Nothing is greater than a mother's love for her child...

shack

This **** needs to have both of her **** tasered for hours on end...before she has a full hysterectomy to make sure she can never ever reproduce again.

I hope the court takes this poor child away from her permanently!

Missouri mother accused of using her 1-year-old child to shield man from police Taser

Associated Press

HANNIBAL, Mo. - Police said a northeast Missouri mother used her 1-year-old child to shield a man from a Taser during a confrontation with officers. The woman, 20, was charged with endangering the welfare of a child and interfering with an arrest. She was arrested Tuesday night and placed at the Marion County jail on a 24-hour hold.

The child, whose gender police did not release, was placed with another family member.

Officers were at an apartment checking on an assault claim made by the woman when a man confronted them, making threats. One of the officers displayed a Taser as the man approached.

Police said the mother offered her child to the man, placing the toddler in the Taser's path. The man, 22, faces two counts of resisting arrest.

Polk user

Or a child's love for it's mother:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05152009/news/regionalnews/bronx/puppy_protects_injured_mom_on_bronx_expr_169450.htm

shack

Polk user wrote:

Or a child's love for it's mother:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05152009/news/regionalnews/bronx/puppy_protects_injured_mom_on_bronx_expr_169450.htm

Those "dumb" animals (mother or puppy) would probably fight to the death to protect the other one...even against the father if necessary (especially the mother).

Sadly, many human mothers (or children) don't share that same sense of loyalty.

hearingimpared

What of piece of **** she is! What gene pool did this "mother" come from?

Hell when I discipline my son my wife almost always gives me some kind of dirty look even though she knows I'm right.

SKsolutions

Not all people should breed. Like the saying 'if you don't have anything good to say, keep it to yourself', so should it go for breeding too. If you don't possess anything good to pass on. . . keep it in your pants or plan accordingly.

Ron-P

Seriously, what comes from posting crap like this? Nothing but anger, hatred and violent posts. What's the point?

hearingimpared

Clubhouse conversation.

shack

Ron-P wrote:

Seriously, what comes from posting crap like this? Nothing but anger, hatred and violent posts. What's the point?

Stuff like this makes me angry. It's news and I think as many people as possible need to see that these things go on. There are some things that are just so bad that the person needs to be vilified as much as possible. THIS is one of those situations IMO.

That is the point.

mrbigbluelight

There's a lot of meth heads up there in Hannibal; that probably explains this situation.

Ron-P

shack wrote: »

Stuff like this makes me angry. It's news and I think as many people as possible need to see that these things go on. There are some things that are just so bad that the person needs to be vilified as much as possible. THIS is one of those situations IMO.

That is the point.

I disagree, we all know this stuff goes on, so does the rest of the world that reads the news, websites and this board. It's news, so what? This crap goes on daily, hourly most likely, no need to bring it here?

hearingimpared

It's the Clubhouse Ron. You can pretty much talk about anything you like except politics and religion so I don't see the harm or why you are so against it. I like to be kept informed of things outside of my local news stations.

I also agree with Shack. People like that "mother" need to be villified as much as possible.

If it wasn't for this Clubhouse I wouldn't have known that there is a pedophile living four houses away from me. A Club member posted a story about a pedophile some time back and posted a national pedophile locator link in his thread.

Ron-P

It's nothing against Shack, at all. I'm personally just tired of reading about stuff like this and it does no good posting here, no good at all. So it makes you angry, does posting it and reading about it here do anything to resolve the issue, no.

I realize it's the Clubhouse, so, why not post something positive? Or, at least label your thread title so it's not misleading? Like the title of this thread. At least that way those of us who don't care about stuff like this don't click on the link.

shack

Ron-P wrote:

Or, at least label your thread title so it's not misleading? Like the title of this thread. At least that way those of us who don't care about stuff like this don't click on the link.

I thought the fact that it was labeled NEWS with the :mad: next to it might be a clue as to the nature of the post.

We will just have to disagree Ron. The clubhouse is about every day life...good and bad. The sad state of the auto and audio companies, bad investments, good food, pictures of one's baby, one's dog, family and friend illness and death, John neighbors hating him and trying to rob him blind, graduations, gripes, trips, tribulations, etc, etc, etc...

