2007-11-28 01:29:48 · 16 answers · asked by realitycheck 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Hillary couldn't care less about children but, she does like the idea that the government has created yet another pathway into the sanctuary of the home to dictate social 'values'.
The law is absurd.
This is a demonstration of laziness on the part of the judicial system. It's an unenforceable law and they know it. Proving that parents should have their children taken away for actual abuse is very difficult. The state of Mass can very easily just walk into your home and take your children but, making it stick is quite complicated. The spanking law would be just one more card in the deck stacked against people of meager means. (Hillary would have us believe that THEY are her constituency). The fact is, one would assume, once the state has taken that unusual step, the situation has transcended spanking long ago. The addition of this statute is weak, very weak. Once a defender makes the case that the law doesn't apply, every other piece of evidence comes into question. I think it will have the reverse effect and truly abusive parents will slip the bonds of accountability.
2007-11-28 02:00:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Outcrop has a good idea, and you could submit the question to her website.
I doubt that she will support it. Mandatory sentencing rules and putting more people in jail are mainstays of the right wing Republicans not the Democrats.
Some people here say the proposed Massachusetts legislation is just a local story, and the bill is very unlikely to pass. That may be true, but there is reason for concern. According to the Boston Herald "Corporal punishment in the home is already illegal in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Latvia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Sweden and the Ukraine." !!
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1047241
2007-11-28 01:37:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Once you allow Hillary control of your " Village" , she won`t have to answer for any wild Liberal Socialist scheme she has in mind . The more control she can get for the government over anything , anybody , or any situation that reflects a different view than her "socialist indoctrination", the fewer times you will see questions like this being allowed to be asked ...discipline
2007-11-28 03:20:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Thats Mitt Romney's legacy for Massachusetts. Along with Mandatory Insurance. He must be a dictator.
2007-11-28 01:51:53 · answer #4 · answered by Enigma 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
When all cards are down, she'll support of anything that tells YOU what to do.
Remember, we, the American People are NOT smart enough to think for ourselves.....
2007-11-28 08:19:20 · answer #5 · answered by wider scope 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as it gives the government more authority over your life and more control over the raising of your children, she'll buy into it.
2007-11-28 01:40:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Maybe, like you apparently, she supports beating infants and toddlers, the class of humans protected by the proposed legislation in Mass and Cali.
2007-11-28 01:48:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
You mean like Baby Grace got spanked, I sure hope her parents stay in jail.
2007-11-28 01:39:11 · answer #8 · answered by Darth Vader 6 · 1⤊ 5⤋
SHE PROBABLY DOES, BUT THEN SHE MAY NOT. SHE DOES BELIEVE IT TAKES A VILLAGE TO RAISE A CHILD SO SHE IS PROBABLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS LUNACY.
2007-11-28 05:34:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
She will support it when she is speaking to those who support it and will be against it when speaking to those against it.
Have you not been paying attention?
2007-11-28 01:39:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