As it is still a somewhat free country, freer than most, tate, you are entitled to state your opinions as I am mine. Do a bit of research. Spanking and other forms of corporal punishment were done away with by the PC movement without one hard scientific study proving that they were harmful, and most bought into the theory that self-esteem was more important. If you thought yourself a conservative, perhaps there is hope for you. If you trust your government, that is fine, so long as the trust is not blind.
As to the Clintons, I can let it go if they will go away. Hillary wants to be president so badly that she can taste it, and that scares me. She is one of those who knows what is best for me and will impose it on me for my own good. As to Chelsea, I objected to those comments directed toward her by those that hated her parents. She was struggling to deal with problems of growing up and didn't need the small minded and their comments. I don't make war on children, lovely or not, just because I don't happen to like or respect their parents.
Congratulations on your five nice children. You love them, as I love my children and grandkids. If you raised them without touching them and they turned out fine, that is good and you are to be commended. Children learn more by the examples set by their parents than by what they are forced to do. Some children, not by any means all children need a firm hand, and a swat on the butt is not cruelty by any definition. Actions must have consequences, and the consequences must fit the actions. Basic psychology. Of course, one does not respond to a small transgression with a nuclear bomb. The swat on the fanny must be reserved for much more serious transgressions if it is to be effective, and there is never an excuse for cruelty in any circumstance. The problem I have with the banning of all forms of corporal punishment is that because a few people abused it, all must not use it. This is a similar approach to the move to ban handguns, in my opinion. Over 100 million of us use and posess guns safely and lawfully. Should we give up our guns because a few do not obey the law, any law? Would this make anyone safer? Is the loss of rights worth the cost? These are decisions we must all make, but if a safer society is what we are after, then the elimination of personal transportation would be much more effective, and just as unnecessary or worthwhile.
Those who do bad things, whether it is in the area of cruelty in punishment of their children, cruelty to animals, or armed robbery are in a different class of animal than are most of us. Most of us go through our lives without doing anything horribly wrong. Do we make mistakes? Sure we do. Did we intend to do wrong becomes a more important question, IMHO.
In a free society, we have to put up with the consequences of that freedom. The more laws we pass the less freedom we have. Eventually, we wonder what happened to it. That is why, tate, I defend K2's right to state her opinion, even though you find it distasteful and would take away that right. I even defend the KKK's right to rally and say hateful things. You see, most of us conservatives don't think what the KKK and the American Nazi Party skinheads say makes any sense at all. We simply don't pay much attention to them until the PC crowd makes a big issue out of it. We oppose racism no matter who spouts it, but we defend their right to free speech. Freedom has a price, and I am willing to pay that price. Sorry you seem unwilling to do so, but I will also defend your right to express your opinions.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