As long as it is not politics, religion (or opposition to religion) or guns and destruction (all of which actually get their fair share of bandwith on this forum)...it is fair game to discuss in the clubhouse...good and bad...as I see it.

mrbigbluelight

Can't have the good without the bad; makes you appreciate the good all the more, IMO.

Ron-P

shack wrote: »

We will just have to disagree Ron.

Fair enough.

I'm one who does not watch the news, ever. Nor do I read the paper or visit internet news sites. Why, because it's nothing but bad news and life is just too damn short to give crap like that my attention.

hearingimpared

Ron-P wrote: »

Fair enough.

I'm one who does not watch the news, ever. Nor do I read the paper or visit internet news sites. Why, because it's nothing but bad news and life is just too damn short to give crap like that my attention.

I'm with you there. I only watch the local news for weather and traffic reports all the rest is usually negative sensationalism. Look what they've done with this swine flu panic.

That's another reason why I like when stuff like this is posted. I can get a glimpse of some of the rotten sh$T going on out there that makes me appreciate all the more how good I've got it.:)

Ron-P

For weather, I just use weather.com, it's free from all the BS that the news sites report on, and the good news is I don't have to use traffic sites as I'm 13 miles from work and it's all Pacific Coast Hwy, it's beach all the way. Oh, and it's almost summer time which means lots and lots of eye-candy on my commute.

carpenter

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_re_us/us_forced_chemo

By AMY FORLITI and PATRICK CONDON, Associated Press Writers Amy Forliti And Patrick Condon, Associated Press Writers – Wed May 20, 7:48 pm ET

SLEEPY EYE, Minn. – A courtroom clash between medicine and faith took a criminal turn, with police around the country on the lookout Wednesday for a Minnesota mother who fled with her cancer-stricken 13-year-old son rather than consent to chemotherapy.

A court-ordered X-ray on Monday showed a tumor growing in Daniel Hauser's chest, and doctors said it will probably kill him without conventional medical treatment.

Before she took off, Colleen Hauser told a judge that she wished to treat her son's cancer with natural healing methods advocated by an American Indian religious group known as the Nemenhah Band. But even that group's founder said Hauser made a mistake by running from the law.

Authorities in Minnesota said they were following a number of leads on the whereabouts of mother and son, but gave no details.

"I just wish we could get to Colleen and tell her to come in. This is not going to go away. It's a court order," Brown County Sheriff Rich Hoffmann said. He said Hauser's husband was cooperating with investigators.

Daniel has Hodgkins lymphoma, a highly curable form of cancer when treated with chemo and radiation. But the teen and his parents rejected chemo after a single treatment, with the boy's mother saying that putting toxic substances in the body violates the family's religious convictions.
......

nooshinjohn

With regards to the above post, it is sad to say but I actually agree with the boy and his mother on this. Ultimately it is his life on the line and if he chooses to not have treatment and trust in his God to heal him so be it. According to our Constitution his descision should be respected and the state has no right to interfere. Quite ironic to me that if the mother chose abortion there would be no discussion as to her rights to do so but now the state chooses to intervene. That said I think they are both idiots for not getting help, but thats just my opinion.

tonyb

nooshinjohn wrote: »

With regards to the above post, it is sad to say but I actually agree with the boy and his mother on this. Ultimately it is his life on the line and if he chooses to not have treatment and trust in his God to heal him so be it. According to our Constitution his descision should be respected and the state has no right to interfere. Quite ironic to me that if the mother chose abortion there would be no discussion as to her rights to do so but now the state chooses to intervene. That said I think they are both idiots for not getting help, but thats just my opinion.

Well said bro.

carpenter

nooshinjohn wrote: »

With regards to the above post, it is sad to say but I actually agree with the boy and his mother on this. Ultimately it is his life on the line and if he chooses to not have treatment and trust in his God to heal him so be it. According to our Constitution his descision should be respected and the state has no right to interfere. Quite ironic to me that if the mother chose abortion there would be no discussion as to her rights to do so but now the state chooses to intervene. That said I think they are both idiots for not getting help, but thats just my opinion.

