winsomebulldog

I have done so and see nothing I object to. Paying a higher rate on every dollar earned above $25,000 doesn't seem onerous to me. Again, it isn't that progressive tax rates are offensive or evil in and of themselves. None of us is overly upset by the concept alone. However, we actually live here and have to deal with the horrific level of abuse that is enabled by our current system - abuse and manipulation that hurts the lower and middle income while shielding and catering to the super rich. Paying more taxes as income increases is perfectly logical in theory, and even successful in practice in other nations. However, we have an insane mess of a tax code that punishes the middle class far more than the super wealthy. It needs to be changed and as per my earlier posts, we can no longer trust our lawmakers to work for our best interests or to protect our rights. It's very easy to sit in another country and discuss how great your system works while trying to suggest ours is no worse. It's something else entirely to actually live here and have to deal with the mess first hand.

Yeah . I don't know why fiscal regulations and socialised health care are judged so harshly... we have it, and we also got through the financial crisis without going into recession, we don't have runaway unemployment and a massive subprime mortgage sector. We aren't slaves to our government, we merely have taxation with representation, and it works for us. The Americans here are happy to say they are going down the drain fiscally, morally, with a dictator - socialist for a President... until you say "hey! Look what we have, and it's working" then all of a sudden we are worse than them and Obama doesn't seem so bad . Cracks me up every time. Unfortunately, here in America, we have reached a place where we are living with taxation WITHOUT representation. Oh, we still have Senators and Representatives, and a President, all elected by us, but the vast majority of those representatives have ceased to actually represent those who put them into office. The passage of Obamacare in the first place is elegant proof of this. There has never been a majority of Americans who supported it, yet our president and Congress, those who are supposed to represent us, pushed it through and enacted it regardless of the opposition of the American people. And Obamacare is hardly the only instance of this kind of thing happening. And before anyone says, "You voted them into office, just vote them out," we HAVE done that. The turnover in Congress over the past couple of elections has been enormous. The problem is that those who have been voted in are no different than those voted out. We have no good choices. Politics has become a business in this country and we seem to be unable to change that trend thus far. I, for one, don't think Australia or any other country with a socialistic system is "worse" than Obama. Primarily because my issues with Obama go far beyond mere disagreement with his views on financial issues and social programs. But that's another topic altogether. The simple truth is that the reason we are "going down the drain fiscally, morally..." is because those in positions of power are utterly unconcerned with the people they are supposed to be representing. They are career politicians who are interested in ensuring the continuation of the nepotism that has been in place in Washington for decades. The collapse of the housing bubble and all that has resulted from it can be traced straight back to the lawmakers who enabled the idiotic mortgages that triggered the collapse in the first place. And THIS is why we feel that comparing the sliding or "progressive" taxation system that works elsewhere to the terribly ineffective and unfair system we have here is pointless. Just because it works for you does not mean it works for us. We are sick of the loopholes and provisions that make it possible for the super rich to avoid or recoup much of their income while providing no similar options to those with middle and lower income. Exactly. Since we cannot rely on our "representatives" to ensure the laws are fair and balanced, we are seeking to enact a simpler, flat-rate system that would be more difficult to manipulate and twist.

I just couldn't get past her not realizing as soon as someone handed her this "gift" that it was terribly inappropriate, not to mention tacky and offensive. And before any Democrats out there who might read this start griping, I'd be just as offended by a flag with Bush's face on it. It just isn't right. And it's specifically addressed in the Federal Flag Code: Sadly, this code is not law, but merely the accepted guidelines. Still, this woman's decision to not only fly this desecrated flag, but to then suggest that anyone offended by it is just "cannot accept Barack Obama as president" is beyond absurd and offensive. If the local Dems have any sense at all, they'll remove her from the head of their organization and place someone there who possesses a bit more sense.

