Image

Dems demand Bill of Rights - for The Children

User avatar
[img]/images/Poster_Capitalist_Parenting.jpg[/img]

Comrades, our Social Justice™ fighters never cease their relentless striving for a better America!

A resolution calling for a "Children's™ Bill of Rights", which goes above and beyond the actual Bill of Rights, has been introduced into congress. It's for The Children™! Who could possibly be opposed to that?

The framework, unveiled by Reps. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), Judy Chu (D-Calif.) and Karen Bass (D-Calif.), has 22 broad categories that include the right to a safe and healthy environment — including in homes, schools and communities; the right to remain with a parent, legal guardian or caregiver except when authorities determine separation is in the best interest of the child; the right to a safe learning environment; and the right to be free from bullying.
This, of course, is key to a happy, healthy and safe community. All parents should be happy to allow the State to determine exactly what is best for The Children™, thus relieving parents of this great concern. This would allow all parents to concentrate on what is really best for the community, such as working, paying taxes and watching State TV approved programming.

Chu said all children, no matter who their parents are or where their parents are from, deserve a healthy and safe environment in which to grow up.

“Whether children are fleeing war in Syria or gangs in Central America, we must treat them like our own children and not let them live in a life of violence,” she said. “Children should be welcomed not imprisoned, forced to separate from their families, or criminalized for seeking safety in America.”
And this is what is so brilliant about the Bill of Rights for The Children™ , comrades. Start a war in Syria or Ecuador or Australia and just wait for the refugee children to come streaming across the borders. We then would be compelled, by the constitutional right to have a parent, to allow the parents of the refugee children to have a safe haven. Eventually, after 3 weeks or so, we would have to tell allow them to vote for us.

If they ever get the idea that they don't want to vote for us, anymore, we just declare that it is in the best interests of the children to no longer be allowed to stay with that particularly criminal set of parents.

It's for The Children™. Who could be against that?

[img]/images/Poster_Angry_Baby_Capitalist_Pigs.png[/img]

User avatar
KKK, I thought the BS UN already took care of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventio ... _the_Child . We just haven't ratified it, we just signed it. That just means that the UN just put the tip in, they haven't put the other inch and an eighth in. And with all of the legislation that Dear Leader has put in, I think that the UN is about to give us the whole thing. Take your birth control, komrades, and hope nothing like a military coup is born from this procreative experiment!

[OFF]

Note: The writing that was here previously has been deleted and replaced by me alone, not by any TPC administrators. The reason for revision of this section is due to potentially racist and offensive comments that I foolishly wrote while I was angry, tired, and not thinking clearly or even rationally about the whole situation. Upon conscious and mentally-stable review of said comments, and the responses to them, I knew that I had done wrong and that I shouldn't have written my original comments in the first place. I do not agree with anything that I wrote originally, and am gravely sorry and apologise to anybody that it may have offended or angered, especially to Mr. Atbashian, who has proven me to be wrong. I regret that it ever appeared on this website.

I recognize and agree that Mr. Atbashian has the right to choose the content that appears on his servers and websites. If he couldn't control what was on here himself then I wouldn't be on here. I also agree that using people's ethnicity to explain their ideas and positions is wrong, not only on an intellectual level, but also on an ethical level. I suppose that humorous stereotypes that I have heard countless times on countless ways mixed with serious thoughts in my delirium.

I hope that this content is much more agreeable than the rubbish I wrote before, and hope that the TPC administration, the users & readers of TPC, and Mr. Atbashian consider this, along with my subsequent post written at 11:06 PM, as a sufficient apology.

The below is a much more sensible and conscious statement of my opinions.

What a silly idea. Shouldn't the bill of rights be enough? Also, if we have to have separate bills of rights for children and adults, would that mean that our current BOR be void for children? Also, who would be writing this BOR, would it be a bipartisan, or even a multipartisan committee, which would include people from the left, the right, centrists, and parties which barely even fall on the left-right spectrum? Or would it be democrats and other parties which emphasize the power of the government over the power of the individual? Considering the histories of all 3 proponents of this plan, I think it would fall more towards the latter rather than the former.

And the example that Somalia and S. Sudan passing one is weak at best; Those countries actually NEED a child's BOR. They are third-world countries, not first-world nations like the US.

