the cps mess: opportunity squandered (cross-posted)

[[email protected]]

opposition to ill-defined child abuse and neglect doesn't equate into
support for an overpriced, overbearing, and incompetent bureaucracy as
the solution.....................the real tragedy of the cps mess is
its heavy-handed and agenda-driven bureaucracy destroyed the public's
trust in the ability of publicly-funded complex political institutions
to resolve childcare inadequacies.............the numerous disasters
and injustices created by cps ruined any chance for more creative and
successful answers in the foreseeable future................

[0:->]

wrote:
> opposition to ill-defined child abuse and neglect doesn't equate into
> support for an overpriced, overbearing, and incompetent bureaucracy as
> the solution.....................the real tragedy of the cps mess is
> its heavy-handed and agenda-driven bureaucracy destroyed the public's
> trust in the ability of publicly-funded complex political institutions
> to resolve childcare inadequacies.............the numerous disasters
> and injustices created by cps ruined any chance for more creative and
> successful answers in the foreseeable future................

Wonderfully obtuse.

Now tell us how you would setup and run a child protection agency.

We'd like to see how YOU would increase the interventions on 'real'
abuse cases. How you would define abuse. What you would do about 'risk
to the child.' What criteria you would set and what guidelines you would
give workers in "spanking" cases to determine what was spanking and what
was abuse.

Go ahead, observer. Show us YOUR solutions. If they are any good then
you will have the credibility to criticize what is currently done.

Or.....you can continue your pointless emotion loaded line of bs.

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

The answers I favor:

Police if it's criminal.
Nobody if it's not criminal.

To intrude in a non-criminal situation is a constitutional violation.
It's exactly the sort of intrusive government the Constitution
was designed to prevent.

CPS is inherently unconstitutional from the get go.
Enforcement of non-laws about non-crime is unconstitutional.

It's a socialistic attempt at social engineering.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> The answers I favor:
>
> Police if it's criminal.
> Nobody if it's not criminal.

Can I presume you understand your own logic fully?

The next time you are out on the freeway and someone roars by at
95-100mph and the cop next to smiles and waves when you look at him
quizzically, remember, until their is an injury the crazy driver is only
putting people at risk and hasn't injured anyone.

> To intrude in a non-criminal situation is a constitutional violation.

No, your understanding of law if flawed. I'm starting to wonder if you
have ever read the Constitution in detail and with some critical
reasoning skills applied.

Are you aware, for instance, that due to the Anti-federalist pressure,
bless their souls, where the Constitution does NOT speak to an issue,
the states may proceed on their own.

The constant attempt by SOME anti-CPS nitwits to skirt that leaves those
of us that KNOW the Constitution roaring with laughter at you nitwits.

It is NOT illegal to "intrude" in a non-criminal situation.

> It's exactly the sort of intrusive government the Constitution
> was designed to prevent.

No it was not. It was specifically designed to protect ALL citizen's
rights, include those not able to protect themselves.

And THAT is the problem you folks have and keep walking around as though
it did not exist.

YOU never speak in defense of the child's RIGHTS, and you make up rights
that you word so it pretends to be for the child, but in fact is for the
parent.

Like, NO ONE CAN EXAMINE MY CHILD WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. Bull****.

> CPS is inherently unconstitutional from the get go.
> Enforcement of non-laws about non-crime is unconstitutional.

Alright, Constitutional Scholar, show us the specific section and
sentences of the Constitution that applies...please remember the BOR as
well, and let's get down TO IT.

> It's a socialistic attempt at social engineering.

Bull****. YOU pimple asses are asking for SOCIALIST solutions by turning
your back on the Constitution as it stands.

You crank up a specific case, where indeed, someone DID violate the law,
and the Constitutional rights of someone.

THEN, like the self serving child hated twits you are, you attempt to
extrapolate that to all CPS child abuse cases, BUT if CPS happens to NOT
stop an injury or death of a child you are more than willing to claim
they didn't DO THEIR JOB RIGHT....which, when pressed you cannot come up
with an answer to HOW, that would NOT violate someone's constitutional
rights.

You stand on your own tongues and cry out in pain for the pain to stop.

Stupid twits.

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[[email protected]]

hell, dumb ass, when the abridged bill of rights was attached to the
ratified constitution, none of the first eight amendments applied to
the states..................it probably never dawned on even the most
distrustful anti-federalists to write, "the right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and CHILDREN against
unreasonable searches"............the notion of an intrusive
bureaucracy was something the second generation of founding fathers
thought they had left with king george and his red coats...............

]:^< runs around her dog lot barking about the bill of
rights..............

[[email protected]]

again, your proof that i am, was, or ever will be observer is
what..............ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........ .........

]:^< runs around her dog lot barking that maggie is
observer..............

