I don't know about anyone else. But I can hear the dog whistle you just blew.

We don't have enough children in our jails? Control you own damn kids. Why do I have to pay to adjudicate your bad parenting?

Why should we have a law against murder when the bible already tells us its evil! Why should we create laws that judges can use as guidelines, and police can use to arrest those who kill ... what a waste of government spending!

I say just let the murderers do what they do, and let god sort it out.

Right Stamp? Who needs laws!!

Totally agree, Guy. By the way, what is your real name? I'm getting sick of talking to an ancient Spaniard. If everyone was raised properly, then we would know right from wrong and nobody would have to worry about silly nonsense like laws. But we're not in a perfect world, and we need them to guide those who have no morals or beliefs. However, you trying to put murder on the same level as bullying by kids in school is silly as well. Are you going to push to arrest bullies now? What do you think would be a better solution; arresting bullies, or having parents who actually care how their kids turn out and who raise them instilling morals and standards? True, most parents don't teach their kids to bully, but bullies usually have more problems going on at home, so they take it out on the other kids at school. Shouldn't we start at the root of the problem, Guy?

I can assure you that with this bill passed, I will fight to make sure that it is enforced in the schools, especially the high school. Let's see how they skirt themselves around the next bully issue. I just hope that all parents will stand up & fight for the safety of their children. One more thing, WOOHOO!!!!

Couldn't have said it better myself Tim.

A load of impractical, AM talk show garbage if you ask me. And since you didn't I'll tell you anyway.

Yeah, real bright, Stamp. Lets get government out of the business of protecting citiz ... er ... wait a minute ... that's the PRIMARY BUSINESS of government.

(rolls eyes at the non-complexity)

@Tim, obviously you have no children in school. Parents do NOT teach their children not to bully, and if anyone tries to discipline them, they will threaten with lawyers. You do NOT know what you are talking about. Leave the charter and virtual school debate out of this, it has nothing to do with it.

You're wrong Denise. Nice try at assuming, though. I have 3 kids, 2 are school age, and the youngest has a facial deformity from birth, so I have more of an interest in this anti-bullying thing than you think.

You're exactly right, parents don't teach their kids to bully, however, many parents don't teach their kids anything. Mom and Dad (if they're still married) work all day while kids spend 8-9 hours being raised by the daycare, and the day care is only concerned with a check. Mom/dad picks them up, drives home, picks up some food on the way, eat dinner in front of a reality show on tv, and kids go to bed. Next day, wake up and do it all over again. Am I missing something here? Don't tell me this doesn't happen. Also, many parents have no idea how to discipline, so they expect the school systems to do it for them. This is another reason why Michigan needs a law saying bullying is bad, when we all know that already, and some are pushing for longer days at school.

@Tim - glad to see we agree, and we agree on the current state of parenting in the USA. Don't forget the "Let's get the kids involved in activities 24x7 so we NEVER have to deal with them" brand of parenting also. However, we do need anti-bully laws so that teachers don't face civil litigation when they try to stifle the bullies while in their classrooms.

Denise, that is the first bit of sense I've read regarding passing this law and why it's needed. I suppose you're right, the teachers will have something to fall back on IF they do something. I can accept that, however, it's a shame we've gotten this far to have to do things like this. Whatever is needed to bring the pendulum closer to the center.

Tim, you lose all credibility when you completely misrepresent the other side's opinion.

Where in Guy's post did he indicate that he needed government to tell him what's right and wrong? Did you pull that out of thin air, or is that really how you interpret his position? If the latter, how in the world did you get to that conclusion?

Back up your claims with some reasoning. Rather than creating straw men that are so easy to burn, address the actual points that are being directed towards you. Guy said that the government's role is to protect the citizens of this country. Do you disagree? Do you agree but feel that has no relevance to the bullying issue? Or do you just want to ignore his actual position because you can create one for him that is much easier to dispute?

I've yet to meet one of these "do nothing, expect government to take care of everything" types that you are so desperately trying to fight against. I've come across situations like this in the past where individuals are incorrectly labeled as such, since their actual arguments are too difficult for conservatives to address, but for all I can tell they are no more real than Sasquatch (sorry, I should've preceded that with "spoiler alert").

I eagerly await your misrepresentation of everything that I've just written.

Jordan, where do I begin? Did you even read all of the posts? Are you unable to comprehend that we are talking about government having to get involved to tell us (well, guys like Guy Fawke) that bullying is bad? Do I really need to break it down barney style for you so you can connect the dots? Ok, then. Sharpen your pencil.

1. We are talking about a law passed by government enacting a zero tolerance rule in our public schools because bullying is bad.... mmmmk?

2. I insist this is common sense, and schools should have enacted this on their own, because we all know, as human beings, being mean to another person is bad. mmmmk?

3. Since this is such an every day common sense thing, we as parents, school officials, teachers, and citizens should be taking care of the problem ourselves, not expecting government to get involved, because lets face it, they have more important things to do, like figure out why all the left wing regulations, taxes, and policies have turned Michigan into a sinking cesspool where everyone is trying to bail.