And as for the right to be free of bullying, I see it as unenforceable, or hard to enforce to say the least. What will you do with Sid who goes and beats up on Johnny, try him for war crimes or human rights violations? Or will you follow the precedent set by many other school districts and punish the one who tried to fight back instead of the guy that started it in the first place? Will you let it go? Will you try to get the kid on death row? If the kid goes to court, will he be able to have an attorney provided for him? This is opening up a whole new box full of legalities and things that will undoubtedly cost more tax money to implement.

And what will happen to the parent's rights to raise their kid however they want (within reason, of course)? Will the parent be given a list of things to do and not to do? Will the child be interviewed by the school in a Hitler Youth-esque way to see if the parent is following the instructions? Or will we install telescreens in every home and force the parents to get up and do exercises and even take a pill that they have no idea what it is so that the kid doesn't have a bad influence?

If this is implemented, I believe that the government will come closer to taking the place of the parent, and that the parent will get closer to becoming nothing more than an apparatus for feeding and clothing the child unit. Furthermore, the child unit will have software installed onto it so that it will report back to the Mother Organization so that the Mother Organization can see if the feeding and clothing apparatus is functioning properly, and to give it a swift kick if it doesn't.

Just another proposal that will either go nowhere at all, go just a few inches before losing steam and falling apart, or shoot through congress and the white house quicker than the speed of light and cause an even greater expansion of government.

And I agree with KKK that it IS about power. They seem to want to make themselves look like they're hip and progressive, but in the end it's all a masquerade. Government's about nothing but power, and people used to want to limit it, but nowadays it seems that you can get the majority to turn their logic and common sense off and march off to doom like lemmings to a cliff if you say that it will make their lives better, give them free stuff (see: Bernie Sanders) or appeal to their likes and positions. If you keep the circus going they can't see that the circus tent is about to fall on them. And this sort of thinking and strategy isn't limited to just one party; it's limited to ALL parties.

Also, while researching Judy Chu I learned that the CA tax and fee collection agency is called the "State Board of Equalization". Just an observation.

User avatar
Comrade S, the ethnic origins of people are not relevant. That is merely cover for the underlying plan of full Party™ control of all aspects of life - from Party™ approved pre-conception activity to Party™ approved end of life decisions and environmentally sensitive disposal of non-viable human tissue (formerly known as family members).

It's not about people, comrade. It's about power.

User avatar
Image
Comrade Stierlitz - please leave ethnic stereotyping to collectivists.

In the future, please refrain from using ethnic slurs and explaining people's ideas by their ethnicity unless you are in karakter. That's a rather collectivist reasoning method, but you used an "OFF" tag, which means those are your real thoughts. You are free to have any thoughts you want since it's a free country for now, but this site happens to be my private property and I also have the freedom to choose what material appears on its pages.

The people you mention are the demagogues who benefit from perpetuating the collectivist method of ethnic divisions. Your comment only helps their cause, suggesting that everyone of a certain origin must be exactly the same.

But I'm also an immigrant of a certain ethnic mix. That doesn't determine my thoughts and who I am; I know quite a few of my former compatriots whose thinking is very different from mine regarding politics, the economy, and this country in general.

Image

User avatar
Image
Thank you, Comrade Red Square. Content of character is far more important than colour of skin or origin of heritage. If more people had that attitude, less people would be susceptible to the political machinations of dishonest politicians. I have a dream.

User avatar
Indeed, a kangaroo can dream!

BTW, I illustrated your lead story with images taken from an earlier thread, sponsored by ABC (Angry Babies for Change).

Capitalism Impedes Breeding; Socialism to Boost Baby Quotas

User avatar
Red Square wrote:Image
Comrade Stierlitz - please leave ethnic stereotyping to collectivists.

In the future, please refrain from using ethnic slurs and explaining people's ideas by their ethnicity unless you are in karakter. That's a rather collectivist reasoning method, but you used an "OFF" tag, which means those are your real thoughts. You are free to have any thoughts you want since it's a free country for now, but this site happens to be my private property and I also have the freedom to choose what material appears on its pages.