And you think those who are NOT wealthy do not work for what they have?. You don’t think that state and federal income taxes hurt the lower income earners? Only the wealthy huh? I’m reminded of the statement the queen of mean said. "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.” This is the second time I've seen someone respond this way to BB's words. I don't see where he ever suggested that the non-wealthy don't work for their income. IMHO, all he's saying is that it's becoming increasingly popular to blame the "rich" for the troubles of those who are not among their ranks. The reality is that most of the time (notice I did not say ALWAYS) the financial difficulties endured by the middle class and others are problems they have brought on themselves. And I'm not trying to bash the "poor" here, because I've been there myself. My husband and I have often lamented the stupid and irresponsible financial choices we made in the past. Choices that cost us untold amounts of money in fees and interest charges from credit cards and loans. We have broken that cycle now and learned from our mistakes. If we can't pay cash for it, we don't buy it. Period. I am appalled by the blatant greed that I have personally witnessed in many of the "rich." However much money they have, it often just never seems to be enough. One only needs to look at how the majority of modern businesses are run to see this proven on a daily basis. The profit margin is the god the corporate world worships. However, I still do not believe imposing higher taxes on the wealthy is the answer. Because I have seen first hand how they respond. They just pass that financial burden down the chain to those beneath them. Businesses who are forced to pay higher taxes on their profit cut expenses by reducing the number of employees. Or worse, they close shop and move to another country were they can pay much less for labor. It happens every day. It happened to us when the company my husband had dedicated his entire career to moved to Mexico. I'm not some kind of right-wing nut who thinks we must give untold concessions to the super rich and mega-corporations. In fact, I'm very much the opposite. I'm a conservative who believes we need to flat out do away with the countless concessions and loopholes, and while we're at it, I believe we need to not only outlaw lobbying and special interests, I think we need to make it a crime for any politician to take any kind of "gift" from any business. And no more "bailing out" failing businesses. If they're so bad at managing themselves that they cannot remain viable then they don't deserve to remain in business. Simple. Basically, I think we need to scrap the entire tax system and streamline it. A flat rate tax across the board would be a very easy way to do this. No "tax shelters," no loopholes. Just one rate that everyone pays on income. If we tried to enact this with the current system, it would indeed not be "fair." But if we changed the laws and trend of "tit for tat" in Washington then it would be completely fair.

"Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed" ~Jesus So those blessed with higher incomes shouldn't begrudge paying tax on a larger proportion of there income as tax than those on lower incomes. Progressive taxarion is fairer than flat rate taxation. A rich person signs your paycheck bud. Don't forget that. Why should the rich be punished for being rich? Most of them worked for it. What a communistic crock. And my labour makes them rich. Paying tax isn't a punishment it ensbles the stable society in which their businesses operate and they live. I'm quite sure you get paid for that labor. And no one is saying the "rich" shouldn't be taxed at all, simply that it's wrong to tax them more because they've been successful at their chosen profession.

Is this...your way of saying those who are low income do not work? What of this family?: A father works nights and sometimes doubles as a chef for minimum wage. One check is enough to pay their monthly rent. He gets two, sometimes three checks a month as he is paid every two weeks. The mother is a stay at home mom who tends to their two boys. One of which is struggling with health/developmental issues. They had to swallow their pride and apply for help. They receive medicaid for their children, wic, and now food stamps. They do not have basic television, or cable. They do not have multiple cars and have only now just gotten their first so this way they do not have to rely on others to help them get around. Otherwise, they walk everywhere they go. They do not ask for any more aid than the help they already get and feel bad for having to ask for... The mother is looking for a job so as to help the father out. Are they any less deserving than a wealthy person? Why? Think sometimes people have a hard time looking past their own noses....not to mention think some of the low income families are belittled because of their situation. While so few actually take the time to consider that not everyone was born middle or upper class. Some of us do not get the education that others do, some of us simply cannot afford it and make due with what we have. Think that social status should not denote or measure a person's worth...PERIOD there's a bigger picture. let's say that the chef ends up opening up restaurant (then a couple more) in his future after years of his struggling. Taxing him more after he built his assets from the ground up would be like punishing him for his success. as for the second bold point - that is a problem in the family and community. they do not tend to give back after they have moved up. I know this chef...he would not do that. I married him. He is a humble sort. He would pay back what he owes, but fortune and fame are not him. He has seen what money does to people. How do you know if they would give back? Are you them? Are you me? Are you him? We pay our taxes when they are due. We are not asking for more help than we need. We are not asking for welfare money. We are not asking someone else to pay for our education. We are not asking anyone to buy our children clothes or give them to us. We are not asking for someone to pay our bills. We do not get TANF. We ARE working towards saving up to get my education finished. We ARE working towards both of us working steadily so that way we no longer need government programs. We ARE trying to give what we can of what we do not need so others who do can have it. Really like...how assumptions are always made...it is sad. I don't think anyone is suggesting that they know you or your husband or that they know what either of you would do. Nor do I think anyone here is accusing you or your family of being "mooches" or of "abusing the system." We are merely refuting the notion that everyone who has an income over some arbitrarily set number should automatically be forced to pay a higher amount of taxes. Our taxation system has virtually no way of taking the reality of day to day life into consideration. Ask anyone what their income is and it might sound like a lot of money. But when you start taking away the mortgage payment, the cost of the vehicle they have to have in order to commute to a job, the cost of fuel for that vehicle, the cost of medical coverage for their chronically ill family member, the cost of simple utilities and food, and that income frequently winds up closer to zero or even in the negative. Yet that isn't often considered. "Loopholes" for extenuating situations are either impossible to find or have standards that are ridiculously onerous. Believe me, we looked for every possible way to to alleviate our tax and penalty burden but there simply wasn't one. Having said all this, I want to make it clear that we are profoundly grateful that we were blessed to be in a situation were we had money to fall back on. We never had to fear foreclosure. We now live debt free and have vowed to remain so. God has been there every single step of the way for us, even when my husband still didn't have a permanent job and I got a cancer diagnosis, God stepped in and provided not only the job we needed, but the absolute best insurance either of us has ever seen. We are immeasurably blessed. But our current government-run tax and welfare system isn't working. And it is the fault of both those who make obscene amounts of money but still want more and those who are too blasted lazy to make any effort at all and remain content to live off the charity of others. Both extremes are wrong and both exist. I am simply frustrated by the fact that so many out there seem to believe that taxing the middle class to death is the answer.

