Last week, the Emporia Area Chamber of Commerce sent out parade entry forms for the 32nd Annual Christmas Parade. The deadline to get an entry into the parade is Nov. 6, and the parade will take place Dec, 1. The event typically attracts more than 100 entries and more 2,000 people attend making it one of Emporia’s most popular events.
Although this is a fun event, there has been something missing. Do you know what it is? It’s the ability for people on floats to throw candy to people in the crowd.
Over the years the community has not questioned the policy, but we wonder whether it’s time to bring candy-throwing back to Emporia parades?
The activity has been outlawed for more than 25 years. Former city commissioner Ray Toso said the law was in effect before he went on the commission 22 years ago but he thought it was based on the premise that someone might get hurt someday.
Safety is important, and we would not want an accident to happen over candy at the parade. But is fearing something might happen a good enough reason not to allow it?
Olpe, Americus and Allen have allowed candy throwing at parades in those towns and have not had any issues. Most cities across the country allow it.
Safety is important, and we hope that if city leaders allow candy to be thrown that people would stay safe by staying on the sidewalks and use good judgment when retrieving candy.
A generation has passed since candy throwing was outlawed in Emporia. We encourage city leaders to let the kids have some fun and let candy throwing from floats begin again.
Chris Walker
Editor and Publisher
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree, Chris. With SHS, there is no doubt that someone will be harmed, so the ban on smoking in public is justified. The ban on throwing candy during parades is silly because it is based on uncertainty. C’mon, commissioners! Let the kids throw their candy and eat it too!
While we are at it...could we address the senseless ban on Sunday liquor sales?
'enry
Posted by giggles (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What does this have to do with SHS? Answer: Nothing.
Aside from that, no candy at parades is silly. We should have a little more faith in the people of Emporia to use good sense and allow the children that joy.
Posted by emporian (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are alot of communities nation wide that dont allow it. Do a quick yahoo search. They haven't allowed it at Hartford for a few years.
In a sue happy society why open yourself up to litigation because we all know if anybody gets injured, whoever was involved in the float is gonna get a lawsuit. Its the way the US operates these days even if it was just an accident.
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
giggles
You know crack always has to bring up shs and the Sunday liquor sales thing.
R.
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You know what really hides my chaps? They don't even really float. They call them floats but they don't really float. I remember as a young child realizing this for the first time. I was crushed. It shook me to my very core. My whole belief system was shattered. A child of that age shouldn't have to deal with things like that. I was 15.
R.
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
giggles,
I just wanted to differentiate between the two bans before some crazed yokel posted about how Emporia is "ban-happy". I was only pointing out that there is good reason for some bans, but not so much for others.
I remember when I used to ride floats in parades back in the day...I'd always try to bean small children who go to close to the float... "Catch, kid!" SMACK! Jaw breaker right upside the skull! I'd also try to get the candy stuck in the hair of those with perms (and afros). "10 points if you get it down the shirt!" My favorite was when our float was in front of the shriners. We’d throw the candy in the street and the kids would run out and almost get ran over by some old dude in a funny hat poppin’ a wheeling on a tiny 3 wheeler. Ah... good times... I just hope nobody puts anything dangerous inside the candy that might hurt the kids when they eat it...
I never actually threw candy from a float, but those might be some of the concerns.
seriouslyfolks,
I know what you mean! Who would have thought there were wheels under that decorative skirt! They should call ‘em “rolls” not "floats".
'enry
Posted by Observer (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let the kids run into the parade route to fetch that wayward flung piece of candy. Often common sense is discarded as folks get caught-up in the moment.
Posted by kansasdman (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would suggest putting it to the people and letting them be heard. One vote that includes lifting the ban on throwing candy at parades and allowing fireworks to be done in city limits. It would be win –win for all. Children would be happy and the smokes would be happy too as it will allow them one day of the year to blow something up while they are outside smoking it up in the heat of the 4th. I seriously think some of the ordinances that have been adopted in the past should be reviewed….some seem a bit too conservative.
Posted by barefootin (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What about letting the candy be thrown by the walkers in the parade instead of being thrown from the floats?
Posted by ksfan (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Correct me if I am wrong, but I have been to several parades in Emporia w/ my kids... in recent years... where candy has been thrown. Was I just imagining this?
Posted by giggles (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Seriously, I do realize crack in hiding, always brings it up, she should just really stay on topic though. This is not a SHS thread, but if crack er I mean HenryVIII has their way it is always about SHS. Geesh, talk about a one track mind!
I can see why she has such a beef with it though (SHS I mean) it seems that SHS has killed all of her brain cells!
Posted by Absolute (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am glad they don't allow it. I have been to parades where they allow it and I see the kids darting towards the floats and it makes me very nervous. It is not necessary and safer for our community's kids.
If people really feel the need to pass out candy, they can walk along the side and hand it out.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe all candy should be banned period. All that sugar is bad for kid's teeth. Not to mention obesity.
And all people should be kept behind barriers at least 100 feet from any float or parade. What if the accelerator suddenly sticks on a vehicle and it runs into the crowd? Or a horse suddenly gets skittish?
Plus no shiny things worn or on any parades. Parades are usually on sunny days, and people who forgot to wear sunglasses could be temporarily blinded by a bright reflection from a shiny object in the parade. And then they might accidentally feed their children candy or something.
And no horns and music in parades. People a block away might have to work nights and be sleeping. They could be harmed by SHS (Second-Hand-Sounds).
Oh, and no articles or blogging about parades or complaining about throwing candy at parades. This should be banned as well because it could cause or aggravate carpal tunnel syndrome.
Did I miss anything?
Posted by ank (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Growing up my folks entered their classic car in parades in other towns and we got to throw candy. Throwing candy was always so much fun and it was a tradition we looked forward to every year. I think throwing candy is a way to get kids more involved in the parade than just watching. I understand the concern for safety, but that is why parents should be with their kids at parades to make sure they do not run in the street. I know putting responsibility on parents does not always work, but I do not know if safety should be enough of a reason to take away fun family traditions.
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
giggles and seriouslyfolks,
Please see my comment posted on September 14 at 7:59 p.m. on another thread:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2009/...
Talk about staying on topic!
'enry
Posted by madpoet (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kids do miss the candy at parades. Our youngster has gone to parades in Lebo and Cottonwood Falls and always asks where the candy is when he goes to one in Emporia. I've never seen anyone get run down. Parents should be keeping an eye on the little kids anyway. And we don't give him all the candy he collects so he's not fat with a head full of rotten teeth. :)
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ksfan, no you're not the only one that remembers candy being thrown during Emporia parades. The ordinance is just another rediculous example of a unenforceable controlling ordinances brought to you by the ancestors of the jerks the settlers left Europe to get away from.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Anyone have statistics on how many children have been injured each year by parades from picking up candy? Links, anyone?
