A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Doug unzips and exposes himself.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 10th 04, 03:18 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Doug unzips and exposes himself.

"Doug" wrote in message ...
How on earth did you get that title for your subject line, Kane? What
follows in your post does nothing to substantiate your subject line.


Mmmm...because you snipped selectively to reply in this post?

It referred to a change in tactics. You have slipped into ad hom,
something not common to your posts, not openly.

(creating "with flowers in
their hair" slogan in the sixties,


Kane writes:

I used to do "slogan in the sixties?"


Hi, Kane!

No, as you can see above, I wrote that you claimed you created the slogan,
"with flowers in their hair." Not that the claim is any less absurd than
how you worded your question.


Well, you cut the "do" word from the previous sentence by me to create
your odd claim that I made a claim.

Those times were wild and I was right in the middle of it all, but I'd
hardly claim to do something I didn't do. If I made any mention of
"flowers in their hair" it would have been a joke, not a serious claim
I made up the slogan.

But you put it in quotes, let's see if you can find where I said it,
hokay?

I just tried a google on the entire Usenet archive, not just our
thread or group. Here's what I got (and I read many permutations and
variations)

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...+hair%22&meta=

Your post and my response. No Kane post where I claimed to have
created the slogan. Gosh maybe my old brain is skipping faster than
the rope is turning. Help me out here, recover the post where I said
that.

What were YOU doing in the sixties? People did many things. Look up
the sixities and the name "the diggers" and "san francisco" if you
find any pics I'm problem in some. We served free food and ran a free
department store.


I was 400 miles south of San Francisco doing many things, absent the flowers
in my hair. I am very familar


Now familiar? Who started it, and what was his profession?

with the hundreds of people who collectively
referred to themselves as "diggers."


I knew probably less than a hundred. And I was in the thick of things.
Who were these "hundreds" that I never met?

The diggers did a lot to help hippies
who were starving and often the victims of small-time hoods


Yep, and some of us are still at helping the victims of small time
hoods.

By the way, the store and the free food was open to everyone. Not just
hippies.

who mingled with
them. I liked to consider myself a hippie, but the ones with flowers in
their hair often considered me part of the establishment -- a tremendous
disappointment for me.


Aw, we really really missed you.

I found that when I flashed the peace sign at them
from my Pacific Telephone van, I would get a different sort of gesture back.
g


Never from me. You have to do more than just have a surface appearance
to earn my hand salute.

But I had a family to support, so I remained with the hippies in spirit
alone.


So did I, and go to school, and volunteer work in the Haight.

If you weren't there, you know **** about the sixties.


I was there.


Really. Everyone born before 1960 was there, Doug. But you weren't
"there" and you just described how you weren't. You heard about it,
and you observed it from time to time. That's all. No big deal. Just
don't claim what you can't honestly claim.

Not often. But I did drive a taxi for about a year in Honolulu. One
meets a lot of celebrities in such a job, and hanging out in resort
areas, which I did a lot of with my import business tends also to do
the same. The list is too long, and unimportant to bother with.

But you seem fascinated.


Well, I can see what you would perceive it that way.


Oh, you aren't then? Whew! What a relief.

You would not have
created and written of the illusions if they did not fascinate you.


I didn't say "I" was fascinated. I said YOU were. You been dippin'
into The Plants liquid fertilizer? Again?

Or are you fascinated because I am?

lunching with LCSW CPS
caseworkers, etc.)


Yep. For good reasons. Both because of the location I worked in and
the opportunity to keep up on their activities.


I wondered at the time you created this one why a therapist would be doing
the job of an entry-level CPS caseworker.


Didn't create it. It simply was so. I was neither a therapist nor cps
worker.

It is especially improbable
because the Lincensed Clinical Social Worker would have to keep up her
porficiency by seeing clients as a therapist. How does one do that when all
CPS agencies I know about would consider such clinical practice a conflict
of interest?