His is it fairer then a flat tax? Should not everyone pay the same rate, or are we not created equal? As for the flat tax being "holy", please show where anyone said it was. In my oponion It's fair to ask those with a larger disposable income to pay a larger proportion of that income towards pinlic services than those on a lower income who mighr be forced to forego basic needs to pay that tax. As to the comments about holiness, i refer to the way that questioning a right wing position - advocatinhg flat taxes is dismissed as a sign of personal greed and envy. The problem is that you (and apparently the government) are assuming that a higher income automatically translates to more disposable income. It doesn't. Referring back to my earlier post where I described our situation, the income we were taxed on wasn't disposable in that it was mere surplus because we were just so rich we had nothing to do but spend wildly. We were in a situation where circumstances dictated that we only had two options: 1) We could withdraw a portion of my husband's retirement, lose almost half of it to the government in taxes & penalties, and ensure that our home was secure, all our debts were paid off, and our credit rating was kept in good standing. 2)OR we could have waited until all our bills were months past due, our home was in danger of foreclosure and our credit rating was destroyed, then withdrawn even more of that same retirement money (to cover the accrued past due penalties) and still paid higher taxes, but been granted a reprieve on the penalties. Basically, we were punished for not being poor enough and for making sure our bills were always paid on time. It's easy to sit here and assume that a family with a combined income of $250,000 is just rolling in dough and should be happy to "do their part" to "share the wealth" with those who are "less fortunate." The reality is that, like with us, those assumptions are sometimes flat out wrong.

Stumbled across this today. I'm both stunned by the utter disrespect of this action and amazed at the complete lack of understanding of why some would find it offensive. American flag with President Obama's image sparks outrage at Florida Democrats My favorite parts? Absolutely, Ms. Hurlbert, it's all about them not liking Obama and has nothing at all to do with the fact that it's simply WRONG to alter the flag in any way, much less in one this tasteless. Seems the vets tried to tell her this by providing her with a copy of the federal flag code, but she doesn't seem to think that applies to images of Obama. The worst part? Of course it is.

Absolutely. A refusal to stand with Israel is a guarantee that I won't be voting for them.

This was us just two years ago. Not because we are rich, but because my husband lost his job and we were forced to cash in a significant portion of his retirement to pay off all our debts so that we would not have to worry about losing our home in the future. Because he'd worked most of a year before his plant closed, we had to add that income to the withdrawal from his retirement. We wound up losing more than 45% of the money he'd spent more than 2 decades earning because according to folks like you, we were just too rich and needed to PAY! Never mind that it was an emergency situation. We were given no tax relief and no way out of the penalties because our bank wasn't beating down our door threatening to toss us out of our home at that moment. We were current on all our bills and simply wanted to ensure that we stayed so. Thus, we were punished. THIS is why I will never support any plan that imposes arbitrary taxes on people who dare to make more money than others. It's pathetic.