[0:->]

wrote:
> hell, dumb ass, when the abridged bill of rights was attached to the
> ratified constitution, none of the first eight amendments applied to
> the states..................

Is this what you would call debate?

Right off the bat opening with a false claim?

Take a look at Amendment VI and VII, dummy (last I heard they come
before VIII):

Amendment VI (1791)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,
and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII (1791)

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no
fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the
United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

In fact, all the amendments to the constitution do in fact apply to the
states. That is why Amendment X is worded thusly:

Amendment X (1791)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively,
or to the people.

> it probably never dawned on even the most
> distrustful anti-federalists to write, "the right of the people to be
> secure in their persons, houses, papers, and CHILDREN against
> unreasonable searches"............

Why would the concept not occur (if not the exact wording)? Your failure
to quote the part that would include children is duly noted:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

See that last phrase? Children are persons. It doesn't say "arrested,"
or "incarcerated," but simply seized. Apparently the framers were
smarter than you twits.

They left open that persons can be in fact seized for reasons other than
arrest.

> the notion of an intrusive
> bureaucracy was something the second generation of founding fathers
> thought they had left with king george and his red coats...............

No, stupid, the framers and those that followed knew perfectly well that
governments of ALL kinds require intrusiveness as part of their mandated
duties. Without that "intrusive" component a government doesn't exist.
It can DO nothing for the people.

> ]:^< runs around her dog lot barking about the bill of
> rights..............

More knowledgeably than you, observer.




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

wrote:
> again, your proof that i am, was, or ever will be observer is
> what..............ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........ .........

Proof?

> ]:^< runs around her dog lot barking that maggie is
> observer..............

Because maggie is.

I wonder if others have noticed the 'opinions' has stopped posting
entirely.

R R R R R







--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Why has Dan Sullivan stopped posting here?

[[email protected]]

you obviously don't know twentieth century supreme court decisions,
such as gideon, or their significance..................

]:^< runs around her dog lot barking about how much she knows about the
constitution...........

[[email protected]]

"Greegor" > wrote:
> Why has Dan Sullivan stopped posting here?
Uhhh. I think that picture of Betty Jean is actually the waffleman? Next
news will be that K-9 and her are actually married and they have a son that
is actually a girl that thinks it's a sheep. But the sheep does meth and
runs away because of the way the two creepy looking fat people stare at him
salivating. Of course Sully only wants to eat the sheep, McBrag has other
intentions. Woolly Bullie.
Holy effin' cow, I mean...sheep. Witch (Hey Walmart stock up on the extra
heavy duty brooms, we got us biggie!) actually once posted that people
compare her to Marilyn Monroe? ah hahahhahahahahaha. Roll over Marilyn!!!
Man o live. Life is good.
------------
<laughs forever ahhahahahaha>
Wooo-hoooo.
ROTFLMAO hahahahahahaha
D.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Why has Dan Sullivan stopped posting here?

Good taste?



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

wrote:
> "Greegor" > wrote:
>> Why has Dan Sullivan stopped posting here?
> Uhhh. I think that picture of Betty Jean is actually the waffleman? Next
> news will be that K-9 and her are actually married and they have a son that
> is actually a girl that thinks it's a sheep. But the sheep does meth and
> runs away because of the way the two creepy looking fat people stare at him
> salivating. Of course Sully only wants to eat the sheep, McBrag has other
> intentions. Woolly Bullie.
> Holy effin' cow, I mean...sheep. Witch (Hey Walmart stock up on the extra
> heavy duty brooms, we got us biggie!) actually once posted that people
> compare her to Marilyn Monroe? ah hahahhahahahahaha. Roll over Marilyn!!!
> Man o live. Life is good.
> ------------
> <laughs forever ahhahahahaha>
> Wooo-hoooo.
> ROTFLMAO hahahahahahaha
> D.

I'll need to do some research on your thoughtful claims to the ng.

Thank you for your contribution.






--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[dragonsgirl]

> wrote in message
...
> "Greegor" > wrote:
> > Why has Dan Sullivan stopped posting here?
> Uhhh. I think that picture of Betty Jean is actually the waffleman? Next
> news will be that K-9 and her are actually married and they have a son
that
> is actually a girl that thinks it's a sheep. But the sheep does meth and
> runs away because of the way the two creepy looking fat people stare at
him
> salivating. Of course Sully only wants to eat the sheep, McBrag has other
> intentions. Woolly Bullie.
> Holy effin' cow, I mean...sheep. Witch (Hey Walmart stock up on the extra
> heavy duty brooms, we got us biggie!) actually once posted that people
> compare her to Marilyn Monroe? ah hahahhahahahahaha. Roll over Marilyn!!!
> Man o live. Life is good.
> ------------
> <laughs forever ahhahahahaha>
> Wooo-hoooo.
> ROTFLMAO hahahahahahaha
> D.