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They don't only prohibit throwing candy. You can't throw anything at the Emporia Parades. You are not even allowed to pass anything out. The last time I participated in the Veteran Day Parade, I asked if I could have Soldiers pass out American Flags to the children along the parade route and was told by the event coordinator, NO. I didn't ask if we could toss beads to the pretty girls :-)
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I've actually seen children (the same age as those who get candy at parades) injured playing soccer, t-ball, any sport.
Ban them all.
Ban Christmas, too. Kids might get scared by Santa, or get a toy that might be defective, or even fight with a sibling over a toy. And they could get hurt by lights, ornaments. Not to mention exposed to that horrible Christianity thingy.
Oh, and I saw some kids get chigger bites once hunting for Easter Eggs. That should be banned as well. It could have been alot worse. They could have gotten sunburned, or even poison ivy. All easter egg hunts from now on should be on a clean open surface indoors, like on a basketball court. And only 1 kid allowed on at a time, so they don't bump into each other or fight. Wearing full protective gear like helmets, knee pads, etc, because they might fall down running towards some candy.
Oh, the inhumanity of it all...........(sigh)....
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Blame it on Insurance Companies!
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
open_eyes,
Playing the devil's advocate... I don't think a kid could be squished flat while playing t-ball or soccer. Chigger bites (and bumping into each other) aren't as harmful as being ran-over by a 2-ton truck either. Maybe you're right though... Maybe we should do away with all bans! Yeah! Let’s allow kids to drive cars before they have licenses! Let’s allow kids to drink alcohol! Let’s allow kids to play with loaded firearms! Who needs to ban anything? The kids will be fine, right?
My point is that you can't dismiss it so flippantly. Whether something is "ban worthy" depends and the odds of someone getting hurt AND to what degree they could be harmed. You examples are high in the odds column, but lacking in the degree of harm column. You are attempting to dismiss this by comparing apples to oranges.
I think it should be allowed, but not because kids are also allowed to get chiggers. People need to move away from the "all or nothing" attitude when it comes to bans and look at each topic separately. It won’t be my kids getting their heads squashed on the pavement like ripe watermelons, so I don’t see the issue. Should, heaven forbid, anything tragic happen, it’d only mean one less kid to worry about. Too many of ‘em buggars running around any way if you ask me…
'enry
Posted by okjayhawk (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
where i live we don't have a smoking ban. but maybe those in emporia parades could throw out cigarettes instead and then there would be no worries about candy. smoke 'em if ya got 'em! outside only, please.
Posted by giggles (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's get serious Henry, floats aren't supposed to be flying down the street, as long as parents are being sufficiently cautious, and the floats are moving at the proper speeds the possibility of harm is very minimal at best, truly, a child could be potentially in more serious danger from playing sports.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Henry - I'm awaiting the statistics on how many kids have been injured and/or killed while grabbing candy from parades. Do you happen to have them off-hand? I patiently await the results of your research...
On the othe hand, children HAVE been killed (same result as being "squished flat") from sports. There have been 35 deaths reported from soccer goals toppling over on kids, and at least 1 of a child getting tangled in the net and strangling. Last year a 2 1/2 year old was killed on a t-ball field after being struck by a bat. Not to mention we read and hear of children dying during games and practices from heat/exhaustion, unknown health conditions, etc.
So, yes, children are harmed just as much in sports, some lethally. And I found instances of people and children killed at parades by vehicles lurching out of control, or falling off a float. But none that I could find as a result of candy being thrown.
Awaiting your research and data of numbers squished running after thrown candy to compare it to sports and other things.
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 4:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
open_eyes,
I with you on this one! I have no such statistics, so don't wait on me. The only difference I can see between the deaths you describe is that, by throwing candy, we are encouraging dangerous scenarios. Most children's sporting events we have already taken precautions to keep the kids as safe as possible. Like making them wear helmets, for example.
I say let's throw candy; it adds to the excitement and it's a good way for your float to be noticed. (Especially if you are tossing the good stuff...Snickers and Twix please!)
'enry
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Henry - as we agree, sure, my earlier scenarios were rather far-fetched, you are correct, but I was just trying to make the point at what point do we use a little common sense. We should ALWAYS take precautions to make events as safe as possible, especially for children. But at some point you've got to realize your chances of stepping outside and being struck by lightning are probably higher than your chances of being ran over by a float chasing candy - and I don't see anyone banning children from being outside till the age of 18 (but I'm sure it's coming soon). Besides, we're still "encouraging dangerous scenarios" in sports. We encourage kid A to tackle kid B. We encourage them to kick the ball as hard as they can into the goal, to run after the ball, to swing the bat hard, etc. Those are all dangerous scenarios, with the end results being possibly much more dangerous than if we encourage our kids to just stand on the field and not move, or to never swing at the ball and just either walk or strike out looking every time. And we take some precautions to lessen the chances of injury, just like at parades. The vehicles travel slowly, drivers are alert, and parents should watch their children closely.
I mean good grief we can't just stop living.
Besides, I'm faster than alot of younger children, so I get to alot of the candy first ;-)
Actually, now that I think about it, if all the kids just stand on the soccer field and don't move, there would be less injuries, but they might get hit by lightning. Because all the parents would fall asleep and not notice the storm clouds gathering. Well, scratch that idea.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I remember in high school I was encouraged to jump over the hurdle while running at high speed (dangerous scenario) - instead of just carefully walking around it at a leisurely pace.
I never realized my coach had it in for me until just now. Intentionally trying to get me hurt. He should have been fired - LOL
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't know if a ban on candy throwing is necesarry or not but some regulation regarding the quality of the illusion of the floats floatyness is very much needed. Younger kids, say 14 and under, are there for the candy and that's pretty much it. At their age they are too distracted by the treats to notice that the "floats" aren't actually floating but you get to be about 15 and you care about half as much about the candy maybe as much as 50% less in some cases. This is when the young children are in danger of noticing that the floats are LIES. Many a young life has been ruined by this sudden push into the seedy underworld we call adultness. Something needs to be done about this as soon as asap.
R.
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is an idea for a Serious float for the parade. It really floats!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQmHqb42q...
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
better yet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40S8G2ZuR...
Posted by wild80 (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The people at the parades gettting the candy should be the children. Correct me if I'm wrong but when I go to parades with my children i am sitting or standing right beside my children. If they start to go out in the middle of the road over a piece of candy I am there to pull them back and say no. Come on parents are u watching your children or just a free for all letting them run in the street. Parents watch your children and no one will get hurt
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I read an article where children scrambling for candy startled a horse and the child riding the horse was thrown and received injuries to her head and neck.