4. Guy speaks up that it's his governments job to protect us helpless citizens from bullies, because that's what we're talking about here Jordan, bullies.

5. Since Guy feels it is his government's job to go out and do the teachers'/principals'/school boards' job, he obviously thinks it's up to his government to decide right from wrong.

You follow me now Jordan?

You've boxed yourself in, Stamp. By minimizing the magnitude of the child terrorists that bully a kid whether its because he's gay or because he has some sort of deformity ... to "simply that and nothing more" .. you've lost the argument.

You're alone on that branch. Everyone is glad bullies, the torturers of our youth ... the offspring of misguided and under educated religious nuts ... are finally getting pushed back. And by coming out in their defense and making the case that kids who get bullied don't deserve our (see "representative government") protection ... you've branded yourself something I wouldn't want to be any where near when it imploded in upon itself.

What are you babbling about? It seems your not in favor of what Jordan was talking about, enumeration, that is pointing out what specifically can't be bullied or discriminating against, when in fact I'm for not bullying or discriminating on ANYTHING. That means no need to point each bulleted item out, if it's bullying, it's bullying and not acceptable. You mean you're not in favor of that? You want them to say "no bullying against:
gays
Christians
disabled people

But what if they leave something out? What if someone who isn't included on the list feels left out and now you've singled a group out?

Tim, please tell me you recognize how your position is inherently contradictory. You don't want the government to get involved in the bullying issue, but you want the principals, teachers, and school boards to address it. Now my understanding is that the schools are part of the government, am I missing something?

Since you want the school boards to handle the bullying problem, would it be reasonable for me to state that you need the school board to tell you right from wrong? That if the school boards don't stop bullying, it means that bullying is acceptable? Is that your position? I think that is an absurd leap, but it's exactly the leap you make in regards to Guy.

You "insist this is common sense, and schools should have enacted this on their own..."
But if one level of government is failing to fulfill its role, as the schools have done in regards to preventing bullying, why is it all of a sudden egregious for a different level of government to take on the responsibility? And how does that change it from government enacting common sense (good), to government telling us what's right or wrong (bad)?

You can't play both sides the way you are. Well, you can, but as I said, you lose all credibility on the subject. I almost suspect you are a poe, but that would be giving you too much credit.

Jordan, you're right, it is contradictory from one convoluted point of view, but let's entertain your view you're using right now. If the janitor who works for the school (which is part of the government like you say) refuses to take the garbage out, should we expect the state government to enact a new law requiring that the garbage be taken out at certain intervals? Of course not, Jordan. The janitor's supervisor or the school pricipal would discipline the defiant janitor. Why would we expect this to be different? They're both common sense issues that can, or should've been handled at a lesser level than the state government. Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from on this.

So do you at least concede you were wrong to claim that others need the government to tell them what's right and wrong?

We can discuss at what level of government it would be appropriate to handle bullying, and reasonably disagree. But to say that proponents of one level need the government to decide their morality for them, while proponents of a different level do not, is irrational.

How long has bullying been going on? Probably as long as society itself, and it has been wrong that entire time. Yet, many school districts have not enacted anti-bullying policies, even though they've had more than sufficient time to do so. How much longer would you want to wait on the local governments to do it, before agreeing that it is ok for the state to take it on?

In regards to your janitorial example. If there was an epidemic of uncollected trash, and the schools were not resolving the problem after having countless years to do so, I would have no problem with the state taking up the issue as a sanitary concern for the health of our students.

We can agree that the bullying issue should've been handled at the local level. I can see where you are coming from there. But it hasn't been handled at the local level in many communities, so the question is: how long should the state wait for the local school boards to do the right thing? I think they've waited long enough.

No I don't concede that I was wrong when I say some people need the government to tell them right from wrong, or what they should and shouldn't do, as we have this new law. However, if the state must get involved in matters such as this, it speaks volumes of what the current condition our education system is in, that's all.

Should the state get involved now? Possibly yes, but should they have ever really had to? No, the schools should've been responsible. It's a shame that it needs to come to this, really.

Wow. Talk about morally unmoored. Take a position and stick to it, will ya Drifty?

Morally unmoored? Good one, Guy. By the way, I thought you were done? Maybe you can point me to any of my posts where my morals switched from one side to the other? Was it the post where Denise made a lick of sense out of why this law could be beneficial in our day and age of this NEA run garbage we call our education system, and I agreed with it? Because if that's the case, it's called conversation. People share their views, others are supposed to think about them, digest the views, and decide whether they agree or disagree. That's how we work in the country Guy. And please, if you're going to keep chiming in with the hogwash, please provide your real name. I'd hate to think I'm having a conversation with a no backbone lefty who hides behind the internet, masked under an ancient Spaniard's name.

Please go put your mask on and sit in the corner. You should be in time out.

ha. It doesn't look like you're capable of S'ingTFU either, last wordnick.

Oh no, meticulously presented logic and reason! RUN! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

(or just make stuff up)

Nicely done, Jordan.

