RE: More Americans under attack!!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Moonhead -> RE: More Americans under attack!!! (10/13/2010 6:10:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: takemeforyourown

As a former Labor and Delivery nurse, I have come to the conclusion that childbearing ought to be a 'regulated privilege'.

I think I'd go along with that. Some of these people you wouldn't trust to look after a goldfish over the weekend, never mind raise a kid.

And for all of Rule's bleating about unlawful and abhorrent government powers in the State or County court system being able to take children into care, precisely where does it say that the freedom to breed like rabbits on E then use the kids as sex toys or punching bags is protected by the constitution or the bill of rights? I must have missed that article or arrangement...



kiwisub12 -> RE: More Americans under attack!!! (10/13/2010 9:04:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: kiwisub12

The OP's posts tend to be as one-eyed as the "documents" and "news" that he posts. He takes the bits he wants and ignores the rest. [8|]


Well my purpose was a make a point not to do an exhaustive literary work on the matter.  HAve you considered the point the OP was intended to make?




The OP's  point seems to be that "the government" is evil and steals kids without any provocation other than espousing the "wrong" politics. However, the article you chose to prove it didn't give all the story - the kid was removed because the man was an abusive individual who has had other children removed for that reason, not because he had odd political leanings.

I'm guessing you couldn't come up with an instance where a child was removed from a family because of politics alone, so you came up with the next best thing  - an article that basically misrepresented the facts.

So, your premise of  "evil government" hasn't been proven, in fact the only thing proven by this thread is that you aren't above manipulating - or at least trying - public opinion.[8|]



Hillwilliam -> RE: More Americans under attack!!! (10/13/2010 9:11:07 AM)

Bottom line is this. The child wasn't taken because the mother's boyfriend had unpopular political leanings. The child was taken because he is an abusive, violent SCUMBAG and she is no prize either.



Moonhead -> RE: More Americans under attack!!! (10/13/2010 9:15:39 AM)

I did want to ask about that: is it as difficult for a kid to be taken into care in the 'States as it is over here? For all of the whining about the social services you hear from wife beaters and CBA defaulters in the UK, it's very difficult for somebody to lose custody, unless they're actively pimping their kids or something.



Hillwilliam -> RE: More Americans under attack!!! (10/13/2010 9:26:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I did want to ask about that: is it as difficult for a kid to be taken into care in the 'States as it is over here? For all of the whining about the social services you hear from wife beaters and CBA defaulters in the UK, it's very difficult for somebody to lose custody, unless they're actively pimping their kids or something.



It is VERY difficult to have parental rights terminated in the US and these people had already lost two.



Moonhead -> RE: More Americans under attack!!! (10/13/2010 9:30:18 AM)

That's what I'd suspected. Thanks for clearing that up.



Real0ne -> RE: More Americans under attack!!! (10/13/2010 9:35:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kiwisub12

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: kiwisub12

The OP's posts tend to be as one-eyed as the "documents" and "news" that he posts. He takes the bits he wants and ignores the rest. [8|]


Well my purpose was a make a point not to do an exhaustive literary work on the matter.  HAve you considered the point the OP was intended to make?




The OP's  point seems to be that "the government" is evil and steals kids without any provocation other than espousing the "wrong" politics. However, the article you chose to prove it didn't give all the story - the kid was removed because the man was an abusive individual who has had other children removed for that reason, not because he had odd political leanings.

I'm guessing you couldn't come up with an instance where a child was removed from a family because of politics alone, so you came up with the next best thing  - an article that basically misrepresented the facts.

So, your premise of  "evil government" hasn't been proven, in fact the only thing proven by this thread is that you aren't above manipulating - or at least trying - public opinion.[8|]



Please point out page and paragraph what ever.....where facts are entered into the record to support your position?







LaTigresse -> RE: More Americans under attack!!! (10/13/2010 9:40:40 AM)

When I stop reading/hearing about children being found, after multiple reports, still with the parent, severely abused, mistreated, starved, and often times DEAD..........I will worry about the rights of parents who have had their children taken from them. Then and ONLY then.



Real0ne -> RE: More Americans under attack!!! (10/13/2010 9:51:07 AM)

Have you considered running for office with full protection as your slogan?

One agent per home to POLICE each family and watch every move they make to preemptively deter ANY thing you consider a threat to them, their child or the welfare of the family?

Doesnt that take the welfare clause a bit to far? 

Protection at the end of the barrel of YOUR GUN?

Call up any cop shop in the us of a and they will tell you they are not chartered to protect you.

If what you said is remotely feasible it seems to me that would make the gubmint a 3rd party to anything that goes wrong and people should be able to sue the government for failure to protect if you stub your toe on the sidewalk.  How do you add your position up?


then as a final thought do you hold your government to the HIGH standards you hold the people at large?

If you do lets talk about waco as a starter.  weavers maybe?  (just to be glaringly obvious)







kiwisub12 -> RE: More Americans under attack!!! (10/13/2010 9:55:40 AM)

You are the one trying to get everyone's bowels in an uproar over evil government. I rather think its up to you to prove your case, and as of yet, you haven't done it. In fact the glaring holes in your case have been pointed out to you for the last three pages. You haven't accepted them, so why should i waste my time proving something to me that has no relevance.

As long as you believe every conspiracy theory and nutjob article on line, you are going to stay in your own little world of evil government and bad people. I can't believe, that if the government is as bad as you seem to think, that you would be still loose in the world. I would think a truly evil government would shut you and your naysaying friends down rapidly. After all, if this is the truth you are espousing, then they wouldn't want everyone to know - because the truth will set you free.