Posted by hottopics (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 9:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is everything a debate, a ban, a big friggin deal. How I long for the days where life was FUN and not a insurance liability. Nothing is just good ol FUN. We don't look forward to holidays or events anymore. They are something to survive. What else can we take the fun out of?????
Posted by whatever (anonymous) on September 23, 2009 at 10:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey, I know. Let's throw Moon Pies. They are pillow soft and marshmallowy delicious. The people on the floats get to fling, we get to catch, nobody gets hurt.
Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 24, 2009 at 5:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
bah-humbug
Posted by countrydog (anonymous) on September 24, 2009 at 6:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
THE EASY WAY OUT IS TO CANCEL THE PARADE
GET REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by create (anonymous) on September 24, 2009 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
open eyes, you forgot something in your list. Fun is not an adjective as in "Although this is a fun event..." Just because everybody says it that way doesn't change the rule.
Fun is a noun, Chris. Please. Since so many are knit picking, I'm just sayin'.
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on September 24, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
create,
You better take that up with Merriam-Webster!
'enry
Main Entry: fun
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): sometimes fun·ner; sometimes fun·nest
Date: circa 1846
1 : providing entertainment, amusement, or enjoyment <a fun party> <a fun person to be with>
2 : full of fun : pleasant <have a fun time>
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 24, 2009 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
create - ???? I haven't even used the word fun (until now) in this thread......... you meant someone else?
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 24, 2009 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry, I'm laughing concerning the above!!!!! NOW, if we just took care of "Tort" reform :-) we wouldn't have to worry!!! OR, parents could take care of their "little" darlings!!!! Life is so VERY funny!!!!! Surely there is something MORE important to argue over, if not, our lives are sure boring!!!! Some excitement needed? Watch that little one retrieving THE candy!!!
Oh! dear!!! Henry is back!!!! Watch out!!:-)No rest for the "weary"!!! :-)
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 24, 2009 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now, open_eyes, as you tackel that little one for THAT piece of candy :-) you are going to get FAT!!!! Then you won't be able to run as fast!!!! Oh! I forgot "speed kills"! :-) Also, at some parades, I just might freeze to death!!!!! Now, I want heaters placed EVERYWHERE so I can warm-up! Also, how about some Hot Chocolate handed out to us "old" folks??
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 24, 2009 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You're too late, sandman!!!! Now that all that candy has slowed me down, on the flip side I'm bigger than the kids and can easily wrestle it away from them (if I can catch them first) - LOL
As long as they hand out the hot chocolate instead of throwing it on us, that's a great idea!
Hmmm... wait a minute - how much did that lady get for spilling hot coffee on herself at McDonald's? Sounds like we could have used some Tort reform there! - LOL
BTW - Putting heaters up simply encourages people to huddle around them, thus increasing the chances of knocking one over or dropping something in it to short-circuit it and electrocute someone or start a fire. It encourages dangerous scenarious. Sorry, you'll just have to shiver..... :(
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 24, 2009 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rats open_eyes, I thought you were going to be some FUN!!!
Now you want me to shiver?????? What do you have against
"huddleling"? Also, let me know when you start chasing that little one over a piece of candy, for I'd like to take bets on who wins!!!!!! Some of those kids I've watched, including my own, were pretty determined. I wouldn't want you in the paper!!! I can see the title now:: "Man, at "Christmas Parade" injured while chasing a defenseless child over candy" That would not be good!!!!! LAL
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 24, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OOPS, LOL-I WILL get that new shorthand method. Guess I could say I was saying "Laughing as Loud", what do you think????
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 24, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's much tougher to get the candy from the kids when they're organized into groups (huddling). They're much more menacing when a group of them chase me away swinging their Tickle-Me-Elmo's like baseball bats than to take them on one at a time. :)
Actually, I though you were rooting for the LA Lakers with your LAL ! ;-)
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 24, 2009 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
open_eyes,
Thanks for the correction concerning the spelling of "huddling", you were so sweet and not give me the devil. But! I wasn't talking about the kids huddling, shoot! they are running for the candy. It is us "ole" folks that need to huddle to stay warm!!!! I will say I had to laugh at "Tickle-Me-Elmo"!!! Please keep up that sense of humor, we REALLY need that in our world. I am always amazed at you, enjoy reading what you post.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 24, 2009 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah, gotcha now. Well, I'm all for adult huddling!!!!! ;-)
Except that might make us an easier target for the scalding hot chocolate being thrown our way. It might be safer to spread out and thus give them a smaller target to hit. Once again, adult huddling just encourages dangerous scenarios...... (uhm, in more ways than one) - LOLOLOL
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 24, 2009 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
open_eyes, so glad that you are for adult huddling/cuddling but imagaine instead of "scalding hot chocolate being thrown our way" they might throw ice!!! Now, that would be because of the unusually warm weather, understand???? Rats!!! it seems EVERYTHING encourages dangerous scenarios!!! When, as adults, are we going to learn to relax and just enjoy living without it turning into a "dangerous scenario"??? Give the kids some candy and we adults can find our own "sweet" thing!!!! :-) I ment candy!
Now, who in the devil are the LA Lakers??? Swimmers from LA??????? LOL Are they football, basketball, baseball,tennis,soccer,golf,target shooting? What rec?
Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 6:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
throw the candy and be positive about it!
Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 6:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"A generation has passed since candy throwing was outlawed in Emporia. We encourage city leaders to let the kids have some fun and let candy throwing from floats begin again."
Come on Chris, this law was passed to "PROTECT THE CHILDREN". It is the governments job to protect us from ourselves. Are you trying to stir things up or what?
CITY COMMISSIONERS, protect our children from SHC,
(Sailing Hard Candy).
Anyone agreeing with me we will have a meeting tonight of the New CAE group. CAE= Candy Absent Emporia.
Stay positive Emporia!
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Candy Absent Emporia!!!
Vote YES!!!!
Cavities are caused be candy!!
Flying candy could put an eye out!!!
Vote Yes!!!!
Yes is positive!!!!
Communities that have candy throwing bans have 87.4% less twisted ankles than free throwin' candy towns, studies show!!!! It'll save billions on health care costs!!!
Vote Yes!!!!!!!
R.
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That's right, Steve_Corbin and seriouslyfolks, make light of the matter as you always do. Why do you think we need to "ban everything or ban nothing at all"? I don't see where you get this "all or nothing" attitude, but it's not very productive. I think you are only saying we should ban candy because something you liked was banned. You feel that because your precious SHS was banned, you should take something away from someone else. You may be displeased with the smoking ban, but taking your revenge on the poor little kids is not the way to relieve your frustration. Do unto others...