Well, you see, Doug, when you start making things up in hopes you can
later babble some sly camophlaged ad hom you have to start with
something. You started with an assumption of what I did and what I was
that wasn't true, but said in such a way to make it appear to any
reader, other than me, that I was in fact either of those things.

Nice try.

What is important is what the man has to say.


Naw. That's terrible inconsistent. You've said, possibly even more
than once, that what I have to say is unimportant.


What you have to say regarding child welfare issues is important, as I have
stated.


The old gimmick of pretending to separate the message from the
messenger isn't going to fly. If what I say is important, Doug, then
any logical person would assume I have some personal importance.

To you, at any rate, or you wouldn't be so busy talking NOW NOT about
the message but the messenger. Why IS that, Doug?

This is a forum for the robust discussion of ideas and opinions.


And yet you keep talking about me?

What remains unimportant is who the particular contributor perceives himself
to be. Principals before personalities.


No Doug, that simply isn't true.

People come with principals(and the use of "personalities" to try and
step aside from the fact you ARE talking about people is duly noted
chuckle). It is important to note that those bent on their own
demogogery and agenda do a lot of work trying to hide that very thing,
because if applied to them the cat may be out of the bag rather
quickly.

You have associated with people in this ng that are highly
questionable not by their surface appearance but what they themselves
have related they do and their intent. Not only that, dangerous
people.

Your unwillingness to confront them reflects on the value you put in
them for their agreement with you on some things. You are tainted by
their stink.

Tsk, Doug. Why prove my assertions about you as true?


What assertions are those, Kane?


That you are deceptive and dishonest.

I have written nothing here that confirms
any of your "assertions" that I know of.


I just trotted you through a few, and I have continuously in other
posts.

To the contrary, I have poked a
little fun at some of the more odd assertions you have made about yourself.


You went out of your way to stop discussing issues to give your
attention to my credibility. Some of it is hardly poking fun.

So tell us, why were you "poking fun?"

When you pretend to levity it does not ring true. You are a cold
calculating fish.

It is important to employ critical thinking skills in validating or
rejecting his comments and, as some do from time to time, debating on

this
forum those items you take issue with.


Yep. And interestingly, when folks dig long enough they find I am
usually correct.


I can understand how you would perceive yourself to be usually correct.


That sentence could have been missing and you would have fully made
your point with the comment below. You included it to bias the reader.
No big deal, I just didn't want anyone to miss it.

Since contributors to this newsgroup obviously believe themselves to be
correct, I mentioned that it is important for readers to exercise critical
thinking in coming to their own conculsions.


Smoke and mirrors. And the first words out of a con man's mouth. "You
were picked to be a participant on your obvious ability to be
discriminating and on your good taste." "We know you will do the right
thing." "In fact we insist that you fully test our product and return
it for full refund if you are not satisfied."

"Of course "we" will pull up stakes and be in another state by the
time you catch on to how we have conned you."

No, Doug, I am going to be honest with these folks as I have been in
the past, but no poking fun. They have sucked up to you precisely
because they LACK actual critical thinking skills..formal ones as
taught at university level.

Everyone THINKS they are a critical thinker, until their first day in
a class dissecting a new article or a TV pitch transcript, from the
words of a trained journalist and pr man.

Boy do the lights come on.

You are very skilled, Doug. I admire that, but not what I think your
agenda is.

It's made your life interesting, right?


It is, of course, solely up to me to make my life interesting.


Another one of the "set the bias hood" preambles.

I try my
best. Generally, I find the world and the folks who inhabit it to be very
interesting. All ideas and opinions regarding child welfare issues are of
interest to me. It is what is written in this forum that interests me, not
its authors.


People come with something more than a title, Doug. They bring
principles or the lack of them with them.

And you just said what I have to say is important. How does that fit
with this bit of minimizing about folks not having any interest except
as to "why doesn't he tell us, etc."


What you have to say about child welfare issues is important.


Some think I have something important to say about other issues, that
will turn out to be very closely connected.

Who you
perceive yourself to be and any surrounding mystery you perceive is created
by not telling us is of no interest to me.