I'm sorry John, I completely miss the linkage to abortions, but it doesn't really matter.
The boy has no say in this actually, his legal guardian gets to decide for him,
and that is the only legal argument I can see as relevant here.
The mom decides to reject a statistically proven treatment because of her religion convictions.
No disrespect to any native American spirit or what not. of course.
I'm not sure she explained to the boy: "Listen, the doctors say then can save you, and they did it before in similar cases, many times".
she probably went with: "The evil men in white, want to inject poison into you body, but I'm your mother and I say the Indian spirits can save you".
who's the boy going to listen to?

nooshinjohn

carpenter wrote: »

I'm sorry John, I completely miss the linkage to abortions, but it doesn't really matter.
The boy has no say in this actually, his legal guardian gets to decide for him,
and that is the only legal argument I can see as relevant here.
The mom decides to reject a statistically proven treatment because of her religion convictions.
No disrespect to any native American spirit or what not. of course.
I'm not sure she explained to the boy: "Listen, the doctors say then can save you, and they did it before in similar cases, many times".
she probably went with: "The evil men in white, want to inject poison into you body, but I'm your mother and I say the Indian spirits can save you".
who's the boy going to listen to?

I hear everything you say in this post and AGREE with it completely. That said, a parent's rights under the constitution are clear. They choose a religious/spiritual course for treatment for their child and the state should not in any way infringe on those beliefs. They should also NOT infringe upon the freedom of a child to pray over their lunch in a public school, but they do that now too. As I said in my original post, the parents of this poor boy are idiots, but the government is the real criminal here for violating the religious freedoms our constitution guarantees. It is a steep and slippery slope we are on when our elected officials start telling us the constitution is not important enough to follow any more and we surrender our rights and freedoms to the state. I have real empathy for this poor boy and pray for his parents to make the right choice here, and I pray for a Nation that will one day come back to our founding documents and once again find that the power to regain our greatness is still contained within them.

dudeinaroom

Gotta love todays generation. I hate to see what the generation of my kids will be like when they grow up. I know mine will be fine, but there is just so much in peoples life that they don't have time for their kids, and that's why we see stuff like this. Not to mention that you can't give your kid a swat on the butt with out having C.P.S. called on you. Most kids have no respect for any one, and a lot of them will tell you you have to earn respect, which should not be the case. It should be if you want respect, you give respect. I was always told to respect and obey my elders, todays kids would flip you the bird before they would hold a door for you. Man I am happy I don't live in a big city, at least here in a smaller community people will say hi to a total stranger in the store, and the kids for the most part are respectful. End rant, I could go on.....


Later,
dude

CaligulaPolk

hearingimpared wrote: »

It's the Clubhouse Ron. You can pretty much talk about anything you like except politics and religion so I don't see the harm or why you are so against it. I like to be kept informed of things outside of my local news stations.

I also agree with Shack. People like that "mother" need to be villified as much as possible.

If it wasn't for this Clubhouse I wouldn't have known that there is a pedophile living four houses away from me. A Club member posted a story about a pedophile some time back and posted a national pedophile locator link in his thread.

you cant talk about star trek?

its a religion topic

pmckeealaska

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I hear everything you say in this post and AGREE with it completely. That said, a parent's rights under the constitution are clear. They choose a religious/spiritual course for treatment for their child and the state should not in any way infringe on those beliefs. They should also NOT infringe upon the freedom of a child to pray over their lunch in a public school, but they do that now too. As I said in my original post, the parents of this poor boy are idiots, but the government is the real criminal here for violating the religious freedoms our constitution guarantees. It is a steep and slippery slope we are on when our elected officials start telling us the constitution is not important enough to follow any more and we surrender our rights and freedoms to the state. I have real empathy for this poor boy and pray for his parents to make the right choice here, and I pray for a Nation that will one day come back to our founding documents and once again find that the power to regain our greatness is still contained within them.