‘enry
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Making light of matters and showing people the absurdities in life is very productive. If people lighten up a bit we could all live together more easily. People would see that complaining about breathing a little smoke while they marinate their liver in alcohol is kinda silly and they laugh at it as I did. People are funny if you just take a moment and just look at them, try doing it at Wal-mart. It's great!
R.
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I try to teach my children not to pick up things from the ground and put them into their mouth. However, all my teachings are for not when a community encourages me to bring my children to see the parade and all those people are throwing candy on the ground and the uneducated parents allow their heathens to scramble around picking up the filth from the gutters and put it into their mouths. Throwing candy is BAD! VOTE YES TO THE CANDY BAN!
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gee, all the candy I pick up is wrapped........ I never eat the wrappers. Tastes terrible.
Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good Lord Henry, lighten up?
Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
open_eyes,
I hope you dispose of those wrappers properly?
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Of course. I glue them all into a horrendous-looking ugly lump and call it art. Enlightened poeple come from miles around to ooh and ahh at it.
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You had better not be picking up candy from a Parade in Emporia! By the way, I'm just being sarcastic.
I took some foreign children to the rodeo parade in Cottonwood Falls. When they saw the candy being tossed and the other children scrambling for the treats, these kids eyes lit up and they had a blast grabbing as much candy as they could get. I took these same kids to a parade in Emporia and they were quite disappointed. I believe a rough translation of what these kids said would be “What, No Candy? This Sucks!” or words to that effect. :-)
Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
YY4U & seriously,
You two did notice who the 1st poster was that brought up SHS was didn't you? Nothing in my posts about it. Chri's original article said nothing about it, right?
Henry, The ban on throwing candy from floats was instigated by a few well intentioned citizens who were concerned about childrens safety at parades. CHILD SAFETY!
Now how would you and Chris feel if the ban was dropped at your request and some child was injured or killed during a parade because they dashed out to get candy, while their parents, (who lack the common sense to watch their kids), sit back and visit with their friends?
Not wanting to be a Grinch, for the last 16 years of being located downtown, Santa agreed to come down to my business after getting off his float and come in to visit my customers and friends kids. Each one would sit on his lap, tell him what they wanted, and get a bag of candy.
Before that my other bar was out west, but we would have a family Christmas dinner and that same old jolly fat man came for 15 years there.
I would bet there are some 30 somenthing's out there that remember those times, fondly.
If Santa's health is good this year, maybe he will agree to stop in again?
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How typical of Emporia logic, no candy on the street during parades, but yes to steaming piles of horse bisquits.
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
henry, because of people like you, we can no longer give out "popcorn balls", carmel apples, homemade hard cinnamon candy etc. Yes, there are nuts out there but when considering our population, very few. We have been FORCED to give up so many "traditions" and many times because of ONE person!!! Please leave Steve's "Santa" alone! I know that he is: fat(but jolly!) Long white hair, a beard and uses ANIMALS for transportation,. Gee, hope no one wants to "ban" him because of that last point!!! I think they are pretty!!!
Yes, I still like to string popcorn for the tree but may have to give that up because someone might get stuck with a needle!
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Steve_Corbin,
I brought it up first, but only to stop others from likening the two bans. I guess it back fired...
neighbor,
I don't think many kids will dash out into the street (and risk being run-over) to scoop-up a pile of horse leavings...
sandman,
"give up so many "traditions" and many times because of ONE person" You may be right, but suppose it's your child who eats the popcorn ball with a razor blade in it. How would you feel then? These things change because ONE kid dies and then there is a big public outcry and we all vow to never let something like that happen to our children.
It won't be my kid getting hurt, so I don't care if they throw candy at parades. Why is it because of me that we can no longer do these things?
'enry
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Henry, please reread, I said "because of people LIKE You".
I feel you are a very negative person and like to read into EVERYTHING!!!! Relax a little and you just might find that life CAN be enjoyable and still have meaning. Are there "dangers", you beat! Walking in my yard I could have a snake bite me or twist my ankle. Life is for living, so please, let's do so!!!!!
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is it that some community events are regulated more than others? Veterans cannot toss candy to children during the Veterans Day Parade for fear that the children will fling themselves under the tank. But, extremely dangerous activities are allowed at the Cinco De Mayo Celebrations in Las Casitas Park. For one, they are allowed to break a piñata. Aren’t they concerned the children might get hit with the stick as they try to break the piñata or they might bump their heads with one another as they scramble for the candy? Also, the traditional dresses are extremely long and pose a trip hazard. Are we going to wait until a child is injured by a falling dancer before we make a rule? What about the vendors selling any food products that could burn a child’s mouth? I once purchase a beer and found it to be lukewarm :-( We need to regulate Cinco de Mayo in this town! The safety of the children must come first!
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
YY4U,
Good question. Some girl was bucked off a horse at that celebration! See pic here:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/image.instantima...
or here:
http://www.instantimagegallery.com/iig/p...
I think it's because the type of citizens who go to the Cinco de Mayo celebration don't complain as much as the citizens who go to the Veteran's Day parade. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and I my guess would be that there were some very squeaky (Caucasian) wheels at the time candy throwing was outlawed.
'enry
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If we could remember what day cinco de mayo falls on maybe we could do something about it.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
YY4U, your story makes me think - has anyone done any studies about the mental anguish caused to children by the disappointment of not getting candy thrown at some parades when they get them at others? Seems to me nobody is looking at the possible psychological damage done to these young children. I'll bet Osama Bin Laden probably started on his jihad path when he was denied candy at a parade at a young age.
Oh, and down with Halloween. I'm sure giving out candy there will be banned next. After all, there HAVE been instances of razor blades in popcorn balls, etc......and parents who don't check it out first for their children's sake....
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
open_eyes,
I believe the rule against giving popcorn balls at Halloween is to protect the adjoining homeowner. Popcorn Balls? What a tightwad! I don't want that sticky thing inside my bag of candy. I usually repay popcorn ball givers with a tree full of toilet paper :-)
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I really wouldn't know - much like Charlie Brown, all I ever got in my candy bag was rocks :(
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
YY4U, good question as to why some and not all parades. Would be interesting to know the answer. Maybe because the pinata is somewhat in a stable place, heaven knows.
Also, sorry to hear what you think of "popcorn balls". I was thinking more of Christmas and flavoring them with cinnamon syrup and other flavors instead of the "standard" syrup. Used to give them away in a "Christmas basket" of homemade goodies. But, yes, I can remember getting them at Halloween and loving them. Glad I never gave you any, would hate to have my trees full of toilet paper! What a mess!!!!
open_eyes, not sure what you ment "Ah, gotcha now", in what manner? Sorry, I really wasn't sure what you ment. I believe most humans like some human warmth, I know that I do. They have proven that in a childs first year it is so very important to have "human touch", I don't believe that changes, even as we get older.