Yet you go on and on, and repeating that. I find it fascinating.

Tsk Doug. Could I be getting to you? You really fumbled your way
through this one.


How on earth could you be "getting to me?"


Well, Doug...........here you ARE.

Because we take different
positions on some child welfare issues?


Nope.

Though we are in short supply here. It could be you are interested
because of my persistance.

Of course not.


Your nose is growing.

The name-calling
has never bothered me any more than it would bother you if I chose to do it.


You have name called me just as much as I you. Why does it not look so
to the less decerning reader? Because I am honest. And you are a
sneak.

Why would I be concerned about what you think about me personally? You
don't know me.


You don't know that I don't.

How is it that I am, as you have claimed, so unimportant, yet you
spend your time and energy working so hard to discredit me? Especially
as I get closer to the core....which you recently dodge as fast as you
could make your little legs churn.


I work to discredit the misinformation you post to the newsgroup about CPS
policy and practice.


Then why so much focus on me lately as I bring up new subjects?

I first responded to HSLDA defense many months back. You reacted. You
made me more curious. I looked at what I knew already and even
expanded on it a bit to make sure things hadn't changed.

I work to debate your position on some of the issues
we discuss.


Yes, you do "work" alrighty.

This is important to me because readers may act based upon this
misinformation and open the door to having the state do damage to their
children and their families.


Yet you went on for many posts defending a ploy that bobb brought up
until you finally had to admit that the impression people were going
to be left with would mislead them to think they had some assurance of
protection from CPS intervention.

When you cloak this misinformation in
commentary about on hands experience,


I don't have to cloak it. And don't.

like having lawyers sunning themselves
in your backyard at the very moment we are discussing legal issues,


I found it a funny coincidence. In fact I laughed with my wife and Kim
about it and about you when I joined them.

The lengths you are going to to discredit me is way beyond
obvious...and I thought you only were interested in the "issues.

it
becomes appropriate


Why?

to point out your habit of creating characters and
events to support your argument.


I had a lawyer involved in educational issues sitting on my deck
chatting with my wife and you think I created her? I'll tell Kim you
think I made her up and that she wasn't here that day.

That your crediability is in question does not make your posts any less
interesting.


But it is very important to you to go after my credibility now, isn't
it, Doug? You never so blatantly worked at this in the past.

And I've brought up three organizations. Coincidence?

As far as getting to the "core," as you put it, we move into delusional
land.


Nope. I've posted not only names but even supplied URLS for anyone's
access that wanted to check. There is no delusion about the people,
the organizations, or the intent.

I have cited others that do research. I have cited the principles
involved, and in the best tradition...but with FAR more access
offerred....extended the invition you claim to do...that people
examine the facts for themselves.

Yet you appear to be claiming I haven't. Why, Doug?

You are not usually so easily caught in a lie. What motivates you to
take this much of a chance? What urgency is there?

For instance, just to show how bad your memory is, or how much of a
liar you a

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...g.goog le.com

In this post of Sept 03, in this ng, I provided about 4 or five
clickable URLS, two of which were from the very people themselves:

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

www.chalcedon.edu

www.ustaxpayers.org

This isn't new stuff, Doug.

I have no idea of what you are talking about.


Short memory. I've been talking about an organization that you are
very familiar with and have gone to great lengths to defend the
actions of. You will again in this post. I have also brought up CR,
which resulted in yet more interest in minimizing by you and others
here....oddly, all folks that side with you in the CPS question.

Now I've mentioned two MORE organizations, K-12 and Knowledge
Universe, Michael Farriss and Michael Milken, and here you are
hammering away very uncharacteristically and two of your butt lickin
cronies right behind you attemting to discredit any thought that CR
might be of critical interest.

What is this "core"
you perceive you are getting close to? Without knowing what the heck you
are referring to, I am at a loss to respond in any other way than I am now.


