[JerryLove]

what would you have had her parents do with her? in the Old Testament, such behavior might warrant stoning. nowadays, such behavior at least warranted that the parents give their rebellious daughter up to the state because she would no longer heed their advice and they didn't want her to act as a corrupting influence on their younger children.

They failed as parents so they just passed their burden onto others.

the family then kept the girl's social security checks (which, as she was a ward of the state, she didn't need anyways) to help pay the lawyer fees *she* had caused.

They decided that it was OK to steal from her and defraus the US government because they felt she owed them.

and then the younger stepdaughter, who is not talked about much in the article, presumably followed in her sister's steps and so needed to be dealt with.

They failed as parents again.

as for the Peroutkas donating campaign funds through their kids, so what? it's not unbiblical, the laws governing campaign finance are unconstitutional, and it's apparently a legal loophole, anyways.

They again bypassed the law, but it's OK because it was a loophole.

on the DUI charge, my mom says, in reply to another person who bought into this article: "He got a ticket, never convicted. This doesn't mean that he is a lush who flauts the law and drives drunk, it means he got stopped once and a breathalyzer said his blood alcohol was over the limit (which is not hard to do). What does this have to do with anything, especially considering that Barlow is supporting Bush who has admitted do being an alcoholic?"

It means he was driving under the influnece. I personally consider such an act attempted manslaughter.

They can't run their household, so they must be qualified to run a country? What will they do if Georga acts up? Give it to the UN?

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Jas de F

nowadays, such behavior at least warranted that the parents give their rebellious daughter up to the state because she would no longer heed their advice and they didn't want her to act as a corrupting influence on their younger children.

Which is precisely the the type of governmental responsibility Peroutka's party and platform opposes.

the family then kept the girl's social security checks (which, as she was a ward of the state, she didn't need anyways) to help pay the lawyer fees *she* had caused.

Not quite. Usually the checks are used to support the child in foster care or their group home placement. Being a ward of the state doesn't mean she's locked in an asylum. It is also rather illegal for Person A to deposit Person B's checks into Person A's account. That's called fraud.

as for the Peroutkas donating campaign funds through their kids, so what? it's not unbiblical, the laws governing campaign finance are unconstitutional, and it's apparently a legal loophole, anyways.

Even if it is unconstitutional, the laws haven't been overturned to allow for it. A law's existing unconstitutionality doesn't mean we have liberty to violate it at every turn (provided the law isn't immoral; campaign finance reform is a-moral). Moreover, and this applies to all presidential candidates, I want my president-to-be to be completely above board on campaign financing, not relying on "legal loopholes" to fund themselves.

What does this have to do with anything, especially considering that Barlow is supporting Bush who has admitted do being an alcoholic?"

I don't know who Barlow is. But it does have a lot to do with it, because A). Bush admitted to being a heavy drinker (but not an alcoholic; he shows all the symptoms of being a dry drunk) and B). Didn't rest his campaign's position on a supposed Christian foundation.

I'm not sure why you're all so anxious to accept the story put forth in this article, especially considering the purpose of the article is obviously to smear Peroutka.

Well, again, what is the purpose of smearing a candidate that has no chance of winning? Why should an alternative Baltimore newspaper that has almost zero national coverage attempt to ruin the political machinations of an almost completely unknown candidate? It simply fails the common sense test.

And the style in which the paper operates doesn't influence the correctness of the content of this particular article (the information provided has not, to my knowledge, been challenged by anyone). Playboy does some excellant investigative reporting and publishes some very, very good interviews. Its porn content doesn't change that.

[+Donny]

Playboy does some excellant investigative reporting and publishes some very, very good interviews. Its porn content doesn't change that.

This doesn't really seem to be the best way to build up your credibility.



Keep up the discussion; I have been wondering how Peroutka supporters would respond to this issue.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Jas de F

the daughter was a mental case who made up allegations of sexual abuse (which she later recanted), suffered from an eating disorder, and was apparently in complete and utter rebellion against her parents. what would you have had her parents do with her? in the Old Testament, such behavior might warrant stoning. nowadays, such behavior at least warranted that the parents give their rebellious daughter up to the state because she would no longer heed their advice and they didn't want her to act as a corrupting influence on their younger children.

While I disagree with your mom's rebuttle complaining about a big liberal conspiracy to deprive god-fearing Christians of their children (there is no conspiracy) ... it's statements like this that make me wish there were.

If this kind of attitude is exemplary of "Christian parenting" then Christians should be sterilized.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by +Donny

This doesn't really seem to be the best way to build up your credibility.

Let me point out that I do not read Playboy. But they do have a reputation in the journalistic field for publishing good journalism. Hell, even Jimmy Carter was interviewed by them.

Point being, a newspapers style doesn't necessarily reflect on a single article's reliability. I was trying to think of the most egregious offender on style points that still manages to do good journalism.

[eric25]

I would love to see a so called "man" try to take care of a whole country when he can obviously not manage two adolecent girls. I can imagine how them skipping class and disobeying being a wonderful reason to abuse them and ship them away. This man has no mourals and no family ethics. He physically abused and mentally abused his whole family. Nothing but rubbish leaks from this man's mouth!! Is his next step sending his other three teenage children away? (military school?) Michael has proven on many occasions that he is controlling and a dictator among his own family. A good question to ask him is why is his wife is not allowed any contact what so ever from any of her family or friends from her past?

[Mr.Zachcore]

OLD NEWS!

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by Mr.Zachcore

OLD NEWS!

Yeah... wow... I didn't even know this thread existed. It was probably back before I started being active on CGR again. I'm closing the thread...

It looks like you're a new user, eric25. Thanks for posting but please read the thread dates next time. No one really wants to reincarnate 2 year old posts.