I do agree concerning the ill affects concerning what we've taken away, memories. My children remember standing at the "Christmas Parade" and picking up the candy,"BIG ADVENT"in a childs life. I hadn't realized that as many years have gone by since Emporia "threw" candy. We must have been at a smaller town.
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 11:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Also, open_eyes, I'm sorry concerning the "rocks", not good memories. That gives you more of an "in-sight" concerning our children and the lack of. Thinking of "Halloween", I remember when my oldest son was two and his first true Halloween. I dressed him up in a "bugs bunny" costume. He saw himself in a mirror and got SCARED!!!! I (cried) I had to take his costume off in front of a mirror to prove to him, it was only "pretend" and it was indeed, himself!!!! Then, when "trick and treating", his Daddy had to carry him to a few houses of friends, he STILL didn't believe me that it was "make believe" when he saw others in costume. I still have that costume and he is now 33 years of age. Yes, memories are what we leave behind. I so hope our youth of today have those "special" memories.
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 11:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't worry sandman, A lot of white people have been going to the cinco de mayo celebration lately so intolerant rules are coming to that event too. You know how accident prone white people are. HenryVIII posted a link to a white girl who got bucked off a horse during a cinco de mayo event. Pony rides for clumsy white girls will probably be banned at future events.
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Was the white girl clumsy or was the pony trained to do that to her?
R.
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on September 25, 2009 at 11:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You can train a pony to do that? I thought ponies were colorblind.
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 26, 2009 at 12:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
YY4U, I have no reason to worry. Also, perhaps the young lady had never ridden and the pony got scared for some reason. I truly don't see that it makes her "clumsy" for we don't KNOW the circumstances. I have ridden since I was a young girl and love it, but I have also been thrown. Am I "clumsy", perhaps, but not usually that way on horseback.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 26, 2009 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sandman, by "Oh, gotcha now", I meant "oh, now I understand what you meant" (adults huddling, not kids).
And I was just joking about the rocks. Thinking of poor Charlie Brown in the Peanuts Halloween special. Little did he know he was actually the most fortunate, since he didn't have to worry about something in the rock or fighting other kids over the rocks :)
Henry - what color was the horse? We need to know so we can determine if it was a "racist" act on the horse's part........... at least that's how politics appears to work these days.........
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 26, 2009 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Pbs8hKC...
Maybe the pony was just standing up for it's rights.
R.
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 26, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
open_eyes and seriously, I understood what you were saying concerning "rocks", plus YY4U was trying to down me for making "popcorn balls", which I used to love to do. Oh! cinnamon or mint flavor, tinted to match the flavor, Um, good!!! Homemade is SOOOO much better then "store bought"! Homemade bread not only makes a wonderful grilled cheese but the house smells so goooooooooooood when baking!!!! We used to buy our milk at a dairy out our way, and then I would "churn" butter. It would turn "green" so I would have to color it yellow, kids wouldn't use!!! Finally asked the dairy "why" ? Type of cow!!!!! (NOT because it was "Old"!!!) Or St. Patty's day!!!! Yes, memories!!!!!
Open_eyes, thanks concerning the "huddling"-let's not take ALL the fun out of life plus the added benefit of "warmth"!!!! Afraid I freeze to death most of the time.
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on September 26, 2009 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sandman, Please forgive me. I didn't intend to make you feel bad, I just don't like popcorn balls. Whenever I was at my dads parents, they would have us make popcorn balls. It was messy and I really didn't like to eat them. I preferred to visit my mothers parents who had recipes for real candy. Same amount of work and mess but the product was first class. Here is a link to some real candy recipes: http://www.cooksrecipes.com/category/can...
enjoy!
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 26, 2009 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
seriously, Thanks so much for that sight!! I got tickled!!!! I have a little female dog that I got last spring and love her to death!! I sincerely hope she doesn't mind the "spoiling" she gets because that is so much fun on my part!!!! I'm a "mommie" and love that role!!!!
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 26, 2009 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
YY4U, no problem, if that is the worse "putdown" I receive in the remainder of my life, I will be very "fortunate"!!! BUT, you really went and did it!!!!!! Recipes!!! Yippee!!!!! My deceased husband used to hate it when I would find a "new" recipe, he was strickly a meat,potato and gravy man!!!! AND cookies!!!!! Thanks so much for the sight, I've put it in "favorites".
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 1:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This topic is dumb, let em' throw the damn candy
Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bad laws that can't be changed need to be ignored.
Throw the candy, I would.
I would also be prepaired to accept the consequenses of doing that.
It's kind of like the government telling me that the drinking age MUST be 21, and a 20 year old comes in just back from Iraq or Afghanistan.
Do I serve him?
Yep!
Wouldn't you?
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My solution is all children will be tied to a railing safely out of harms way during the parade while the parents scramble for the candy to bring back to them.
This method can also be applied to playgrounds. Each year, thousands of children are injured and maimed in playground accidents from falling off swings, seewaws, monkey bars, merry-go-rounds, etc... (not to mention the occasional scuffle or argument). (As opposed to the zero that I've been able to find so far of being ran over by floats chasing candy). And parents encourage these dangerous scenarious by taking their children there and encouraging them to run and play and be active. All children can be placed in protective motionless plastic bubbles at the edge of the playground to be protected and safe where they can watch, while the adults play on the equipment, run, fight, etc. They can then relay the experiences to the children on the drive home, thus allowing the child to participate somewhat while still keeping them out of harms way. To keep the children from getting too bored while watching the adults playing, during that time they will be taught songs singing the praises of President Obama as the NJ school children were recently:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UF...
Sandman, I'll bet if you made some homemade candy & popcorn balls, and gave it to those behind the candy ban to sample, they would be so enamored over your creations they would immediately change the law to REQUIRE your candy to be thrown from parades ;-)
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
open_eyes, Thanks for the suggestion but for various reasons better not. First, be my luck someone would be a diabetic, eat the candy then sue me because his/her sugar went up. Second, they gained a pound and I was put at fault. A filling fell out while eating "Peanut Brittle" and again it was my fault. We truly live in a "crazy" world!!!!
I had seen that film concerning OUR children singing the "Praises" of Obama. If that doesn't scare you, then you must be DEAD!!!!! Brain washing??????????? (start at a young age!)
Steve, always amazed me. When I was in the military, at the age of 18, could drink on base but not off. I knew of many young men who went to "war" in Vietnam for THEIR country and didn't return, security division. Really makes sense???? Give me your life but don't you dare take a drink under the age of 21. I figure, Emporia makes some of their money off of "minors"(under age 21) I'm not condoning drinking, just saying a really "stupid" law!!!!!! Am amazed that thru all these years, it hasn't changed.