I think you are pretending ignorance. I mentioned K-12 and KU and the
principles and here you are, knocking yourself out shuffling about as
fast as I've ever seen you go, taking far more risks and going on and
on about ME rather than what I have to say.

The uncharacteristic behavior of a subject should be of interest to
those in intelligence work, law enforcement, and journalism.

What some intellgence officers, and law enforcment, and journalists
forget though is the axion works both ways. Uncharacteristic behavior
by them waves a flag.

And either they should not behave uncharacteristically, or they should
do so for an exlicit purpose.

So, I have to ask myself: Is Doug behaving uncharacteristically (and
I'm not suggesting you are any of the above but a journalist) because
he doesn't know the axiom, or because he does and he has a purpose?

So far, no luck. I haven't a clue what you are up to, but one of your
fools might give it away. I love how they came after me in concert
with you.

I am unwilling to share in delusions or waste time looking for shadows cast
by unseen, paranoid-induced creatures.


Ooooo...very good one.

Yet I posted very exact references and later in this post I do yet
again...meaning before you hit the send button, you knew that. You had
read them. Yet you left this bit of desperation stand.
"delusions""shadows" " creatures" "paranoid induced."

Could you please hold that flag up higher. I think the red washes out
against the coward yellow background on your agenda.

If you want to talk about some sort
of core allegence you perceive I have, lets get out of Plato's cave and
discuss it in the light of day.


The questioner dislikes questions? Tsk.

As for my perceptions, well they come and they go, they change and the
wax and they wane and I rethink them, and then reconsider the past
thinking...you know, analysis.

Keep talking.

No, Doug. It's not the usual crop of vendors, as you claim, that are
going to serve CPS clients. There are new players on the field and
I've seen you defend one of the pack.


Who are these "new players?"


Apparently you don't read through a post before asking questions,
Plato.

Regardless of the "professionals" involved, CPS malpractice has been the
fruit of federally mandated procedures since 1974 and the measures we
discussed are simply extensions of that malpractice. I would agree with
many social work researchers who have concluded that the system needs to be
torn down and rebuilt before any real change can be expected in child
welfare practice. Until then, adjustments such as those you posted will
simply extend -- and usually compound -- the present dysfunction in
practice.


Your soap box needs a new coat of paint. You've left it out in the
weather, or your lies have faded it.

There is not system of anykind, even marriage, that MIGHT not improve
by destruction and replacement. It's a simple strawman dressed in
buttons and bows to hide the stench of the rotten vegetation.

Yes, no one would disagree that a system can likely be improved by
destroying and rebuilding.

What they miss it the cost. Lives and money, and personal freedom.

And they aren't after being smalltime vendors of therapy and
rehabilitation. They want the whole ball of wax, which includes
mandated entre' into family homes.


Owners and operators of "group homes" and "residential treatment facilities"
for foster children are hardly smalltime.


Compare to the folks I believe have their eyes on the prize, your
examples are selling lemonade from a cardtable on the sidewalk.

They are huge, multi-state
corporations with very high profit margins.


Well, for non-profits, as most are, I'd say that's quite a feat.

There are thousands of big time
players in the current system sucking off the teat of federal and state
child welfare funding.


I once worked for what was considered the premier one in the state I
resided in.
Not a fancy car among them. The director lived in a middle class
neighborhood, and old one. No Bahama vacations. No world cruises. A
three year old car purchase was celebrated like the second coming.

You are, as usual lying.

The worst abuses by vedors are the NEW ones that hopped on with great
celebration by some in this ng because it was supposed to reform CPS
abuses, and a couple of years later they folded.

And you while you agree with me on that being bad.....of course you
do....(but I wonder how you intend providing "front end services" to
people that don't want them)....you seem very reluctant to, even
waving your hands with a very clear message, "don't pay any attention
to the man behind the curtain."


*I* do not intend to provide front end services involuntarily.


You know *You* don't but I know that it's coming. The above paragraph
was to kic you in your sleeping self centered ass and wake you up.

My very
point in the post was that such services could not successfully be provided
to people who did not want them.