I have no doubts that there is a distinct difference between how the left reports, replies to, and views the behavior of those sympathetic to their political views as opposed to those who aren't. That said, there's not really all that much of difference in how the right behaves, it is simply more evident from the left since the vast majority of the media is liberal and leftist. Both sides tend to surrender to their less ethical natures when it comes to being utterly forthright and honest in their descriptions of events and/or words uttered by the opposition. Both sides frequently skew the retelling to best support their agenda. Both sides make excuses for or openly accept atrocious behavior from their "entertainers" and "pundits" when they should be condemning them. As to the point raised here, it is true that "Palin bashing" is not only accepted, but is encouraged and embraced by the left, while Limbaugh is something of a hero to much of the right. I frankly find both trends appalling. I'm definitely a right leaning person, a conservative at heart, and I am not and never have been a Limbaugh fan. I don't like his attitude, nor the meanness he often cloaks in what he calls humor. But having said that, I also agree with some of the things I've heard attributed to him. Just like I sometimes agree with the basic meaning behind the humor many of the leftist "icons" use. (Not familiar with Maher and not planning to become so.) That does not mean I support the way they make their points, though. As to the birth control issue: I see no reason at all why insurance cannot cover it. In fact, my health insurance has covered mine for years. And I am one of those people who used it because of medical reasons beyond a simple desire not to become pregnant. I have migraines and a cycle that was, to put it mildly, a nightmare. I won't go into details because I don't think I need to. Suffice it to say that my teen years were VERY unpleasant and leave it at that. The hormones in birth control regulated my cycle and eased the intensity of the headaches as well as the cycles themselves. Due to my cancer diagnosis, I am no longer allowed to take any kind of hormone, including birth control. Having said all this, I am diametrically opposed to the federal government forcing anyone to pay for something that is in direct opposition to their religious beliefs. I am also opposed to the federal government paying for birth control for women simply because they want it and can't afford to purchase it themselves. This is a load of malarky. Primarily because the cost of "pregnancy, childbirth, complications, and all other medical care" would be non-existent if women who do not want to become pregnant simply refrained from having sex. Of course, this is a novel concept these days, and not one that is popular. But it is, none-the-less true. This being said, I also do not understand why the proposal to provide women with birth control cannot be amended to state that it will be provided in cases where it is deemed medically necessary. Preventing unwanted pregnancy so the woman can have however much sex she wants with no consequences is hardly a morally focused position. I'm not suggesting we legislate morality, but that we stop suggesting that those who want to behave in an immoral way ought to have government sanctioned funding to do so. No insurance company should be forced to pay for that. The decision of whether or not to use things like the pill is a personal one that each woman has to make. Looking back and understanding more now than I did in the past about how the pill works, I have my share of regrets. However, I also know that without it, much of my life would have been spent in more than a little pain and literally confined to my bed for days on end. My monthly cycle and the migraines were absolutely that bad. The migraines are becoming more and more of a problem for me once more. If I had the option to use the pill once more, I'm honestly not certain what I would decide. I simply take issue with the suggestion that birth control - especially in its non-medical forms - is some kind of "right" that women are entitled to. We've done a good job of teaching our kids that sex is okay so long as it's "safe." What we have not done such a good job of is teaching them that it is never okay outside of marriage. Period. Outside of marriage it is fornication and is a sin. No sugar coating it. And sin has consequences, including unexpected pregnancies. I suppose I am simply unable to separate my moral and ethical feelings about the issue from my purely political feelings. And that's not something I regret.

I, too, had no idea that Popes could resign. I always just thought they stayed in the office until they died. It's an interesting bit of info. Not sure about the whole prophecy thing. I pretty much just let that kind of thing go in one ear and out the other. Mostly because no matter how old or well established the prophecy is, and no matter how much time and energy has been put into researching it, the simple truth is that "no man knows the day or the hour" of the Lord's return. The more people focus on a specific date, the more convinced I am that I can be sure it WON'T happen on that date. LOL

I just don't know if I could agree that the "tradition" of not practicing open and overt methods of praise is based on a racist ban originally intended to keep people of color out of "white" churches. Especially considering that I have seen more than one "white" church that does and always has routinely clapped, shouted, and raised hands. I was a teen in the 80's and attended an all white church that "shouted the roof down" every service. And this was in the heart of the South in Mississippi. Then again, I was born after the years of true segregation and the civil rights struggles. I just know what my experience is. And ultimately, I'm not sure it really matters how, when or where our current traditions got their start. Times and people change. December 25th may have once been a Pagan holiday, but somewhere along the way it was co-opted by Christians as the date to celebrate the birth of Jesus. None of us thinks it was His actual date of birth. Most of us now know the season's original origins. But we don't observe the traditions of Christmas because of their pagan origins. We do so because it's the traditional time when Christians celebrate Christ's birth. I think the whole clapping or not thing is less about racism - especially today - than about the man-created divisions between different denominations. Of course, one of those "shouting" churches I attended was Pentecostal and the other one is Southern Baptist. Basically, it really just varies from one individual church to the next. There are huge variances even within individual denominations.