Actually, it is a picture of me...Kane took it, Dan processed it, Sherman
assigned rights of it over to me, and the rest of the gang was hiding behind
the palm tree in the background. Skinny ****s, they are.

[Greegor]

What's up Dan Sullivan?

I miss you!

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> What's up Dan Sullivan?

I suspect he's too busy in the real world for spending time with you.

> I miss you!

Sure you do.

You and he had such a warm and nurturing relationship.

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Is Dan having some trouble in court?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Is Dan having some trouble in court?

Is your mother still selling it cheap?




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> The Waffleman has been seen in many places!

I'm must astounded at your bravery and the turn toward ethics you have
taken.

Have you any more examples of your superiority?


>
> http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y155/bobby56/waffleman.jpg
>
> http://www.hometownsource.com/capitol/2002/october/waffleman.jpg
>
> http://www.sterlingpromo.com/Bendable_Characters___Plush/waffleman.gif
>
> http://www.monsterland.co.uk/monsters/monster14450.png
>


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Did something happen to Dan Sullivan around June 3?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Did something happen to Dan Sullivan around June 3?

I don't know.

Did something?

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Dan Sullivan]

Greegor wrote:
> Is Dan having some trouble in court?

Not at all.

When's the reunification, Greg?

How'd all those depositions go?

Post all the details.

[Greegor]

Call him up Kane, you have his number!
Help him out with his mortgage.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Call him up Kane, you have his number!
> Help him out with his mortgage.

Aren't you the one that's come into a lot of money lately, from your
successful suit of the state of Iowa?

0:->



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Greegor wrote:
> Call him up Kane, you have his number!
> Help him out with his mortgage.

Kane
> Aren't you the one that's come into a lot of money
> lately, from your successful suit of the state of Iowa?

I've got free long distance. I like it.
Are you suggesting a socialist redistribution of money?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
>> Call him up Kane, you have his number!
>> Help him out with his mortgage.
>
> Kane
>> Aren't you the one that's come into a lot of money
>> lately, from your successful suit of the state of Iowa?
>
> I've got free long distance. I like it.

Why did you snip the content of my post to focus on this irrelevance?

> Are you suggesting a socialist redistribution of money?

Is that what you call suing the state?

And we know you have free long distance, and likely more things free.

0:->




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Greg wrote
> Are you suggesting a socialist redistribution of money?

Kane wrote
> Is that what you call suing the state?
>
> And we know you have free long distance, and likely more things free.

I'm just a frugal fellow!
My SO is learning to be that way.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Greg wrote
>> Are you suggesting a socialist redistribution of money?
>
> Kane wrote
>> Is that what you call suing the state?

You didn't answer the question above.

>>
>> And we know you have free long distance, and likely more things free.
>
> I'm just a frugal fellow!
> My SO is learning to be that way.

And you didn't answer the question. Is that about frugality?

0:->

>


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Greegor wrote:
> Call him up Kane, you have his number!
> Help him out with his mortgage.

Kane wrote
> Aren't you the one that's come into a lot of money
> lately, from your successful suit of the state of Iowa?

Greg wrote
>I've got free long distance. I like it.
>Are you suggesting a socialist redistribution of money?

Kane wrote
> Is that what you call suing the state?

Kane wrote
> You didn't answer the question above.

Kane wrote
> And we know you have free long distance, and likely more things free.

Greg wrote
> I'm just a frugal fellow!
> My SO is learning to be that way.

Kane wrote
> And you didn't answer the question. Is that about frugality?

Apparently so, with your interest in free things.

Do you really think that a damages award
is a socialist redistribution of wealth?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
>> Call him up Kane, you have his number!
>> Help him out with his mortgage.
>
> Kane wrote
>> Aren't you the one that's come into a lot of money
>> lately, from your successful suit of the state of Iowa?
>
> Greg wrote
>> I've got free long distance. I like it.
>> Are you suggesting a socialist redistribution of money?
>
> Kane wrote
>> Is that what you call suing the state?
>
> Kane wrote
>> You didn't answer the question above.
>
> Kane wrote
>> And we know you have free long distance, and likely more things free.
>
> Greg wrote
>> I'm just a frugal fellow!
>> My SO is learning to be that way.
>
> Kane wrote
>> And you didn't answer the question. Is that about frugality?
>
> Apparently so, with your interest in free things.
>
> Do you really think that a damages award
> is a socialist redistribution of wealth?

We weren't discussing what I thought about a "damages award" when you
brought that up and I asked you:

"> Kane wrote
>> Is that what you call suing the state?

Are you going to answer the question?

When you do, I'll answer yours in turn.

Otherwise I'll consider you still lying and dodging.

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> Otherwise I'll consider you still lying and dodging.

That would be just fine by me!
It's always a pleasure to be so disdained by
a social misfit like yourself.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> Otherwise I'll consider you still lying and dodging.
>
> That would be just fine by me!
> It's always a pleasure to be so disdained by
> a social misfit like yourself.