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think that the drinking age should be 18 for those that serve their country in the military ,police and fire persons but everyone else can wait. The people in the military and civil service jobs have proven themselves to be mature by volunteering for a self sacrificing job. Everyone else, not so much.
R.
A veteran of the United States Army
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Seperation of church and state? Here are a couple of modern hymns.
Lyrics
========
Song 1:
Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama
Song 2:
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!"
Hooray, Mr. President! You're number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!
Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country's economy number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!
So continue ---- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick
So here's a hearty hip-hooray ----
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You swear on a bible in court, god is intertwined everywhere in our government, but I am failing to grasp your argument here unless you are implying that Obama is a deity this has nothing to do with separation of church and state and more to do with one dumb teacher.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think it has more to do with the dumb teach apparently confusing Obama with being a deity.
However, given songs like this taught in school, and the video of the uniformed kids marching and singing their praises to Obama before the election, its understandable how some people were nervous about Obama talking to the kids in a nationwide broadcast, however innocent it may have been. I wonder how many teachers followed up the broadcast with things similar to this?
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry, goodoleboy, but I truly disagree. Please, can you show me when in the past our children have been taught to "sing" praises of "our" president? I truly doubt it is because of one "dumb teacher"! Tis your "choice" to sing praises to Obama, "mine" to disagree. Yes, I swear on a bible in court, and yes, god is intertwined in our government for our government was founded on the belief of "freedom of religion".
Please show me in history concerning our United States of America where it wasn't!!!
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I think it has more to do with the dumb teach apparently confusing Obama with being a deity."
This was my point exactly. Many seem to confuse him(Obama) with Him(God). It happens on here all the time.
Anyhooooo, You don't have to swear on a bible if you don't want to as far as I know. When I took my oath when joining the military they said we didn't have to say god if we didn't want to and I didn't because I was an atheist at the time. Despite what secularists want we live in a pluralistic society.
R.
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You don't have to swear either. You can affirm.
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let me support my statement "Not a Dumb Teacher". Normally BEFORE you can use ANY material in the teaching of our youth, it MUST be past by the PRINCIPAL, SUPERINTENDENT, SCHOOL BOARD. This includes music. Look at our own "Christmas Program" that is now a "Seasonal Celebration" and how it has changed because of that fact. It may have been because of a "stupid teacher" but truly have my doubts with it being filmed for the "world" to see.
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Back in the 80's I was assigned to an oversea military base and one day while on guard duty with a Soldier who was black, the discussion turned to equal rights and discrimination towards blacks. I pointed out that the Sergeant who assigned us our duty was black. My buddy said that the Army is different than the civilian world and asked me if I thought a black man could be elected president. I told him that I thought a black man could be elected president. He disagreed and pointed out how Jessy Jackson had attempted several times and no one took him seriously. I suggested that Jessy Jackson was considered to be too radical by whites and blacks but if a moderate, well spoken black man ran for president, he would stand a chance of winning. My black friend laughed and said it would never happen. I told him that he would owe me a case of beer when a black man is elected president. I had forgotten about that conversation so long ago until last fall when Obama was elected. My long lost friend Googled me and sent me an email asking where he needed to send the case of beer.
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
open_eyes, please direct me to the sight of the "uniformed" kids. I've looked, hastily and haven't found. I sincerely hope that I'm right for once since I normally agree with what you have said. They don't say what the occasion was, I hope the president was visiting and the school thought it would be "cute". As having been a parent, I WOULD NOT have been happy! Also, could be a "private" school, since they have more "leaveway". Not enough facts. I will say at first it made my stomach turn thinking that was "what" we were teaching our children, then with thinking concerning the film and the fact it was placed "world" wide, more propaganda, now that is scarey. Having "Seriously" post two different songs truly scares me that I am wrong and in this case, you are right,as usual.
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Are we allowed to throw candy(or something) at kids singing hymns about Obama?
R.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 9:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kansas City, MO middle school teacher was suspended for it. It was a charter school for grades 5-9.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt6JWzBqL...
Sure, they say alot of positive things about taking control of their lives, etc, but at the end, they each chant something supporting Obama's health care plan.
And, of course, there is nobody there to point out if any of their health-care claims are false or misleading, or any negative aspects of it to them. But what would grades 5-9 really know about the finer points of it anyway........ sure looks like brainwashing to me.
Much like all the kill Bush posters and videos I posted links to earlier.......for the libs here....... watch the video, and replace the word "Obama" with "Bush"...... and tell me what you think of it then.........
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would be wiling to bet that when a woman is elected president, woman and girls will be real happy too.
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cats aren't always happy when other cats are in congress.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/cat...
Big Stripey for president!!!
R.
Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
YY4U
This is one woman who won't be happy to have a woman President just for that sake. Odds are that any woman who would run for that office, I would have 0 respect for and/or probably be frightened by her policies. You see, I do believe that men and women were designed with equal value, but not identical strengths. I think some jobs should be left to men to deal with, because the emotionally based and nurturing design we have leaves us ill equipped for those jobs. Any woman who breaks away from that design, scares me. Therefore, I think a woman president is in general a bad idea.
Not to start a bash, but take Sarah Palin, for instance. I agreed with her policies, but have no respect for her as a woman. In my opinion, she had a family to raise and she went off and spent all her energy in politics, leaving her daughter un-nurtured and untrained. It takes many, many hours of as many years as you can get with each child to raise them to be successful at being adults. Given the evidence of her political career plus the adult situation her non-adult daughter got into and to me, it all equals failure to be where she needed to be, when she needed to be there. I wouldn't be happy to have someone in office that I can't trust to prioritize things well. She is by far, not the only woman who is guilty of this, but she is one who is well known. I am not bashing just her, but any and every woman like her.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I read an interesting article the other day that woman in Congress get more accomplished than their male counterparts. Is this good or bad? I guess its in the eye of the beholder.
Yes it was a dumb teacher, and no not everything that is done in a classroom passes up the ladder for an OK, any teacher that promotes this kind of behavior is out of line, regardless of political affiliation, ergo, dumb.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Sorry, goodoleboy, but I truly disagree. Please, can you show me when in the past our children have been taught to "sing" praises of "our" president? I truly doubt it is because of one "dumb teacher"
Who is this mastermind behind this dastardly deed? Do tell so I can proclaim them dumber than dumb.
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 11:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry, just got in. Open_eyes, I feel you are so very right. Will say I watched only half the sight, truly turns one stomach. I am so very glad the teacher lost her job, if this is what she was teaching our children. Yes, brainwashing and it truly saddens me to see my nation being "sold" ths junk. Let's go back and teach our "Constitution" and WHY that was developed. Gee, I have enough problems sleeping!!! I have grandchildren with a new one on the way in March, just what kind of "America" am I going to leave them?