I'm interested by how many have responded that "entertainment" gambling is sinful because it is "selfishly" motivated, meaning those who do it are only seeking to pleasure themselves. I will include by extension those who suggest that "wasting" money on the "entertainment" of gambling is poor stewardship. Can't the same be said of many other things? Going out to dinner is a "frivolous" use of money. So is going to a movie, or buying a book or a cd or a new car. Assuming any of these things is done outside of the realm of absolute necessity, how are they any different? You may find yourself in need of a new car because your current one ceases to be drivable, but do you really need a "new" car, or could you make do with a quality used one? Books may contain Bible devotions or testimonies or lessons, but none of them holds the value of the Bible itself and while potentially edifying (like Christian music) they aren't specifically necessary. Not to mention the fact that I own MANY books and MUCH music that is not of a Christian nature. Is every dollar I spend on something I find enjoyable that is not specifically and intrinsically tied to my faith poor stewardship on my part? Is every television show I watch that I find entertaining (Bones!) a sin because I am watching it merely for the entertainment value it provides? I should add here that I am not a gambler. I live 3 miles from a casino and have never once been there. I just don't see the appeal. But I know people who do. I know some who find it relaxing and "fun" just like I would find an afternoon spent with my camera at the park "fun." I don't see where everything we find personally entertaining is somehow sinful because it's selfish. I think the sin begins when it takes over our lives. When whatever it is we started out doing for "fun" becomes so important to us that we begin to place it on a pedestal and devote all our time and thoughts to it. When our entertainment becomes more important to us than God, THEN it is a sin. I think of my pastor's wife, who is a seamstress and has testified that at one time in her life she gave up sewing because it had become more important to her than her relationship with God. It became her idol. She devoted practically every waking moment to it. So when her eyes were opened to what she was doing, she stopped and repented. She has begun sewing again, but is always aware of how easily it can become something more than a project she finds relaxing and "fun" to do. I don't believe God expects us to go through our lives in a state of complete and total self-denial. I think we are to have Him first and foremost in our thoughts and devotion, but this does not preclude us from doing things that please us as well. (Within reason, of course.) If the logic of denying ourselves things we enjoy because that enjoyment is only selfishness were upheld, then we ought to not eat anything other than what is strictly required to keep our bodies functioning. We should never drink anything but water because the money spent purchasing anything else (even Koolaid) is poor stewardship on our part. Never mind the personal, selfish pleasure we take in the taste of Fruit Punch! I'm not advocating for gambling. I just think that we must be careful about the lines we draw. I think that gambling, like so many other things in life that are not specifically or directly dealt with by the Bible, is something that every Christian must pray about and deal with based upon their own personal convictions. It can be addictive, but so can soda, caffeine, sugar, television, the internet, and a near infinite list of other things, all of which can be alternately pleasurable and/or entertaining or a sinful idol, depending upon our individual perspectives and relationships to them. Ultimately, we must all make our own choices and follow our own convictions.

I cannot express how frustrated I am by this situation. It makes me sick that our commander-in-chief is begging forgiveness - again - of those who not only think absolutely nothing of burning our flag, but can and do happily murder our citizens. I find it even more offensive that he is promising to punish those responsible for this "great atrocity." As if the burning of a book, regardless of how sacred some may find it to be, is worthy of a human life. I am sick of seeing this country apologize to the people who not only plot to murder us but who celebrate in the streets when they succeed. Right now, untold numbers of lives are being lost in Syria every day. I have heard all sorts of people asking why someone doesn't do something to stop it. By someone, they usually mean the US. Yet every time we have tried to step in and stop this kind of wholesale slaughter, we wind up being the "bad guys" in the eyes of the very people we were trying to save. Never mind how the rest of the world likes to sit on their duffs and call us "warmongers" and "murderers." I used to be a firm believer in the need for the US to be involved in global relations. I based that on WWII when the US tried to stay out of it, but got attacked and sucked in anyway. But after the way things have gone the past few decades, I say we need to stay home and let the rest of the world deal with their own problems. This includes ceasing providing billions of dollars to other nations for "humanitarian" reasons. Sorry about all the global deaths from genocide, famine, disease, and cultural or political wars. Why don't you ask France for help?

Very cool!!

Well, I have personal bias against smoking, so I'll just say that I have a couple of favorite sayings that pretty much sum up my feelings: "If God had intended man to smoke, He would have set him on fire." and "If I see you smoking, I will assume you're on fire and act accordingly." I put the first one a bumper sticker on Zazzle. LOL

I saw those songs, but they aren't the one I'm looking for. I have no idea where we got it from. You'd think that one of us would have the original song on an album somewhere. We had to learn it somehow. LOL But then I still have a significant collection of old cassette tapes that I've kept because I want to convert them to digital format. Some of them are in storage and it's possible that the song is on one of them. I'm going to have to track them all down and check them. If I can find my portable cassette player. LOL

I wore a lot of makeup when I was young, but haven't been into it for years now. I have allergies that make pretty much any of it uncomfortable to wear. Looks okay for about ten minutes, then my eyes start itching, my nose clogs up, and after another few minutes I usually cave in and wash it all off. So I just stopped bothering. Plus, while I'm not rabid about it, I have issues with how much animal testing the cosmetics industry does.