The issue isn't the efficacy of services you misleading lying subject
segwaying twit, caught once again, but that someone bigger than any
before have their eyes on this income source, and they will, if Bush
is reelected, GET IT.

And it will cost citizen's bigtime and I'm not just talking money
here.

I believe that the feds have plans to
finance involuntary services on the front end just as they now finance
involuntary services.


I have to assume you miskeyed your first, "involuntary" and it was
meant to be "voluntary."

I'll start by assuming you meant exactly what you wrote, presuming
front end as preventive, and the "now finance" as in home services to
clients in the system.

That IS my problem. Preventive services means eiter voluntary and we
know how fast the junkies will flock to that. Or it means uninvited
intrusion either slyly by smilling service workers at the door when
there is a new baby, with baskets of information and welcome wagon
sample bags (apologies to the Welcome Wagon ladies).

Or, presuming the typo:

No mincing about....a law that says register with the state when you
have a child and expect a visitor within 12 working days and you will
be breaking the law if you do not let the visitor examine the baby and
the rest of your children, your pantry and the marriage bed.

I don't see anyone waving their hands behind the curtain, Kane. Do you?


Peekaboo.

Your zipper is undone and you are hanging out.

I
don't see any shadows of any characters behind the curtain.



The one directly below the light casts too small a shadow for him to
notice.

If you aren't in the employ of the people I keep pointing at you are
missing one hell of a bet to line your pockets richly. You could DO
better work for them than you do right here.

You've sucked this pack in very well. They were easy and probably just
practice for you, but you did it well.

Every old con I've ever seen is present here. Glad handing. The Pigeon
Drop. Ponzi. All over the place. You've got these folks lapping it up
hence doing ANYTHING but critically thinking.

Me, they don't like much at all....R R R R ....and dispite themselves
they WILL think. I've assured that. Or what I've put in these posts
will nag them and nag them and nag them. They think about me (as if
THAT mattered, it's really the message) in their dreams, I'll
guarantee it.

And the important part (again, not me) will keep coming back.

Can they risk being wrong?

Honorable people can't. The rest can stick it up their asses, of
course.

I'm not looking to recruit the likes of those YOU do. I want people
that wake up to be decent and honest. And interestingly some of the
ones I sometimes give the worst time to have that in them. They don't
have to agree with me, only be provoked to thing...critically, and
actually look at the data.

If you do, lets
get those suckers the hell out of there and take a look at them.


You didn't read the whole post first.

Right now,
it seems you are standing behind spectators making finger gestures and
casting shadows on the wall.


Well, if the URLs I've posted from September last year in this ng are
the shadows produced by finger gestures, here's one for you:

oo0o

And the two most recent one's I posted that I KNOW you read before you
posted this...do they have anything at all to do with your sudden
interest in me personally rather than my message?

Let me put it this way: if you are honorable and ethical, and I'm
quite comfortable with the idea you might be, I can do NO harm turning
you on to what I have been saying for some time now, and you have
read.

You might do something honest about a real problem...who knows.

What is it about where I'm going that has you so very interested in
discrediting me, Doug?


Where are you going, Kane? I haven't a clue.


Well, since I've been talking about HSLDA for some time, and recently
I've pointed even more emphatically at them, and just recently at more
of the same crowd, I have to ask, ARE YOU BLIND ASSHOLE?

My interest in challenging statements you have made that I believe to be
untrue has been ongoing for some years now. That has not changed.


What a dumb ****. Do you think I missed that you just changed the
subject? I didn't ask you about about our counter debates. I haven't
even mentioned them. I have talked only about the risks of a new set
of players, who have been around setting this up for some time, to
step into the light and make their move publically now that they have
support at the highest levels.

First by saying that what I say is unimportant, now that it is, and
who knows what next, as long as it will pull everyones eyes away from
what I'm talking about to our little exchanges.


I never said that what you had to say was unimportant. To the contrary, I
have written that what you have to say is important.


You have conveniently ignored when I've cornered you over your
analysis of data.