YY4U, why would you say your statement? I do not believe in "womans lib" and as far as being president, it should be the best PERSON for the job!!!!(man or WOMAN). I have been taught that being a man or woman doesn't have ANYTHING to do with your "thought" processes!!!! Yes, I was in the "military" and at that period of time heard "negative" towards women in uniform,"GI issue", etc. I am NOT for women being on the "front line" and treated just like men for there is a VAST difference. We were a "support" system for our men and still feel that way today. There are many women who will disagree with me and that is fine BUT many of those women would so much rather be "wives and mothers" then out there earning a living along side their husbands. Not sure if it is the "economy" or oor "life styles" that has done this to us or the fact that a "woman in the home" is no longer valued. Boy! you opened a "can of worms"!!!! I always looked at myself as a "domestic engineer" and believe me, in this day and age you need to be so. Man or woman, who is going to do the BEST job for MY nation!!!!! (I am a BIG fan of "Sarah", No punches, just laid it on the line!!!!!) Life happens unless you live in a cave and STAY there!!!!!
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oh4theluvof, Sarah Palin had policies? I did not know that. I though she just had some talking points that she couldn't get straight.
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 27, 2009 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
goodleboy, "Go For It", I'm ready!!!!!
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 12:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
oh4theluvof, I truly agree with many of your statements.Concerning Sarah, have mixed feelings. I do believe that many of her, yes,"policies" were correct but also question concerning her children. I do know that you can be a really awesome parent but have a terrible child just as you can be a terrible parent and have a truly awesome child. What I mainly was saying in referring to YY4Us statement, was Man or Woman doesn't really have anything to do with "what is best for my nation".
Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 6:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How about those Obama brainwashed kids throwing Palin shaped candy out in front of the floats?
What's candy and parade floats have to do with politics and dumb ole women, or men?
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm still against burglary!
Big Stripey for president!!! Because cats need a self esteem boost.
I guarantee that the number of cats with high school diplomas would increase dramatically if Big Stripey was president. I mean, seriously, it just makes sense.
R.
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8j6xU2mB...
R.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think there are alot of men in politics who ignore their jobs of being a good father also. (Like ones that run off to Argentina to be with their mistress). Besides, we've learned recently that being a Latino woman makes you better qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice than a white male, anyway.
Sandman, you should watch the video till the end. That is where they start bringing up how they support all the points of Obama's health care. Indoctrination.
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Most cats are indoor AND outdoor cats. With the richness of experience being able to survive indoors or out, more often than not a cat would reach a better conclusion than a person who hasn't lived that life." - Big Stripey
R.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
YY4U, I have no problem with the kids being proud and excited that Obama was elected, or that he is an inspiration and role model to them. As a woman president would be to young girls. What I do have a problem with, is their chants on his health care.
Outdoor cats often get into garages & sheds and eat chemicals that are poisonous to them. Which isn't always the best decision, overall.
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If they learn from their bad decisions it's a good thing. If they die ....... well we just won't elect the dead ones.
That could be our party's slogan, "Vote for a cat, but not a dead one."
I like it.
R.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I like that idea! (Want to bet dead cats will still get a significant amount of votes? - LOL).
ACORN will also register alot of dead cats AS voters, as well - all Dem, of course - since by law they are non-partisan to get federal money....... as we all know......)
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry, I forgot, they aren't getting federal funding now (wonder how long that will last). I meant in the Past alot of dead cats voted..........
Posted by giggles (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thought people were still making a stink about not being able to throw candy from floats in this thread...I must have walked through the wrong door somewhere.
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Steve_Corbin, What is this "Dumb ole women" and then as an after thought, "men". Do we need to have a talk with your wife??? She is one that reminds me of a gal that COULD set you straight!!!!!! :-)
Seriously, you come up with some of the funniest videos!!!
The "Cats" was cute and the music wonderful!!! But! I still wouldn't want one in the house!!!! Second thought, maybe "outhouse"!!!!
open_eyes, will go back and view the film but I thought they were "chanting" concerning the "Health Care" even at first. As I said, it was enough to turn ones stomach and not in a GOOD way!!!!
Any plumbers out there? Have one commode that won't shut off and it keeps my "pump" (well) running. If I replace anymore I'm going to have a new commode!!!!!! I keep turning the water off to it and "replacing"!!!! Time to give up????
Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
First off, I said that the ODDS were that I would be unhappy with a female President, not that I am completely against it. There is a list of criteria that a woman could meet and I would be happy with, but I it's a long shot (not impossible) that all those would be met by any woman who is in politics considering the length of time one usually has to be in politics before getting that far. I won't get into the list on this post.
Secondly, YY4U, I also said I wasn't wanting to start a bashing of SP, so I will not try to convince you, thereby giving you reason to bash. I will, however address this: I have noticed that if I or any other conservative offers a solution to a problem or a policy, it is automatically discounted to a "talking point" or disregarded as "no solution offered" by those who lean more liberally.
Steve, I have no idea what it all has to do with candy, other than that all conversations lead to the major topics of the day when the lesser topic wears out.
seriouslyfolks:
Seriously?????? How do you come up with this stuff??
sandman:
I am glad that we can see somewhat eye to eye. I never expect anyone to agree completely with me...sometimes I get closer than others. :-)
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, open_eyes, I imagine that a number of the "dead" cats would still get a large amount of votes!!!! Seems we do that at "each" election!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, Giggles, we got off the subject, "a little"!!! Join Us!!!! Watch the videos that have been posted.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, an awful lot of people wanted that "cat" in the White house dead the last few years, and were very vocal and open about it. But that wasn't racist, and it wasn't negative - it was positivity. Oops - sorry, wrong thread - LOL
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry..... much like a cat.... I tend to stray.
Back on subject: Throw mice at parades so the cats will chase them under the floats and get ran over - then we can vote for them next election!
Ok, now I'm really reaching............. seriouslyrfolks could have said something much funnier..... ;-)
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
open_eyes!!! concerning that "straying", remember, being a "Tomcat" can only get you into trouble!!!!!! But again, choices!
Steve, when I spoke of your wife. One evening I was in at TR and she was getting ready to go home and fix dinner. She told you "You be home in half an hour"!!! Wasn't fifteen minutes later and your were leaving!!!! Mama spoke!!!!! Being a woman I understood, nothing worse then to go to the trouble of cooking and not have the "mouths" there to eat. (While it is hot)
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
open_eyes, you don't need "seriously", you can be funny in your own right!!!! You can be serious also and put your point across.
I watched that film and truly makes me sick at what was being taught. Truly looked more "Nazi" then America. Thank you for posting, for I,for one, would have never believed in our United States of America that it would be possible. Now, that was a "dumb" teacher! Thank You!