The people you mention are the demagogues who benefit from perpetuating the collectivist method of ethnic divisions. Your comment only helps their cause, suggesting that everyone of a certain origin must be exactly the same.

But I'm also an immigrant of a certain ethnic mix. That doesn't determine my thoughts and who I am; I know quite a few of my former compatriots whose thinking is very different from mine regarding politics, the economy, and this country in general.

Image

Yes Red, I had a long day and I was pretty mad, and as you may or may not know from your own personal experience, anger can get people to say things they don't expressly want or mean to say. I could have sworn the fields and the beets and the glories of Kommunism gave me strength, which they DO, but sometimes you just have to go behind Shed 2 and have a little bit of Vodka, which I SHOULD have done, but didn't. In the future I shall refrain from Posting while (very) Pissed, and I shall revise the post to protect you and your website's image.

Also, I looked at what I said, and you're right, that was pretty stupid of me to post that. I should've thought more, and as said before, not posted while pissed (and not thinking clearly). Thank you and I hope for your forgiveness and mercy.

User avatar
Comrades, are "folks" still bitterly clinging to their children, Bibles, and their guns? It is a well known progressive fact that children belong to the collective and thus have their own bill of rights duties - Assuming that the parents of said children "feel" that the child is actually a child.



First we must get past that pesky 9 month thing....or not. If today, in month 7 of a typical pregnancy, the parent feels they don't really have a child growing in the womb, then it makes perfect sense to assassinate the problem and move forward on to new adventures. It's so simple, "children belong to the collective assuming you feel that you actually have a child, otherwise, get rid of it." Problem of rights has been solved.


User avatar
Red Walrus wrote: ...
First we must get past that pesky 9 month thing....or not. If today, in month 7 of a typical pregnancy, the parent feels they don't really have a child growing in the womb, then it makes perfect sense to assassinate the problem and move forward on to new adventures. It's so simple, "children belong to the collective assuming you feel that you actually have a child, otherwise, get rid of it." Problem of rights has been solved.

Komrade Walrus, would I be correct in assuming that these parents would identify as "tumor sufferers" rather than "pregnant"? Or would that be a violation of the fetus's rights to agency and the ability to identify as anything they want? Does the fetus have any rights? Or is that on the parent, like one of those "like father, like fetus" sorta deals?

User avatar
Comrade Stierlitz wrote:
Red Square wrote:Image
Comrade Stierlitz - please leave ethnic stereotyping to collectivists.

In the future, please refrain from using ethnic slurs and explaining people's ideas by their ethnicity unless you are in karakter. That's a rather collectivist reasoning method, but you used an "OFF" tag, which means those are your real thoughts. You are free to have any thoughts you want since it's a free country for now, but this site happens to be my private property and I also have the freedom to choose what material appears on its pages.

The people you mention are the demagogues who benefit from perpetuating the collectivist method of ethnic divisions. Your comment only helps their cause, suggesting that everyone of a certain origin must be exactly the same.

But I'm also an immigrant of a certain ethnic mix. That doesn't determine my thoughts and who I am; I know quite a few of my former compatriots whose thinking is very different from mine regarding politics, the economy, and this country in general.

Image

Yes Red, I had a long day and I was pretty mad, and as you may or may not know from your own personal experience, anger can get people to say things they don't expressly want or mean to say. I could have sworn the fields and the beets and the glories of Kommunism gave me strength, which they DO, but sometimes you just have to go behind Shed 2 and have a little bit of Vodka, which I SHOULD have done, but didn't. In the future I shall refrain from Posting while (very) Pissed, and I shall revise the post to protect you and your website's image.

Also, I looked at what I said, and you're right, that was pretty stupid of me to post that. I should've thought more, and as said before, not posted while pissed (and not thinking clearly). Thank you and I hope for your forgiveness and mercy.

Comrade, you should have thought less. This is where you fail. Stop thinking and start believing and you will never run afoul of proper thought.

Also, you need to realize that the intention of the "powers that be" is to keep you agitated against those who are nothing more than the pawns of the "powers that be", thus deflecting your anger from where it really should be targeted.

People are people.

Politicians are corrupt arseholes.

Did I just say that?

I denounce myself.

User avatar
Red Square wrote:Indeed, a kangaroo can dream!

