0:-]
March 7th 07, 10:15 PM
On 7 Mar 2007 12:04:10 -0800, "Greegor" > wrote:
>On Mar 7, 12:31 pm, "spd" > wrote:
>> I was just curious...does anyone know or have a citation relating to
>> foster care systems in other countries. I was wondering if the U.S.
>> system took more children into custody than communist or former
>> communist countries ?
>>
>> spd
>
>Survivors of the USSR have said they didn't have such
>a thing as Child Protection agencies.
>Probably only acted in the most severe cases involving crime.
>
>Survivors of NAZI death camps have said that our
>system of Child Removal is worse than death
>because it is a sort of "living dead" situation.
>Even a TPR is not "closure" in the way that extremination was.
Your logic frightens me.
You do see that it would lead one to think you would prefer the parent
child abusers be put to death. Am I correct?
>Our system makes what has been termed "Orphans of the Living".
It's called, "hyperbole," Greg. And common to unethical propagandists.
>Cultural factors need to be considered as well.
As always.
>Despite putting up with the ultimate STATE RULE in
>the USSR, if somebody removed a child, you would
>expect serious bloody vendetta against the state actors.
Oh?
That sounds like an exciting script from a second rate movie of the
week.
Could you provide some actual proof?
>Workers in Kansas City tend not to remove many kids
>from the hardcore gang infested territories because
>gang bangers will instantly put out ""contracts"" on the workers.
Oh? Again, movie time.
Citations, please. Not from rumor sources, but police records.
>
>I understand it cuts down on the cases based on clutter
>or trivia, and they only make cases where there is
>SERIOUS abuse, and they go in there with Police Escorts.
You approve of course.
I recall you diverting the subject of the murder of a case worker.
It seems, in my mind, to connect somehow to me, and your accusation
that I am a caseworker.
And it makes me fear somewhat for Don and his family since you have
worked so hard publicly to identify and locate him, is that not
correct?
Since you seem to think worker murder is less than a very serious
crime, and possibly deserved, I wonder what that would say to the
authorities about you if anything did happen to Don or his family.
And since you claim I'm a former caseworker...hmmmm, what would be
thought were I to come to harm and the authorities investigated my
associates, both supporters, and adversaries?
Ah well, just speculating.
>Trying to gets statistics out of the former USSR
>might be almost as difficult as obtaining certain
>embarassing truths from Child Protection agencies here.
Worse. You ends up poisoned over there. I hope you aren't suggesting
that "almost" would be likely to include state sanctioned murder.
>Remember, only a few years ago the agencies had to be
>FORCED to make their caseworker manual public, prior to
>that they refused saying they didn't want the child abusers
>to use the manual to get around the agencies.
Sort of makes sense in a way, even if it's un american.
The wonderful thing, for criminals, is that in this country they are
not only afforded more protection than victims (even if the victim is
a child) but the criminal can seek out better information on how to
commit crime and get away with it under our constitution.
We try for balance, and in so doing, from time to time we teeter a bit
and take a fall. We seem to get back up and try again, so far.
>This created an impossible situation for the falsely accused.
Well, yes. That's why we have this precarious balancing act that our
founders and later our elected leaders created and built on.
But lest you forget, it's balance, not advantage to one side or the
other that is most important.
You seem to want the criminals to succeed so the innocent might not be
bothered.
You claim judges are easily bought and controlled by CPS.
You claim that CPS in fact breaks the law as a matter of course.
You claim that children do not have the right to the same protections
the parent must have.
In other words, Greg, you are an awful lot like a criminal in your
view and thinking on this issue.
Or awfully stupid.
Darned if I can figure out which, most of the time.
Say, how come you didn't cross post this out to the dad's group, and
foster parents group, like you did in the thread on "Spanking leads
to..." that Ken joined (and right after, oddly)?
What WERE you thinking, eh? Then or now.
Kane
>On Mar 7, 12:31 pm, "spd" > wrote:
>> I was just curious...does anyone know or have a citation relating to
>> foster care systems in other countries. I was wondering if the U.S.
>> system took more children into custody than communist or former
>> communist countries ?
>>
>> spd
>
>Survivors of the USSR have said they didn't have such
>a thing as Child Protection agencies.
>Probably only acted in the most severe cases involving crime.
>
>Survivors of NAZI death camps have said that our
>system of Child Removal is worse than death
>because it is a sort of "living dead" situation.
>Even a TPR is not "closure" in the way that extremination was.
Your logic frightens me.
You do see that it would lead one to think you would prefer the parent
child abusers be put to death. Am I correct?
>Our system makes what has been termed "Orphans of the Living".
It's called, "hyperbole," Greg. And common to unethical propagandists.
>Cultural factors need to be considered as well.
As always.
>Despite putting up with the ultimate STATE RULE in
>the USSR, if somebody removed a child, you would
>expect serious bloody vendetta against the state actors.
Oh?
That sounds like an exciting script from a second rate movie of the
week.
Could you provide some actual proof?
>Workers in Kansas City tend not to remove many kids
>from the hardcore gang infested territories because
>gang bangers will instantly put out ""contracts"" on the workers.
Oh? Again, movie time.
Citations, please. Not from rumor sources, but police records.
>
>I understand it cuts down on the cases based on clutter
>or trivia, and they only make cases where there is
>SERIOUS abuse, and they go in there with Police Escorts.
You approve of course.
I recall you diverting the subject of the murder of a case worker.
It seems, in my mind, to connect somehow to me, and your accusation
that I am a caseworker.
And it makes me fear somewhat for Don and his family since you have
worked so hard publicly to identify and locate him, is that not
correct?
Since you seem to think worker murder is less than a very serious
crime, and possibly deserved, I wonder what that would say to the
authorities about you if anything did happen to Don or his family.
And since you claim I'm a former caseworker...hmmmm, what would be
thought were I to come to harm and the authorities investigated my
associates, both supporters, and adversaries?
Ah well, just speculating.
>Trying to gets statistics out of the former USSR
>might be almost as difficult as obtaining certain
>embarassing truths from Child Protection agencies here.
Worse. You ends up poisoned over there. I hope you aren't suggesting
that "almost" would be likely to include state sanctioned murder.
>Remember, only a few years ago the agencies had to be
>FORCED to make their caseworker manual public, prior to
>that they refused saying they didn't want the child abusers
>to use the manual to get around the agencies.
Sort of makes sense in a way, even if it's un american.
The wonderful thing, for criminals, is that in this country they are
not only afforded more protection than victims (even if the victim is
a child) but the criminal can seek out better information on how to
commit crime and get away with it under our constitution.
We try for balance, and in so doing, from time to time we teeter a bit
and take a fall. We seem to get back up and try again, so far.
>This created an impossible situation for the falsely accused.
Well, yes. That's why we have this precarious balancing act that our
founders and later our elected leaders created and built on.
But lest you forget, it's balance, not advantage to one side or the
other that is most important.
You seem to want the criminals to succeed so the innocent might not be
bothered.
You claim judges are easily bought and controlled by CPS.
You claim that CPS in fact breaks the law as a matter of course.
You claim that children do not have the right to the same protections
the parent must have.
In other words, Greg, you are an awful lot like a criminal in your
view and thinking on this issue.
Or awfully stupid.
Darned if I can figure out which, most of the time.
Say, how come you didn't cross post this out to the dad's group, and
foster parents group, like you did in the thread on "Spanking leads
to..." that Ken joined (and right after, oddly)?
What WERE you thinking, eh? Then or now.
Kane