Chonda Pierce is one of my favorite Christian comics. I own several of her videos and frequently laugh until I cry when I watch them. I find her hilarious and touching, because she not only makes you laugh, but she also makes you think. She has clinical depression and wrote a book about how God took her through it. Since I have depression as well, I suppose I feel a kinship. Plus, we're both Southern and believe me, there's a lot about Southern life to laugh at. I think humor can come from a dark place, though I don't think that means it always does so. And I also believe that self-depreciating humor can be kind of defense mechanism, but again, that it isn't necessarily so. Often, it is merely a mark of a humble spirit. A person who is comfortable enough with themselves that they are willing and able to laugh at their own foibles. I remember being very young when I first saw just how close humor could be tied to pain and grief. Anyone who's ever been through the loss of someone they loved very dearly knows that while that grief is very fresh, it can turn on a dime from tears of sadness to tears of laughter. My family and I used to talk sometimes about how we would gather for coffee in the room provided for drinks and snacks at the funeral home that handled the funerals of all our family. We would sit there, obviously grieving, but would start sharing stories and memories and inevitably, we'd wind up laughing to the point of tears. I think it's God's way of helping us alleviate that grief and sadness. He gave us senses of humor and I firmly believe that He has one as well. (Platypus. Enough said. ) In short, I do believe that a Christian can be a successful comedian. I think it is the mark of a truly great comedian that their humor is born from both the happy and painful parts of their past and selves. Because those are the ones we can most relate to. None of us is perfect with no times of "darkness" of grief, sorrow, or doubt. It is how we learn from and use those times to grow that defines us. God can take any pain and turn it to good. Perhaps, for Christian comedians, that is how He has done so.

Thanks. I've put away my soap box.

Thank you for your responses. It seems that things are working out. (God is so amazing when He does that!) We have, basically, agreed to leave the past behind and move forward. At this point, I believe that is the best thing to do. I know there was a reason this happened. As my husband and I discussed when I told him about it, my doing something like this is very out of character for me. Neither of us could believe I'd done it at all. And while I don't claim to know the mind of God, I do know that as has been suggested, this situation has humbled me and caused me to take a step back while reminding me that every word said or typed and even sometimes the things we don't say, has an impact. Perhaps this was God's way of reminding me to be careful about reigning in my tongue (even online) while also causing my family member to reflect on their own past mistakes. Either way, lessons have been learned and that's what matters most. Again, thank you all for your replies. God bless, Jenn

