"Doug" wrote in message news:6jHab.8775
...
Kane writes:

but is consistent, along with Doug and cohorts, with promoting
activities that will result in more control by government.

Hi, Kane!

Hi Doug!

I am sorry you have misinterpreted my posts.

I haven't misunderstood a thing. Nor have I mininterpreted our posts.
Your misdirection is my focus. You just composed yet another one.

I have tried to make a case

I love that you had such an obvious freudian slip. "Tried" is how
things never
come to fruition...trying to do something is precisely how not to get
it done.

"Try" to put your hand on a chair. The instant you do you negate that
you are "trying." No, you placed your hand on the chair. Trying would
mean you never do.

against federally mandated child welfare practice of today precisely because
it is an unwholesome and abusive misuse of government power.

We've never disagreed on this of yours.

I simply think you are lying based on your other posts to this ng, or
you are unbelievable ignorant and stupid, something I don't believe at
all.

Unilaterial
decisions by CPS to forcibly remove children who they themselves have
unsubstantiated as being at risk of or actually maltreated is an abuse of
government power.

That is correct and every instance should be prosecuted as fully as is
legally
possible. I have NOT ever seen you speak out against that that resort
to other
than legal means.

However, "unilateral" decisions of that kind are extremely rare except
if on the first visit of an investigator conditions that would
endanger the child NOW. In nearly all cases they must have evidence
and they must be prepared to have it reviewed by a judge and signed
off by same.

Your morals are the question here, Doug, and always have been for me.
And I'm
quite aware that you do consider yourself on a moral crusade and you
believe that you are a moral person. We just disagree.

These governmental intrusions upon innocent families are being done under
the authorization of CAPTA and ASFA, both federal codes that mandate state
policy and practice.

That is correct. In otherwords, according to law. The arguments put
forth here,
that you either support directly or indirectly by failure to correct
YOUR own
little lackeys needs to be pointed out to you. There are constant
claims that even the closest adherence to these laws constitues
violation of rights.

One day the lurkers here, and the folks that have been duped by you
propogandists (sorry at it as you are) are going to figure out your
agenda, Pineapple and come hunting you.

Kane, you would be well-served to pay attention to your side of the street.

oooOOOOOOOOOOOooooo....I'm shakin' in my boots.

I pay close attention to the "street". I have a different style than
you. I point fingers without playing coy games.

Some of your posts include wording and approaches defined as propaganda.

That's right:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propaganda

Is about as good a meaning as any, four of them, none making a
judgement of
truth or lie, just a promotion of a doctrine or belief system. You'll
get my
drift eventually.

Elements of propaganda include:

Oh they do? Please provide me with a valid and accessible referrence
to
coroborate YOUR definitions below. From what source did you draw these
definitions of "propoganda"?

You would be more accurate to say, "propaganda may include some of the
following but it can be the absolute truth as well."

GLITTERING GENERALITIES -- making unattributed, generalized statements about
a group of people or given policy or practice without substantiation. Using
rare incidents to generalize across an entire population.

Yes, that is precisely what takes place on your side of the street in
this NG,
rather continuously. Some of the perps have been driven away, and I
suspect the
remainder are paid for their constant stream of exactly the above.
Especially
that last line. And you not only do not call anyone but me on what you
think is not true but glaringly fail to confront them.

GUILT BY ASSOCIATION -- To claim or imply that an debating opponent
associates with undesirables;

You do. I cite your recent defense of a layabout that has no business
displacing a child and her mother for his convenience.

to label an individual based upon her
association with others;

I lable, right here and right now, the woman that traded her daughter
for a little punk as associating with undesireables. What you gonna do
about it?

to claim or imply an opponent is guilty of some
wrongdoing based upon the wrongdoing of someone else.

Never have done any such thing. Each instance I make the claim someone
has done something wrong that's what I cite. I do point out you hang
together, which is what I intend to expand on. And I don't consider
any of you innocent, but rather all wrongdoers by virtue of
deliberately leading people astray that do NOT need to go down that
path when they are struggling to get their children back.

"ie: Communists, in
MaCarthy's 50's.

You, as most people, have made a reference, if you would look to the
research
would find is not true. It was the HUAC that went after communists
wholesale.
Not Senator McCarthy...House, Senate. Get the picture?

Youd be more accurately served if you simple said HUAC's 50's, as that
was the witch hunt. McCarthy was rude at times, but he came under far
more attack than he levied against others.

PERSONAL ATTACK -- Attacking the messenger of information on a given issue
rather than debating the issue itself; placing personalities above
principals.

Are you seriously suggesting I do NOT discuss the issues even as I
label the
****heads that try to foist their crap on others? Please.

Name calling.

Yes, it has an uncanny ability to draw out the vile types like
yourself and
expose you. And you just keep on biting.