BTW, I illustrated your lead story with images taken from an earlier thread, sponsored by ABC (Angry Babies for Change).

Capitalism Impedes Breeding; Socialism to Boost Baby Quotas

This is obviously providential. This you published on my birthday. It's proof. Of what, I'm not sure, but I'll figure that out when I sober up.

User avatar
Poor Melitha Harrith Perwy. So many depend on her for their very existence. It must be quite a burden. How many times have I lay under the old oak tree puzzling over what might have happened to the human race if Malitha had never been born - who would have taken care of us?

User avatar
Comrade Stierlitz wrote:
Red Walrus wrote: ...
First we must get past that pesky 9 month thing....or not. If today, in month 7 of a typical pregnancy, the parent feels they don't really have a child growing in the womb, then it makes perfect sense to assassinate the problem and move forward on to new adventures. It's so simple, "children belong to the collective assuming you feel that you actually have a child, otherwise, get rid of it." Problem of rights has been solved.

Komrade Walrus, would I be correct in assuming that these parents would identify as "tumor sufferers" rather than "pregnant"? Or would that be a violation of the fetus's rights to agency and the ability to identify as anything they want? Does the fetus have any rights? Or is that on the parent, like one of those "like father, like fetus" sorta deals?
You see the contradiction also Comrade? My conclusion: Children have no right to survive living with their parents and can be exterminated at any time. If they get past the parent's "true feelings" and can somehow make it into the village on their own, then yes, their right to be taken care of by all the other villagers begins. It is very confusing to be sure.

User avatar
Captain Craptek wrote:Poor Malitha Harrith Perwy. So many depend on her for their very existence. It must be quite a burden. How many times have I lay under the old oak tree puzzling over what might have happened to the human race if Malitha had never been born - who would have taken care of us?
SquirellButt2.jpg
CC - Are you making fun of the scholarly doctor? I'm concerned for your well being (again). Don't forget what happened to your cousin, "Marshal Craptek" who joked a few times about Doctor Perry's inability to roll her R's. Have you lost your mind?

User avatar
Ms Perry is, apparently, a Science™ denier. She states that when life begins is relative to the parents' "Powerful feelings! Not Science™!"

This is troubling. I'm not sure how to reconcile this with other Party platforms and the Children's Bill of Rights™.

User avatar
Kapitan Kangaroo Kourt wrote:Ms Perry is, apparently, a Science™ denier. She states that when life begins is relative to the parents' "Powerful feelings! Not Science™!"

This is troubling. I'm not sure how to reconcile this with other Party platforms and the Children's Bill of Rights™.

It's simple, we say that some feelings are more equal than other feelings and that those with unauthorized or anti-party feelings get to go to the special feelings camp up north. As for the CBoR, we simply redefine the definition of "child" to be "a state-loving and party-supporting human that is outside of the female parental unit's womb unit but has not yet reached the age of 18". The fetus is and always has been a not-yet-killed nonperson and shall never receive the rights that children or adults have. And if any of the pro-life agitators say that life is sacred, remember that only the state is sacred and that the state has ultimate authority over the buffoons.

User avatar
Red Walrus wrote:
Captain Craptek wrote:Poor Malitha Harrith Perwy. So many depend on her for their very existence. It must be quite a burden. How many times have I lay under the old oak tree puzzling over what might have happened to the human race if Malitha had never been born - who would have taken care of us?
SquirellButt2.jpg
CC - Are you making fun of the scholarly doctor? I'm concerned for your well being (again). Don't forget what happened to your cousin, "Marshal Craptek" who joked a few times about Doctor Perry's inability to roll her R's. Have you lost your mind?

Seriously, Comrade Walrus -- I'm vewy vewy sad over Melitha's pwoblem. (sniff) Imagine still owing $48k the the IRS and your only source of income is your husband's salary as a social justice attorney, your salary as an MSNBC host of your own show, another salary as a professor of something-or-other, some crappy books, a column writer for The Nation, and all the free stuff you can locate. We should take up a collection for Melitha this very minute!

BTW: Thanks for that picture of cousin Marshal (he never did recover from that accident) Oh, well...

User avatar
And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, https://biblehub.com/revelation/13-17.htm and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.…

Image


 
POST REPLY