That amounts to the same thing.

And:
(chinese case-guardianship)

"What you just said is silliness."
"What you have done is shoot yourself in
the foot."

"This is just an internet newsgroup, Kane. What is said here is just
not
that important. No big deal."


I have said that who
you perceive yourself to be is unimportant -- at least to me.


Then why are you spending so much time telling me and retelling me? If
it were actually true to you you would ignore it.

How on earth
has this posture ever taken everyone's eyes away from what you are talking
about?


How on earth do you live with yourself when you do this kind of
misleading and misdirection?

I made no claim that your treatment of ME was a misdirection, but that
you bother to might just be.

It's as much when you do something as what you do, probably More
important in fact.

If I hadn't just brought up the key players in what I think is going
to be a very bad scene for families (one that you champion with the
same excuse used to
justofy everything from eating the last piece of pie, to genocidal
purging)we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Had you suddenly switched your style right after some other issue I
brought up we'd be having THAT conversation.

But this conversation ripe with discussions of me that might go to my
crediblity and barren of any real discussion of the subjects I brought
up THIS TIME. Teh same old saw about the great service to families by
HSLDA doesn't cut it. And refusal to look at that "service" against
the possiblity of a larger agenda by the servers, or maybe it should
be, "servicers," is again, duly noted chuckle.

I have tried over the years to point out what you are talking about
and sometimes challenge it.


You haven't "tried." What a silly thing to say.

Here you go folks.

And this time I will NOT give citations. I want YOU to do the work
yourself. Because I believe our system of government works when people
invest in it by their own labors and thought.

Here are a series of keywards for search fields. It you don't know how
to google or use other search engines this the time to learn:

(use any and all combinations)

"Michael Milken"

"William Bennett"

"Knowledge Universe"

"K-12"

"Michael Farris:"

"Christian Reconstructionism"

"HSLDA"

"Patrick Henry College"

"Intelligence training" (put these two together)

"Cyber school"

And as Doug suggests, do some critical thinking. See if you can put
things together as the links start to show up. Look for names that
turn up in more than one place. Organizations, in convoluted but
imaginative relationships to each other. Apparently they are not
completely proud of what they are doing. But it's got billions of
dollars in it, so they will continue.

Look for who is funding what...as in wealthy very right-wing folks.


They seem like shadows to me.


No, Doug, the shadow NOW, is right were you stand by this attempt to
minimze and divert folks from looking for themselves. YOu, the great
champion of folks doing critical thinking for themselves are trying to
direct them away.

With all due respect,


Translation: "With every intent to divert and pretend to a respect I
do not have."

I think I will pass.


Never let it be said that a "critial thinker" wasted a moment on
someone else's suggestion that an issue deserved attention.

I'm coming to think I misjudged you. That my name calling and ad hom
fell far short of what you really are.

If you are ever willing to come out into the daylight with what you are
talking about, I would be happy to learn what you have to teach.


I have done so. You are dodging.

I am not going to post entire webpages on this ng. I have pointed by
URL to the pages that give the story better than I could tell it. If
YOU are a critical thinker all you'll have to do is read and make the
connections yourself.

YOu were a journalist. You know exactly how to do that. YOu know to
watch for names that appear in more than one place to indicated
connections to causes and organizations. You know (or you were as
poorly a trained journalist as you are a tactician) how to find the
connections between organizations.

You know how to ferret out intent in a declaration.

And you know perfectly well that if I slipped just right that I might
be subject to a charge of libel or slander. I've done this too long to
fall for that one, smartass.

I can only point to the evidence and let YOU make your own critical
analysis.

If you won't look then I have to ask what makes you so sure there is
nothign to see, or is it that you want the other readers to think
there is nothing to see?

Three of you, going at me hammer and tongs over this. Hmmmmmm.......

As I have said before, you seem preoccupied with individual and group
personalities and their motives.


And this has a significance in relation to normal human behavior how?

