected at least a token refutation...

First, I said [a] Neo-Nazi party...

Second, http://www.americannaziparty.com/


:rolleyes:


Glad you appreciate it.

As the line goes, "let's go to the tape."

I focused in on the notion that you raised that the father is justified in his actions if he truly believes that he is protecting his child. But believing that you're protecting your child is not enough when it comes to parenting--there has to be some empirical evidence that you're doing your child some good,


This is what? Opinion? Constitutional?

Personally, I do all I can to help mine... but I'd argue that 'good parenting' could be argued to be nothing more than 'not doing harm'.

or you can wind up down that path where you're drowning your kids because they'll have a better life in heaven.


No, sorry. Even with the prelude, it's still just 'reductio ad absurdum'.


Now here's the thing you need to realize about this discussion. I don't think this guy is the evilest parent on earth. Hell, he's not even in the top 10 percentile, probably not even in the top half.


You have a rosier view of the human condition than I, if you think this case ranks in the 'bottom half'.


But he is a bad parent because he's punishing a teenager for having his own ideas, and that's the primary responsibility of any parent--encourage your kids to think for themselves. This kid seems to have succeeded in spite of, not because of, his father.

The father is by all accounts not a crackhead, not an abuser or molester, hasn't sold his children into slavery or locked them in closets for months at a time--he's not evil. But that doesn't necessarily make him a good parent either.

Nor a bad parent because he does not support his son's political ambitions, with financial incentives.

I'm also thinking, of course... that the kid might BE a 'republican'... masquerading as an abused 'democrat' for the sympathy vote. so he doesn't have to work through college.

I've said that his attitudes are arguable. That makes no difference to his 'parenting' qualification.

Sure it does. Tossing down speed bumps for your sons advancement in life is bad parenting.

Which is, a) rubbish, and b) irrelevent.

No actually it isn't.

Party membership yet again means nothing for ones potential here.

The fact that his father is waving the check book over his head about a political party does not make it relevant.

and you argue that the bank has in no way punished you for your credit score or nationality?

There is also a huge, glaring difference between a bank (a financial institution established to make money) and a parent (one who raises children). A parent has no direct gain from having a child at any time. A bank has a tangible gain from its clientel. As such, the parent does things for the emotional value.

Lets flip this around for a hot sec.
the father, 30 or 40 years from now has to go into a nursing home. He asks his son to help pay. His son responds "If you will become a democrat, I will pay for whatever nursing home you want. Otherwise, you are on your own." After all, the father could get a job, take out loans, and has a steady income in the form of social security that probably exceeds the income the boy can make as a part time worker, full time student.

The bank didn't 'punish' me. There is no punitive action. They just chose not to give me what they have, and what I want. It's their right to do so, no matter how I might wish it otherwise.

And, you touch on something here... "As such, the parent does things for the emotional value". That's the core issue, right there. The father wants his child to grow up right. He wants him to be a god-fearing patriot... and that means, a Republican. He's even willing to pay for his college as an incentive.

This is what? Opinion? Constitutional?

Personally, I do all I can to help mine... but I'd argue that 'good parenting' could be argued to be nothing more than 'not doing harm'.And withholding promised aid for education over a difference of political opinion isn't harmful?

No, sorry. Even with the prelude, it's still just 'reductio ad absurdum'.
Why? Because you say so? I like you, but I still think you're way wrong on this.

The bank didn't 'punish' me. There is no punitive action. They just chose not to give me what they have, and what I want. It's their right to do so, no matter how I might wish it otherwise.

And, you touch on something here... "As such, the parent does things for the emotional value". That's the core issue, right there. The father wants his child to grow up right. He wants him to be a god-fearing patriot... and that means, a Republican. He's even willing to pay for his college as an incentive.
I could accept that, but I'm bored and pissed off and you're really good at debating and therefore, I persist (take this as a compliment)
You say the father wants the child to grow up right, but is willing to use the childs future as a tool to gain his means. I'm sure we can all agree that a college education helps alot in future life, and that the exceptions are relatively few and far between, yes? So while the father is trying to have his child grow up "right" (if there is such a thing), he is deliberatly and directly placing the childs future in the balance. Yes, the child can work. Yes, he can go to school at the same time. But this does help to contribute to students who drop out of school to support themselves instead.

and I am curious what you have to say to the nursing home argument...

Oh only if that example had any merit here. Does the father hold political office. Is it an old polictical family like the Bushes? Is the boy destined for office?

Nice try.


Nice try at what? It's the most obvious example that political party membership can have privilege.

One needn't look that far, of course... one merely needs to visit small-town America to see that people often ARE dealt with differently, because of something as simple as favoured political party.


Fear of the commies is so last decade.


But the principle remains.


Ok you got me there. Care to explain.


I believe the current policy is: "Don't need to. The definition explains itself."... no?


Let's see you raised the specter of cults, interventions, the neonazis and ponorgraphy. There is nothing I need to defend.


I did no such thing.


:rolleyes:

Rolling eyes is what? An admission that your claim that neo-nazis were not "a political party here" was conclusively shown to be MUCH less than accurate?

Sure it does. Tossing down speed bumps for your sons advancement in life is bad parenting.

Not according to almost every book on child-rearing I've encountered.

Indeed, 'discipline', 'training' and 'structure' are considered, generally, good things.... I believe.

Not according to almost every book on child-rearing I've encountered.

Indeed, 'discipline', 'training' and 'structure' are considered, generally, good things.... I believe.
There is no way that what this father is doing can be reasonably called discipline, training or structure. This is bullying at best.

who the fuck cares, is the news really slow for the bush bashers that they have to talk about some republican dad not giving his son money. he is not required to give his son money, he isnt breaking a law, its a family issue not a national issue.

btw the son will probably end up on top with his website and publicity with link to his website. for all you know this could be a scam for the son to go to school free courtesy of saps who think they have to jump in and save him.

rolling eyes is what? An admission that your claim that neo-nazis were not "a political party here" was conclusively shown to be MUCH less than accurate?
I do take issue with this...a parent should love their child. Love is, in its very nature, unconditional. You use the white supremicists and neo-nazis as (the way I view it) a shock. It is like saying "he could be a COMMUNIST!!" back in the 50's. The child has the right to his view. As I stated before, I may detest my childs view, and fight him to the death to change it. But I would never love my child less, as long as he never hurt someone (as I said before, at that moment, it becomes the laws job, not mine). But I would, as all parents should, support him as best as I could (note: support, not defend.)
It seems that argument is just there for the shock of having a child who is an extremist, rather than being a true argument.

And withholding promised aid for education over a difference of political opinion isn't harmful?


I wouldn't say that NOT paying for your children's college (not school, right? We're talking about FURTHER education?) was a malicious act. I wouldn't say that NOT allocating funds for advanced schooling was 'harm'.


Why? Because you say so? I like you,

Thanks, the feeling is mutual, even if I play hardball.

but I still think you're way wrong on this.

Okay... let me just ask WHERE exactly you think I'm wrong...

On the issue of parenting?

Or on the 'reductio ad absurdum'?

Or... something else?

who the fuck cares, is the news really slow for the bush bashers that they have to talk about some republican dad not giving his son money. he is not required to give his son money, he isnt breaking a law, its a family issue not a national issue.

btw the son will probably end up on top with his website and publicity with link to his website. for all you know this could be a scam for the son to go to school free courtesy of saps who think they have to jump in and save him.
Welcome to America.