Please provide proof that I am a social misfit.

Thanks. I know you'll follow through. You always do.

0;->




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

> > Kane wrote
> >> Otherwise I'll consider you still lying and dodging.
> >
> > That would be just fine by me!
> > It's always a pleasure to be so disdained by
> > a social misfit like yourself.
>
> Please provide proof that I am a social misfit.
>
> Thanks. I know you'll follow through. You always do.

Your Mommy agreed with your opinion about Fern?
Nope, NO PATHOLOGY THERE ! <snicker>

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> Otherwise I'll consider you still lying and dodging.
>>> That would be just fine by me!
>>> It's always a pleasure to be so disdained by
>>> a social misfit like yourself.
>> Please provide proof that I am a social misfit.
>>
>> Thanks. I know you'll follow through. You always do.
>
> Your Mommy agreed with your opinion about Fern?

If anything she was more incensed than I at Fern's defense of parents
suspending their children in church and allowing church members to beat
them on bare naked parts of their body and scream obscenities at them.
That, in fact, is what first inspired my name calling at Fern.

> Nope, NO PATHOLOGY THERE ! <snicker>

You and Doan, and other spanking advocates NOT coming forward BEFORE I
DID and admonishing Fern for her comments, speaks to YOUR pathology.

You spanking advocates are found of saying we non-spanking advocates try
to confuse beatings with spankings, yet where there is a clear support
from one of you for the most egregious of beatings under horrid
circumstances you are silent.

You are cowards, and do not have the courage to stand up to each other
when you disagree.

I disagreed with a number of non-spanking advocates here for some years
on the issue of a law. I came to change my mind based on what I saw of
YOU and others like you, and the sickness you wallow in.

There are spankers that can and do think. They know the limitations and
risks and give great consideration to things that have to do with the
child's conditions and circumstances.

YOU assholes, on the other hand, allow a defense of BEATING OF CHILDREN
to unchallenged.

Tell us about pathology again, Greg.

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Kane: Should I tell my mommy how evil you are
and get her to agree with me?

Should I ask my neighbor's mommy to agree
with me too?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane: Should I tell my mommy how evil you are
> and get her to agree with me?

You are perfectly free to discuss this or other events and activities
with your mother. Why would you not discuss my and your activities here?

Is there something you'd rather she didn't know?

> Should I ask my neighbor's mommy to agree
> with me too?

Darn if I know. Usually one would not, unless the neighbor's mommy had
some connection through you to the issues at hand.

You ask the most interesting questions, Greg.

Still want to claim that my talking with my mother in the past about
these newsgroups was pathological?

0:->




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> Still want to claim that my talking with my mother in the past about
> these newsgroups was pathological?

Nah, but reporting back how somebody who
never read the news group and only had your
description to go by supported you indicates
you are a sick puppy.

My Mom has heard about this newsgroup
but I did not seek her validation nor would
I report back her support for my
REPRESENTATION of what takes place here.

Kane, did you still need validation from your
mommy so bad that you didn't even care that it
was distorted because she never even READ
what you raved to her about?

It's sort of a case of "believing your own BS" by proxy!

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> Still want to claim that my talking with my mother in the past about
>> these newsgroups was pathological?
>
> Nah, but reporting back how somebody who
> never read the news group and only had your
> description to go by supported you indicates
> you are a sick puppy.

If that were true how would that make me a sick puppy?

I take you don't tell people things they are not eye witnesses to then?

For fear it will make you out to be a sick puppy?

And my mother read this newsgroup.

> My Mom has heard about this newsgroup
> but I did not seek her validation nor would
> I report back her support for my
> REPRESENTATION of what takes place here.

I wonder why?

> Kane, did you still need validation from your
> mommy so bad that you didn't even care that it
> was distorted because she never even READ
> what you raved to her about?

We all need the validation of our parents. Where did you get the idea
that ends with adulthood?

And she did read it. Why would you assume she hadn't? Her first
computer, back in about 1979, as I recall, was TI-99. I gave it to for
her birthday.

Over the years when I upgraded, she upgraded. She also learned to
program and ended up going back to college and becoming a programmer.

Cobal, Pacal, Fortran and other languages. She got serious and learned
beyond my knowledge and left me in the dust.

I'm not from an ignorant weird isolated information shy family as I
suspect you are. In the last year of my mom's life she was still
attending college classes she was interesting in.

> It's sort of a case of "believing your own BS" by proxy!

It's sort of you trying to harass me and failing, and making a fool of
yourself and revealing what a scummy little creep you are.

Do you know who first mentioned my mother in this ng?

It wasn't me. And it wasn't a kindness.

Now she's dead and you want to use her to attack me.

Nice going, champ.

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)