Hints that the proponent of an idea is somehow
morally deficient or derranged.

"Hints"? Yah gottah be kidding.

But then I could be completely wrong. The motivations might be
economic and or
cause driven, and my question and speculation is about those things,
though the
economic is a trailing secondary. Now what might the cause
be....hhhhmmmmm?

I'm not wrong though. The evidence is far too clear. Just review in
your mind the statements and language of various people that have come
and gone in this ng that you have supported or not corrected when you
knew better.

DEPERSONALIZATION -- Using terminlogy to imply that an individual expousing
ideas is less than human or evil rather than debating the idea.

You and I, and all other posters here, are really nothing more than
electronic squiggles on a monitor. We are not persons.

I don't IMPLY, I state it emphatically. It isn't a matter of espousing
"ideas." It's lying and misleading. Putting those at risk that come
here for help.

But more to the point, the willingness to lie and more especially to
continually risk other peoples children and families is about as good
a reason
to name call and depersonalize someone as I've ever seen. You do that,
as do
your cohorts.

It's as much what you let them get away with without calling them on
it as
anything else.


FEAR AND INTIMIDATION -- Suggesting that an opponent is a member of some
sinister force that is out to get innocent people.

Who am I trying to intimidate and cause to fear you? And just like
they say
about paranoia, it isn't, if they are out to get you.

The unceasing yammering about CPS accompanied by off the wall
screwball media
articles that so often don't really say anything clearly enough to
actually
indict CPS and so often have nothing to do with them.

The name of this ng isn't alt.support.the-state, or
alt.support.the-cops, yet there is a regular string of references to
many kinds of state agencies that are completely unconnected to any
functions of CPS.

Suggesting that
narrative arguing a point the propagandist opposes is less than sincere --
that the opponent really has a hidden agenda he is not disclosing.

I'm not suggesting it. I'm telling people to look and think for
themselves not
just swallow the propaganda efforts aimed at them in this ng. I found
one. It is a great deal more dangerous than I first thought. This has
become very serious business.

I believe there are some folks that come here that are taken in by
this agenda and a cause that is unspoken here, but represented
nontheless, and may make foolish and dangerous decisions by believing
it. I think there are a few
that believe it though they probably won't act on it in any
significant way,
just debaters. It's the former I'm really concerned about.

I believe the Christines, for instance, were taken in by just such
nonsense and suffered the consequences of acting on nonsense just such
as is posted here.

Folks, the core of the anti CPS folks here are fascist wannabees in
the grand tradition of the fascist dictator ships we've seen arrise in
the last century.

And, above, Kane, you immediately provide us an example of propaganda.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism

I believe that in time it will become obvious what is going on, here
and on the
national level..and it will likely be too late to stop it peacefully.

I think the definition above at the URL listed makes it clear what I
mean by
the term.

I think you fit under the definition where it says:

"fascism
n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical
government (as
opposed to democracy or liberalism)"

They have an agenda and an organization of well integrated groups that
have as a goal the intrusion of factions not healthy to the body
politic.

What are the names of these "well-integrated groups" and who are these
unhealthy "factions" with intrusionary goals? What are the goals? How are
the groups integrated?

In time, Doug, in good time. But they have been mentioned in this ng.

The few among you that can think might want to do some research.

Where should they look in their research? What are they to look for, Kane?

Look too all organizations that involve themselves with family issues
at
government level. Some of them are just nonsense and blather. But some
are "suits" and intervene and advocate at the federal level.

It's the polite and reasonable sounding ones that are most often the
cons.

I think people can use the search tools available and find things for
themselves. It's a little early for a head on confrontation, Doug.

YOU may think I just curse and rant and have no skill, but I spent a
lot of
years in the military learning how to reach objectives effectively.

It took me five hard years to get my first CPS supervisor fired...see
what I mean about never giving up? Not once in the entire five years
did I have an interaction with CPS in any form that I did not continue
to research the issues involved, and the people involved, and develop
the plan I had set out at the beginning.

There were those even in CPS that came to me and thanked me profusely.
I thanked them because they took far more risks than I.

What is the plot they should search out?

More control from the top down. And I do not believe you are telling
the truth
when you say you wish to stop the aquisition of more control from the
federal
level. I believe that you want the feds to determine what is and isn't
acceptable parenting, in a narrow and very frightening definition.

It remains to be seen if I am correct.

You have aligned with, right in these ngs, groups that most assuredly
act to intruding the lives of Americans to forward the agenda of their
special interest group at the expense of other citizens.

An aquaintance of mine many years ago, a writer and journalist into
exposing
similar such things was found dead at his typewriter (that long ago)
with a
bullet hole in the back of his head. No jealous husbands involved, no
debts, in
fact an all around sweetheart of a guy.