There are no "facts" that he was immature. That is your opinion. There is NOTHING in his actions that demonstrate immaturity. And most good parents disagree with you anyway. His approach was unorthodox but it was not immature. He had tried other approaches and nothing worked. The truth here is that you have him in a no win situation. He tried other approaches and when they don't work, you claim she was lacking in good parental discipline, but when he provides discipline that works you call it immature. There is clearly a lot of information you are ignoring, which was made available by the father. AS stated earlier, what he did worked and that is the final and ultimate rebuke of your faulty assessmet of his actions. You'are making a very presuptuous call saying that the dad's actions worked and I suggest you wait and see how this story pans out some more. If the dad's parenting methods have long term success I'll reconsider my position but up to now we can be sure his parenting hasn't been successful. The proof's in the pudding. Mr Jordan has stated that his daughter saw the reason and accepted her punishment well which is good; however this doesn't mean the punishment or the lesson delivered was good. He could easily have removed her computer and priviledges and obtained the same result but because he had committed to shooting it he needed to follow through. Of course following through with a threat/promise should be tempered with wisdom on whether it was sensible to begin with but I understand in America guns are a normality. His approach was definitely immature and the fact that he tried other things that hadn't worked doesn't change this. He could easily have kept his word without the facebook scene and his message would have been received loud and clear by his daughter AND everyone she told. It is the parents duty not to take offense and maturely deliver sound and profitable punishment which will yeild good fruit. I haven't put him in a no win situation at all because he hadn't tried removing priviledghes before as he said himself the amount of media the girl had. You are putting him on a pedestal simply because you agree with him. He had other options which he chose not to use and you are dismissing this why ? This is all the proof anyone who actually watched the video or who has bothered to follow the father's subsequent posts on Facebook needs to read to know that you have not bothered to get the facts of the situation before posting your replies. The father DID try removing her computer before. Another poster provided his words about that. You might want to read them. In fact, you may want to actually do some research before you reply further. As to your repeated assertions that the fact that she remained rebellious somehow proves that he is a poor parent in need of parenting classes or counseling. You're really going to try to suggest that any parent who has a rebellious and stubborn child is necessarily a bad parent? I find that not only absurd, but insulting to the countless good parents out there who have defiant children in spite of all their efforts to change that attitude. I should add here that I don't have children. I know that in some minds, that fact immediately nullifies any opinion that I might have. However, I WAS a teen at one time and I remember those years just fine. I also remember how and what my mother taught me and how she reacted in the times that I myself tried to defy her in some way. I was not a rebellious child. Ever. In my teens, I was just as obedient as I was when a toddler. I loved my mother dearly and respected her more than I can ever say. HOWEVER, I did not grow up in the era of social media. I was still in middle school when personal computers started appearing on the scene. The first computer I ever laid my hands on was a Commodore 64 at school. I was grown and out of the house before I ever actually owned a computer of my own. So Facebook and all the other social sites hadn't even been dreamed up during my teen years. There were no cell phones, either. Not even cordless phones! LOL So, if I was mad at my mom about something - which did happen from time to time because I was a hormonal teen, not a robot - my only real way to vent about it was in a diary or possibly over the phone with a friend. Generally speaking, my temper is the sort that flares quick and hot and burns out within a very short time. Meaning that by the time I would have gotten around to seeing a friend so that I could rant about whatever was bothering me, I'd already gotten over it. Today, kids have instant and constant access to the internet. They are more connected than I could have even dreamed of being when I was a teen. This means that all the things that often go wrong with teen social behavior can be and are magnified on an unimaginable scale. What might have been one case of someone calling another child an unflattering name at school is now an endless social bombardment of often cruel and terribly hurtful words on Facebook, Twitter, text messages, blogs, YouTube, etc. It can spread like wildfire through a shockingly large number of teens in the blink of an eye. And teens, being who and what they are, often join in simply because they're following a trend. This girl was not bullying another person, but she was demonstrating a flash of childish whining and complaining that essentially amounts to an online temper tantrum. Only instead of just stomping her feet and screaming, she said hurtful and deliberately insulting and vulgar words about her parents and a close family friend. Again, in typical teen fashion, all her friends "liked" her rant because that's what teens do. They always side with each other in situations like this. This father was not only personally hurt by his daughter's words. His wife was hurt. The family friend was hurt. The girl's mother was hurt. She was beyond inconsiderate. Never mind how whiny and petty she was. And when it came down to it, the father did what he felt was best at the time. I don't think it was immature. I think it was emotional. And I'm not saying that he lashed out at her in an out of control way, either. I simply believe that he was very hurt by her words and reacted in what he felt was the best manner. She'd made a very public mockery of her parents and so he responded in the same public manner. He had plenty of reason to do so. All those friends of hers on Facebook needed to get a reminder of the fact that Facebook is public and that things said there can never truly be taken back. He never once expected this thing to turn into what it has become. He wasn't seeking public recognition when he posted that video. He just wanted all his daughter's friends to see that actions have consequences. The whole shooting the laptop thing was merely him standing behind his words to her after the last time she'd done something similar. To call him a bad parent simply because his daughter didn't turn into a model child after one instance of disobedience and rebellion is the epitome of arrogance. I am sensible enough to look back at my teen years and know that things might have been very different if I'd had the kind of access to the instant gratification the internet provides. Frankly, as an adult, I still find that I constantly have to censor myself when it comes to what I say publicly online. Sadly, I've just found myself in an instance where I did not do so and someone's feelings got hurt. Teens simply tend to lack that kind of self control. I was very good kid, well behaved, and respectful. But even I would probably have had more than one instance of lashing out in an inappropriate manner if I'd had a computer and access to the internet. That in no way means my mother was a bad parent. It just means that teens are still children and still in need of guidance and correction. It's all fine and well for some to sit in your chairs behind your computers and talk about how you would have done it all so very differently. It's easy to call this man a bad father when you don't know him or his daughter or their family. And it's incredibly easy - judging from all the responses that have done so - to make a wild range of predictions about how "traumatized" his daughter will be by his "violent" and "uncontrolled" actions. As he himself said, he and his daughter spent a lot of time laughing at the numbers of people who predicted that she'd have no other prospect for the future other than sinking into a degrading job as a stripper, and all because of how horrible a parent her father is. The fact is, the daughter is just fine. He even offered her the opportunity to respond via Facebook but she declined. She was disrespectful and rebellious, yes, but she isn't some wildly out of control monster any more than her father is. They are merely a typical family that has had one single moment of their lives thrust into global focus. I defy anyone to look back through their entire lives and say that there is no single incident or moment that would have elicited most of the same responses if it were suddenly yanked out of context and displayed on a global stage. Not one time in your life have you ever lost your cool for even a moment and said or done something that would have perfect strangers calling you all sorts of bad things if that's the ONLY thing they knew of you? Not one time has your child EVER done the exact same thing they've done before? Meaning they have only ever done a wrong thing one time before "learning their lesson" and thus NEVER repeating that same behavior in any way, shape or form? Because according to some of you, if your child has ever committed the same bad behavior more than once, that means you are a bad parent in need of parenting counseling. Basically, I don't know this man any more than anyone else outside of his family and/or close circle of friends knows him. I do know that from everything I've read that he's said, he seems to be just a normal guy with a decent head on his shoulders and a strong love for his family. He's got strong convictions and isn't afraid to stand behind them. He regrets the media firestorm his video caused and freely admits that there are a couple of things he would change if he could go back and do so. Posting it isn't one of them, though. In spite of how uncomfortable he is with how this whole mess has impacted his family. (Incessant phone calls, harassing reporters, creepy internet stalkers and unknown numbers of weirdos who are now pretending to be him and/or his family all across the internet.) He didn't ask for or expect any of that. And he doesn't deserve it any more than he deserves the countless numbers of "armchair parents" out there who are judging him based on a handful of highly emotional minutes taken out of his entire life.