Real0ne -> RE: More Americans under attack!!! (10/13/2010 10:03:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kiwisub12

You are the one trying to get everyone's bowels in an uproar over evil government. I rather think its up to you to prove your case, and as of yet, you haven't done it. In fact the glaring holes in your case have been pointed out to you for the last three pages. You haven't accepted them, so why should i waste my time proving something to me that has no relevance.

As long as you believe every conspiracy theory and nutjob article on line, you are going to stay in your own little world of evil government and bad people. I can't believe, that if the government is as bad as you seem to think, that you would be still loose in the world. I would think a truly evil government would shut you and your naysaying friends down rapidly. After all, if this is the truth you are espousing, then they wouldn't want everyone to know - because the truth will set you free.


well thats not correct.

all I have seen so far is opinions and decisions executed based upon presumption.

again please respond with facts entered into the record.

just because some twit in a black robe decides someone should get counciling on a presumption does  NOT qualify it as fact entered into the record.



mnottertail -> RE: More Americans under attack!!! (10/13/2010 10:05:51 AM)

lol, the spiral of that circular argument is by far the most astounding thing I shall witness today.



Real0ne -> RE: More Americans under attack!!! (10/13/2010 10:10:21 AM)

unfortunately it becomes circular when people fail to acknowledge there is a right known as "due process of law" which has been stomped upon and replaced by due presumption by process.



Moonhead -> RE: More Americans under attack!!! (10/13/2010 10:25:36 AM)

Right.
So if somebody's a member of a lunatic fringe right leaning group, and has their kid taken into care, it's because the evil Democrat junta (who weren't, the last time I checked, running any branch of the Californian state government) has it in for honest child abusing conservative reactionaries.
Nothing to do with the fact that he had two prior kids taken into care under the Chimp. Were you pissing and moaning about those at the time, or has that just become an issue (like the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, or bank bailouts at the taxpayer's expense) since the Kenyan was elected?
Care to show where you were complaining about the two prior kids this oaf's been deemed unfit to look after taken into care?
Sugarland Express wasn't a documentary, dig?



Hillwilliam -> RE: More Americans under attack!!! (10/13/2010 10:30:04 AM)

It seems that the only way Realone would approve of this child being taken away would be as a pummeled corpse.



Moonhead -> RE: More Americans under attack!!! (10/13/2010 10:32:16 AM)

There's a lot of kids left in that state while the social services are trying to get a court order, sadly.

Still, in RealOne's case, doubtless he'd then throw a hissy fit about the evil feds denying him the Sunday roast he'd been looking forwards to all week...



Real0ne -> RE: More Americans under attack!!! (10/13/2010 10:36:30 AM)

I have my hands full keeping up with the syntax terrorists as proven in the legal dictionaries let alone everyone private slang.

If all that meant that I had an obligation by some standard you derived on other matters to speak out to justify speaking about this is a bit weak dont you think?

Do you feel justice by due process of presumption has authority over the constitution in which justice as a function of due process of law is secured?



Moonhead -> RE: More Americans under attack!!! (10/13/2010 10:39:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

I have my hands full keeping up with the syntax terrorists as proven in the legal dictionaries let alone everyone private slang.

If all that meant that I had an obligation by some standard you derived on other matters to speak out to justify speaking about this is a bit weak dont you think?

Do you feel justice by due process of presumption has authority over the constitution in which justice as a function of due process of law is secured?


Just out of interest, did you have any problem with Bush ignoring the constitution (and international law, come to that) when it suited Haliburton'shis purposes?



Real0ne -> RE: More Americans under attack!!! (10/13/2010 10:50:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

I have my hands full keeping up with the syntax terrorists as proven in the legal dictionaries let alone everyone private slang.

If all that meant that I had an obligation by some standard you derived on other matters to speak out to justify speaking about this is a bit weak dont you think?

Do you feel justice by due process of presumption has authority over the constitution in which justice as a function of due process of law is secured?


Just out of interest, did you have any problem with Bush ignoring the constitution (and international law, come to that) when it suited Haliburton'shis purposes?


did he swear an oath to defend and support the same constitution you have in your mind or a different one?

If he swore an oath to the same one you envision in your mind then he has a duty to uphold that oath.

Maybe he had a priority duty that trumps the constitution?

Those wabbits are really sneaky ya know...

Then again maybe they have become nothing more than organized mafia under a different name?

BTW are you a party to the constitution?





Moonhead -> RE: More Americans under attack!!! (10/13/2010 10:55:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

I have my hands full keeping up with the syntax terrorists as proven in the legal dictionaries let alone everyone private slang.

If all that meant that I had an obligation by some standard you derived on other matters to speak out to justify speaking about this is a bit weak dont you think?

Do you feel justice by due process of presumption has authority over the constitution in which justice as a function of due process of law is secured?


Just out of interest, did you have any problem with Bush ignoring the constitution (and international law, come to that) when it suited Haliburton'shis purposes?


did he swear an oath to defend and support the same constitution you have in your mind or a different one?

If he swore an oath to the same one you envision in your mind then he has a duty to uphold that oath.

Maybe he had a priority duty that trumps the constitution?

Those wabbits are really sneaky ya know...

Then again maybe they have become nothing more than organized mafia under a different name?

BTW are you a party to the constitution?




Just so we know: as this twit has already had a couple of kids taken into care under the previous government, were you complaining about that at the time?
This is a question you've already ignored once, and I'd be interested to hear an answer. Yes or no?



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875