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
open_eyes,I sincerely hope you knew I was kidding concerning "straying" and Tomcats. I live in the country and have several Tomcats that love to travel neighbor to neighbor.After reading, it didn't come out as I ment, sorry.
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Also, hope they decide to throw the candy and let the children enjoy themselves and also making memories.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not to worry, sandman, I thought your joke about Tomcats was hilarious - never had thought about that angle - LOL.
But truly - for the subject on hand - I agree - throw candy, let the children enjoy themselves. Parents, watch your kid carefully and make sure you've instructed them beforehand not to get out in the way of any floats.
And still waiting for someone to publish statistics on how many children have been injured or killed in this manner.
Posted by create (anonymous) on September 29, 2009 at 7:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Your wait is over, open_eyes.
http://dangeroustrailersparadefloat.blog...
Posted by create (anonymous) on September 29, 2009 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, yeah, I know, this doesn't provide actual "statistics," but it's still evidence via actual news stories and not just hearsay.
People keep making light of a very serious threat to children. Those who have lost their little ones in these freak accidents would quickly agree.
Short of keeping a small child on a leash, it is very difficult to stop a child from dashing out under dangerous wheels to pick up candy that has been thrown from a float, especially when an appearance by Santa Claus has already revved children up to the breaking point.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 29, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you create. Sad story. However, my wait is not over.
He wasn't in the crowd chasing after candy that had been thrown from the float. He was actaully ON a float and jumped off with several other youths to get candy that they had DROPPED. In other words, he was on the float in the middle of the parade - not on the sidelines. He could have jumped off to get a dropped hat, glasses..... anything. Could have even slipped and fell. And the driver behind wasn't expecting anyone in a float in front of them to suddenly jump off in the middle of the parade. Not quite the same thing. As you said - "freak accident". Freak accidents happen in every aspect of life. Should we ban everything because of the possibilities of freak accidents? Since there actually HAS been an instance of THIS, Instead of a throwing candy ban, this could have been prevented by a law handcuffing every person to the float they are riding on preventing them from exiting it in the middle of a parade. (Of course, if a float were to somehow catch on fire, that could be bad, but at least we'd prevent people jumping off and being crushed.) But I did a quick search and was able to find multiple instances of children (and adults) falling off of floats in the parade and being killed. Guess we need to ban floats and parades altogether.
BTW, the number one killer of children in America under age 15 is vehicle crashes. Should we ban children riding in vehicles until they are 16 or older? Of course, the number one killer of teenagers 16-20 is also vehicle crashes - maybe we shouldn't give kids drivers licenses until they are 21.......
Yes, I know. I'm "making light of it". Which I mean in no disrespect to the family of the child killed. But I still think the law is plain silly. I still have yet to see an instance of a child on the sidelines getting ran over chasing thrown candy. And even if I did, unless I saw more than 1 case in a billion or trillion, I would stand by my statement. You simply can't (and shouldn't) regulate every single aspect of a human's life because of a .0000000001 statistical chance of it being harmful.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 29, 2009 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
From various online dictionaries:
1. freak accident
Something that happens that is so incomprehensible that only a freak could have it happen to them.
freak accident
1.An incident, especially one that is harmful, occurring under highly unusual and unlikely circumstances.
I think back on my youth and the things I did - fishing (could have been impaled or fell in and drowned), playing sports, (injured often) ice skating, (drowning, sliced open by sharp skate) playing with dogs/cats, (bitten), chores (could have fallen/been hurt in a myriad of ways), swimming (drowning), dodgeball (geesh), and many other dangerous scenarios too numerous to list - and I'm SOOOOO thankful I grew up before the age of beyond common sense political correctness. And the sad thing is my parents encouraged all these activities - I never realized how little they cared (yeah right). And every activity I've listed has a much higher incidence of injury and death (even with precautions) than what we're talking about here.
For me, growing up, chasing candy at parades was the least of my worries about reaching old age.
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 29, 2009 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Go! open_eyes!!!! Yes, life happens (unless your dead!) Being a "country gal" tis a wonder I ever reached the age of 21, no less further!! I'm not saying that something "might" happen but saying unless you want to climb in that bubble and stay, let the kids have some fun. If the parents are "watchful" of their young, hopefully nothing will happen. We just can't stop living, nor ask our children to do so. Many of the things we do day to day, have dangers. We are a "community" that I feel has been loving and CARING. If we all are watchful, let our children make "memories".
Posted by create (anonymous) on September 29, 2009 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
open_eyes, that link I provided wasn't about just one kid. There are numerous accounts on that link that relate to news stories about kids killed in parades.
Good points re: kids killed in car accidents. Incidentally, I see where the new driving ordinance for teen drivers prevents them from having little kids in the car with them.
The brain is still developing until age 21-22, sometimes even 23.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 29, 2009 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
yes, create, I browsed thru MANY of those links - none that I could find were of children chasing thrown candy and being ran over. Nearly ALL were people and children riding ON the floats and falling OFF. One was a man in a wheelchair being pushed across the street by a young person at an intersection.
So perhaps we need to pay better attention to the people and children riding ON the floats.
I saw a study that claimed the "white matter" of the brain (which has more to do with sheathing pathways, or something like that - but they have recently discovered it DOES affect judgement and other brain functions more than previously thought) - isn't fully developed in most humans until about 25. Hmmm..... maybe voting age should be raised........ except for those in the military under 25.........
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 29, 2009 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Boy! open_eyes, did you ever get yourself out of deep "doo,doo" by your last sentence!!!!!! There wasn't going to be any candy for you!!!!!!!
create, did your children ever have a bike? Mine did and believe me, there were accidents. Look at the number of children who are injured each year because of riding a bike. Do we "outlaw" because some child "may" get hurt? I sincerely hope not for my children did (and I do) enjoy them very much.
As it has been pointed out by open_eyes, sports! In having two sons and they playing "touch" football, one, broken collar bone, 2nd, broken arm. It happens no matter how much precaution one takes, but we shouldn't stop living because "something" just might happen. A young man collapses on the basketball floor and dies in the middle of a game. A young man is killed playing football? These are things that happen. It is ALWAYS easier to "second" guess but what happens while the living is occuring? LIFE!!!!
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 29, 2009 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As was posted earlier, I think those in the military should be given special exemptions for various things - they deserve it.
But for all those scenarios listed above, sure, take some sensible precautions. Wear a helmet when biking. Wear the proper equipment in sports. Pass a physical before participating.
Take what precautions make sense, teach your kids the best you can.............. and get on with living.
BTW, living has been found to be the #1 cause in 100% of cases of dying.
Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on September 29, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Moved to a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...
Posted by sandman (anonymous) on September 29, 2009 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AMAN!!!!!!! Preach on!!!!!!!! Your BTW, was excellent!!!!! :-)