Are you pretending that people are not generally and universally
preoccupied with others behavior and motives? YOu the great reformer
of CPS by questioning its intentions and motives and that of vendors,
and other "child welfare industry" profiteers?

Wanna play some more, sucker?

I hope you understand this vantage point
does not interest me.


I hope you understand that I can see you clearly trying to influence
others away from taking a look for themselves. I trust that a few will
not step out of your sphere of influence and look, but I also trust
that many here, even those you've misled and conned, have at their
core a solid decency and will look for themselves.

I am interested in their ideas and the position they
take on child welfare issues.


What they have to say is important to me. Who they are is not.


Then how is it you want to make your judgement of whether or not to
look based only on their names and my referrancing them, and NOT at
the "What they have to say," eh?

As in, "I think I'll pass" when I offered you the chance to look for
yourself?

Now if you like I can post my URLs all again, but they aren't hard to
find in my past posts. Just google on my addy with the search subjects
above and you'll have them all.

Someone told me once I'd probably like you if we met face to face. So
far. No luck. But if you are the man you claim to be that could
happen. Go look. Stop dancing.

What they have to say has a great deal to do with family. Education is
the door.

Note the political forays, HSLDA would be a good place to start...an
organization that is nonprofit...but it has an arm that is very
involved in legislation and politics, as we've seen here.


Here comes the blah blah again. Are you too ignorant to remember what
is intended by the statement, "I'm from the government and I'm here to
help you," and those that lobby that same government?

Do you always assume that the simple stated intent is all the intent?
That NOT looking at other possibilities of intent is the smart thing
to do?

Boy, are you going to make a great politician.

HSLDA was instrumental in getting Congress to require CPS workers to learn
about rights retained by children and their families and to require CPS to
obtain warrants before seizing children. These were excellent reform
measures which now govern CPS practice. HSLDA is very active in legally
defending its members against wrongful CPS interventions. I applaud these
efforts. I know little of the organization that carried them out. I am not
interested in WHO initiated these measures to protect children and their
families, but in the measures themselves. It represents progress in
reforming a system badly in need of reform.


Biased nonsense wrapped in hyperbolic propaganda. It didn't need a new
law.

It needed enforcement. A few court cases could have done it. YOu
yourself have posted, and your cronies, caselaw that would support
just such training and protection.

When you go to the feds with a plea for help you are stepping into the
presence of a Don Corleone presence. You ARE going to be asked for a
favor someday.

And that is exactly how power is managed.

When you start talking about what is important, really important, and
note how hard Doug works to discredit me, and leave off discussions
with his little crew of twits, you might compare some notes here and
catch on.


I thought we were talking about what is really important in this newsgroup.


Yes. Exactly.

If you have something else that is more important to talk about, please go
right ahead and share it with us.


I did above and pretending I didn't doesn't work now nor has it in the
past for you.

YOu are not just exposing yourself now, you are jacking off publically
for everyone to see. That one couldn't get by even The Syncophant
Plant.

If you don't, and others don't that are also looking at some of these
things outside this ng, we are in for a very bad time in America. The
right, and especially the fundy religious right want to not only
politically control this country but to profit personally from that
control themselves.


Shadows.


Everything has a shadow. And if that's all you look at then it's
pretty obvious what you wish to do here.

Are you saying they do NOT want to control the government and they are
not real?

You are either one of them then and diverting, and you are a damn fool
for makin such a stupid claim given the current administration.

They even admit it.

And if you aren't THEM, you are dogmeat.


Who are they?


Lost your guts? That's either a coward talking, or someone that has
been outted and can't think of what else to say.

"They" are who I have given many citations about, and names and
intent, and invited folks to go look for themselves.

So far your two faithful puppies have shown a reluctance to do
anything but ad hom attack...and now YOU...tsk, Doug. Tsk.

Why are you minimizing this?

Enjoy, Doug.


Thank you! You too, sir!


I do, every minute of it. Especially when you feel your back against
the wall and lose your usual composure and start babbling a bit.

Doug


Kane
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.