He just went too far too fast.

Me, I takes my time. I always have layers of various kinds of
protections in place, some that are very unpleasant indeed, and I
never give up.

Mine is making it clearer and clearer what stunk the first time I came
across this ng.

What have you discovered in your research?

Rather a lot more than I had expected. Quite shocking even to me. What
are you
looking for, Doug, when you ask?

What was your methodology for
that research?

Search, read, question, compare.

That is usually how it's done for my purpose. I'm not writing a study
for peer
review. I'm interested in public review.

Where did you look?

Here and there, archives, articles, books, new releases, government
sources,
library of congress. I don't think I'd leave anything out.

What were your findings?

That I better start alerting other people to look. I don't care to be
the Lone
Ranger and wind up like my friend at the typewriter. Others knowing is
protection for me. There are already a few thousand that HAVE been
directed to
the information by others. It's not a secret any longer and the lies
and
coverups are being stripped away.

Without
specifics, what we have here is a glittering generality with no substance.

Why yes, that is how it appears. That's why I invite folks to dig
deeper on
their own.

Why haven't YOU suggested that, Doug. I mean after all it would prove
me wrong,
now wouldn't it?

Any citations? Any source we should look at in our research?

I've put them here before. People that see actual citations very often
don't in
any appreciable numbers, actual go and look. Or if they do they
already suffer
from disbelief of the claims of the poster. I'm not going to describe
it for
them. They'll assume I am just mounting a propaganda campaign.

This is too important to do that. They have to come to it themselves.
It's like
accepting a religious faith. No one really does if they are drug
kicking and
screaming.

If you continue to remove all that things that do not show themselves
to connect to the discussion, what remains must be the answer.

What things do not show themselves in discussions in this newsgroup?

My my you are full of questions, Doug. I wonder why.

Probably the one that stands out for me, concerning you and why I do
not trust
you, is that you consistently fail to call to question those that
adovate
violence and behaviors that would in fact lose their children and get
them in a
great deal of trouble.

That is the tactic of the Blood Dancer. Claim evil then cause actions
that fit your description of evil to take place.

Additionally you do NOT call your buddies on their outrageous nonsense
like
posting claims of CPS malfeasance when a reading of the posted
clipping shows
that CPS wasn't actually involved at all, or could have done nothing,
outside
of having powers and abilities NO organization can have for lack of
available
resources.

One would have to have half the nation working in child welfare to
meet the
criteria for stopping the other half from abuses of children.

And there is a constant stream of motives attributed to CPS workers or
foster parents that in fact do not exist except in the rarist of
instances.

You are not evenhanded, Doug.

What
things are these? What things do not connect to the discussion and what
does remain after these things are removed?

As above, Doug.

Ask yourself what is it the priciple players in the anti CPS club
NEVER discuss, and you have your answer. Even when it comes up?

What should we ask ourselves?

For the truth. You foment and encourage lies and halftruths by not
challenging your buddies when the lie.

Who are the principal players in the
"Anti-CPS club"?

R R R R , yah gotta be kidding. I don't think even the slow witted
Dennis could
miss knowing who the anti-cps folks are.

What do they "NEVER" discuss?

Now there is the question I've been waiting for.

What DO you never discuss, Doug, just as they never do? Got any ideas?
It seems
just about everything is open to discussion except one subject.

I think I'll just leave you the puzzle to worry for awhile. I enjoy
your sweat
immensely.

Please provide us some information.

I have. And times I have you haven't responded to the issue I brought
up. You
turned tail on those. It's what you wouldn't discuss. Why should I ask
yet again?

Some beef.

I already cooked it well done, pulled it off the spit, and slapped it
on your
platter. You ran.

You seem to be making
charges here.

Seem to be? Seem to be? R R R R R

Do you have any substantation for them?

Yes. But I insist people do their own searching.

This medium highlights a characteristic of humans that has always
amused me. When someone gives them advice or information they fall
immediately into a defensive dismissing mode.

If they find it themselves, they will take better ownship more
immediately.

I never force things down people's throat...I think you do, very
cleverly.

Share with us what
evil things you have discovered.

Have. You ignored them...well, you avoided them and turned tail and
ran.

And, please, for godsakes

Lowcase? Hmmmmm......

show us where we
can look to find the truth.

It's a wide wide world, now isn't it? But you can start in USENET,
expand to
the WWW, access some of the great resources available. But take it all
with a
grain of salt.

Otherwise, what you have provided in this post of yours is propaganda.

Absofukinlootly...

And propaganda can be presented through absolute truth in every word.

I do have an agenda and am not the least shy about stating it. It's to
stop you
and those like you from escalating the war on parents to the federal
level
while pretending it's to help parents.

Kane