Hi all. I was just seeking a bit of advice about a situation I have found myself in. I try to be very careful about anything I post in any public way. I strive to remain very aware of the potential ways my online words might impact anyone they are about. In fact, I generally try not to post much at all about living people, mainly because I think that too easily smacks of gossip. (I'm excluding the times I have written about my deceased family members because those times are almost exclusively about the events surrounding their deaths and how those events impacted me.) Anyway, in the interest of keeping this fairly short, here is what I've just learned happened. Approximately 2 years ago I wrote something as part of an "about me" page that I openly admit I should not have. I referred to a family member in less than flattering terms. Now the truth of the matter is that nothing I said was untrue. And I cannot retract the words because they are the plain truth of how things are and the reality is that once something has been said, it can't just be "taken back." So, here's my problem. I stand by what I said, but I freely admit that I should NEVER have said it in a public forum like I did. It was something that if I felt it needed to be voiced, it should only have been done so in a face-to-face manner. Looking back, I have no idea why I wrote it. I can't remember actually writing it. The only excuse I can come up with is that the thing I wrote was a very long and heavily emotional piece and I suppose my emotions overrode my sense. Of course, yesterday, this family member just happened to stumble across those words. If I'd remembered posting them at any point in the past two years I would have gone back and removed them because as I said, it wasn't something that should have been posted publicly, regardless of how true it was. Now I'm in a situation where I am sincerely sorry for having posted it publicly, but cannot tell the person that I was "ranting" or "just hurt" or even having a moment of temporary lunacy. Because I still believe what I said was true. But I never meant to hurt this person and I know I did. And I believe that is a sin and that I need to apologize for HOW I said the words and HOW this person found those words. I have told this person pretty much all this. I didn't know how else to handle it. I told them that I was very sorry for what I'd done and that I freely admitted that it was wrong of me to air such thoughts publicly the way I had. But I couldn't tell them that I didn't mean what I'd said. Because that would have been a lie. And their message to me about it was worded in a way that I simply could not just ignore that part of it. I apologized and immediately went back and removed the words that I know were inappropriate. This person has not responded to my reply in any way. I know they are hurt and I don't blame them for wanting and needing some time to deal with those feelings. My question here is, do I need to do something more? Was I wrong to not try to completely retract everything I said in spite of the fact that it would have been a lie to do so? Where is that line? As I said, I know and accept that what I did was wrong. I told this person that. And I apologized for it more than once. But I know they really wanted me to apologize for WHAT I said more than HOW I said it. And I just can't do that. Or maybe I should, but I don't want to. And that's what I'm asking you guys. Is it wrong of me to stand by my words in this situation? I'm not looking for validation, but sincerely want to know if I am in the wrong. It's hard to separate myself from the emotions involved to see the absolute truth.

I've been following the story since early yesterday, when he was still coming to terms with how viral the video had gone. He's a very humble and funny man. He admits openly that he regrets a few things about how he handled it. Though he also says he would do it over again and that the reason he shot the laptop was because the last time his daughter behaved in a similar manner he told her that if she ever did it again, he would "put a bullet in it" (the laptop). So when he found the Facebook post she'd made, he was faced with the choice to either uphold the promise he'd made her or not. He said he even called the girl's mother to ask her to convince him NOT to shoot the laptop. Then he read their daughter's post to her over the phone, and she told him to put a bullet in it for her. I know it was a dramatic act, but I agree that he had to follow through on his previous words to his daughter or lose her respect. If there's one thing that I remember about my mother, it was that she understood the importance of standing behind your word. If you tell a child that you will punish them in some way if they do something wrong, then never follow through on it, that child is going to learn that they can do whatever they want without fear of repercussion. Being a "good" parent isn't just about loving your child. It's about loving your child enough to discipline them when they need it. I really respect this man because he obviously loves his daughter enough to hold her accountable for her own behavior. Good for him. He may not see himself as a hero, but I call him one because more and more, it's become the norm for parents to be their children's friends so that their kids won't be "mad" at them. God bless him for being brave enough to not cave into that pathetic trend.