But I will say that although the republics have managed to not only dilute the potency of the law, but raise a middle finger to the nation's gay youth because we don't have ways to jail and kill them like the christians have managed to achieve in Ruanda ...

at least a discussion was begun. At least you would know, that there have been myriad documents that started off as a little wobbly but became better with time as the good people out numbered the bad.

One that comes to mind is the US Constitution.

But I'll leave it at that instead of turning my reference to the Constitution into a self infatuated flag wrapping. I'd rather leave that for bumper sticker burpers like Tim Stamp. It's all they've got.

Actually, I meant Uganda:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill

Interesting that you would appear to be starting to make the case that religion isn't one of if not the single biggest sources of discrimination against gay kids and the country's gay culture ... and then give a perfect example of it. Incase you hadn't noticed, when it comes to the ignorance, bigotry, and self aggrandizing that religion seems to have cursed our species with, I put fundamentalcase islamists in the same stinking heap as I do fundamentalcase christians. They've both been made insane by their sick beliefs.

BTW: Thank you for your service. But did you just sanctimoniously wrap yourself in the flag precisely as I predicted you might? Ugh. What a shame.

If you call being proud of something, and believing in what I've done "sanctimoniously wrapping myself in the flag", then you're right. More people should. As a matter of fact, I strongly believe any able bodied male who refuses to volunteer to serve his country shouldn't have a say in anything that pertains to it. Many countries require service, which I think is a great idea, and would bring back the patriotism and sense of duty we lost after WWII. That's one of the reasons why Israel is one of the only countries with a pair, and is willing to stand up to politically correct nonsense.

Interesting article. However, the genocide in Rwanda was not caused by religion, it was caused by the government that was in charge, using religion as a reason. That's like saying guns kill people, when in fact its the person behind the gun.

You obviously don't believe in anything, and think down on others who do believe in something, however, you hypocrite, US citizens are allowed to believe in whatever we like without discrimination from guys like you. I saw your other naive discriminating post in the Catholic article about the change in Mass language, and your open down talk about religion above. And you're worried about religion discriminating against others? You'd better look in the mirror.

Anyone who reads the Wiki entry ... any article by googling Ugand Gay Hate Christians will see ... that it was the American evangelistic christians that pushed, aided and abetted the government into creating the little anti Gay panacea they can't seem to get traction on in this country.

You seem to believe that people who call out religious groups that espouse gay hate and bigotry can't possibly have some sort of spirituality in their life. Has it occurred to you for one moment that might be one of the key reasons fundie christians can get anyone to take them seriously?

They got Uganda to take them seriously, didn't they. ;) Anyhow, not knowing much on the subject, I'm not going to defend or persecute it. However, I believe that homosexuality is wrong, and there should be no place for it in our country. But hey, that's the beauty about America. We can, or are supposed to be able to believe in whatever we want without having to put up with nonsense from others who don't believe in what we do. We're getting off topic here.

Bullying is not murder, it's not punishable by jail, but it is wrong, and it should be taught that it isn't acceptable regardless of whether there is a law or not.

(disengage: time waste reduced)

Is Guy Fawkes Mr Balckwell's latest identity? Ironic that someone so obviously anti-religion should use the name of a Catholic activist as his nom de plume. Like Blackwell Guy accuses everyone who disagrees with him of being a bigot but his own prejudice and bigotry shine through his comments. Being a liberal bigot makes one no less a bigot. Gay kids are bullied and it is wrong but they are not the only school kids getting psychically and verbally abused. Kids are bullied over such minor things as acne, speech impediments and parent's employment status.
And make no mistake. This bill will stop about 1% of bullying. One more attempt at making school teachers become parents so everyone can feel good about doing something good about bullying.

I'm not anti religion. I'm anti anyone who uses their religion to harm people, or their religion causes them to harm people.

Sounds like me and this Balckwell kid would have gotten along great.

Guy,

Your gig is up, you keep going away with one name, then show up with the same cheap shots at people with another name. I have seen you and your comments under at least 3 different names in the short time I have been active on the Patch. Do you think we are stupid?

Sounds like we should have had Gov Snyder sign the bully bill with an amendment to cover you and your bullying actions on this site!

The way you approach things gets you completely ignored, how about a positive approach with your real name and join in on a civil conversation? I am sure you have some intelligent comments to throw into the mix, but your approach is just noise, seems very foolish and gets discounted quickly.

Oh, you're not anti-religion? Allow me to refresh your memory from your post yesterday.

"Interesting that you would appear to be starting to make the case that religion isn't one of if not the single biggest sources of discrimination against gay kids and the country's gay culture ... and then give a perfect example of it. Incase you hadn't noticed, when it comes to the ignorance, bigotry, and self aggrandizing that religion seems to have cursed our species with, I put fundamentalcase islamists in the same stinking heap as I do fundamentalcase christians. They've both been made insane by their sick beliefs."

Sounds pretty anti-religion to me, especially that last sentence. Who's morally unmoored, Mr. (insert your name here since you're to spineless to give an identity).

By the way, it looked to me like you had to have the last word of our previous discussion. What was it you called me? Oh yeah, "last wordnick". Go ahead, I'll let you have the last word here as well.

Daryl: Yes.