I see your point here and I can agree with it to a certain extent, but if we're talking about slippery slopes here, what about in the other direction. The Bible also says its perfectly acceptable to stone people to death for things like adultery or working on the sabbath. How far do we take freedom of religion and who gets to decide how far we take it. If its perfectly legal for these parents to kill their child based on some ridiculous religious notion, then why not everything else?

hearingimpared

pmckeealaska wrote: »

I see your point here and I can agree with it to a certain extent, but if we're talking about slippery slopes here, what about in the other direction. The Bible also says its perfectly acceptable to stone people to death for things like adultery or working on the sabbath. How far do we take freedom of religion and who gets to decide how far we take it. If its perfectly legal for these parents to kill their child based on some ridiculous religious notion, then why not everything else?

Just to set the record straight the New Testament repealed those laws.

carpenter

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I hear everything you say in this post and AGREE with it completely. That said, a parent's rights under the constitution are clear. They choose a religious/spiritual course for treatment for their child and the state should not in any way infringe on those beliefs. They should also NOT infringe upon the freedom of a child to pray over their lunch in a public school, but they do that now too. As I said in my original post, the parents of this poor boy are idiots, but the government is the real criminal here for violating the religious freedoms our constitution guarantees. It is a steep and slippery slope we are on when our elected officials start telling us the constitution is not important enough to follow any more and we surrender our rights and freedoms to the state. I have real empathy for this poor boy and pray for his parents to make the right choice here, and I pray for a Nation that will one day come back to our founding documents and once again find that the power to regain our greatness is still contained within them.

Hmmm Rights? let me tell you something about rights: for a cancer treatment to be FDA approved, millions has to be spent. millions. clinical research and experimentation on humans and what not.
It's your right as a tax paying consumer of medicine that the gov't make damn sure your not being fooled into, well, death. at some cases at least.
basically what goes on here is that some smart A$$ religious official tell the mom and boy: We have a cure for cancer, eat this organic whatever and bye bye tumor.
Do you know what the gov't would do to a non religious organization if it tries to push some completely non-FDA-approved treatment of cancer to children, promising them it'll cure them and it's more effective then the approved, main stream, available treatments? I'd suspect they'll go to prison for a long long time.
which brings up the question: is that all it takes? to push "alternative" treatments to patients? all you need to do is declare yourself as a priest of some BS religion (or a very respected one for all I know) and then you can basically treat cancer patients with no license, no regulation, no official education and most importantly no accountability ?
I sure hope not, and I hope neither does the authorities.

nooshinjohn

carpenter wrote: »

Hmmm Rights? let me tell you something about rights: for a cancer treatment to be FDA approved, millions has to be spent. millions. clinical research and experimentation on humans and what not.
It's your right as a tax paying consumer of medicine that the gov't make damn sure your not being fooled into, well, death. at some cases at least.
basically what goes on here is that some smart A$$ religious official tell the mom and boy: We have a cure for cancer, eat this organic whatever and bye bye tumor.
Do you know what the gov't would do to a non religious organization if it tries to push some completely non-FDA-approved treatment of cancer to children, promising them it'll cure them and it's more effective then the approved, main stream, available treatments? I'd suspect they'll go to prison for a long long time.
which brings up the question: is that all it takes? to push "alternative" treatments to patients? all you need to do is declare yourself as a priest of some BS religion (or a very respected one for all I know) and then you can basically treat cancer patients with no license, no regulation, no official education and most importantly no accountability ?
I sure hope not, and I hope neither does the authorities.

Soon the state will have that right to choose life or death for all of us. It's called universal heath care, and under it this poor boy might just die anyway. If a treatment is to expensve, considered experimental, or has a less than X% chance of success, a beaurocrat will say sorry go home and die. There is a BS religion involved here too, and it's called Secularism, and their god is POWER. Power over your right to live the best life you can by deciding everything for you, where you live, what you drive, how many children you can have, and how much money you can make. The Government has become the many supporter of this new religion, in violation of the SEPARATION of chuch and state. The U.S. Supreme Court has supported this view in a few cases already. It was founded by far left leaning nitwits that feel those that believe in something greater than themselves are somehow back-woods redneck hicks that do not know any better.

I practice no religious faith of any kind and am far from a religious zealot. I am hovever a conservative and a strong believer in the founding principles of this great nation. I respect the rights of all people to live their lives to the fullest possibilities of their potential, and to live by the morals and ethics they believe in. That said, I would hope that others would allow me to do the same.