The Government Doesn't Like the Way You Raise Your Kids?

[Annie]

But since we don't know all the facts in this case, I see no reason to even bring it up, unless you are trying to stir up doubt.

Or if you are trying to alert people to the potential dangers of intrusive government.

But since there is no evidence in this case to support such an argument, non-sequitur.

You're not familiar with the word "potential"?

Look, what these kinds of threads are really all about is to probe the limits of the authoritarian mindset. Some of us wonder just how far statists will go in pursuing their ideal society. I doubt the veracity of this story as much as any of you, but what if it is true as reported? Are you in favor of that kind of intrusive government? Should government have the power to take children from parents because their neighbors don't approve of their lifestyle?

If your answer is, "No, but I think this story is bullshit", then we have no quarrel. The thing is, I suspect plenty of people here,
on this board, would be in favor of the state having the authority to do just what was reported, and that raises disturbing questions which warrant discussion.

That makes no sense. The progression of your argument amounts to:

A: "the sky is green!"
B: "No it's blue. Look" (proves sky is blue)
A: "but what if the sky were green!?"

Huh??

You seem to be missing the point. I don't know whether the story is true or not. Neither do you. But it's certainly possible, and raises some interesting questions about the fact that government can mess with people in the name of child welfare in ways that can easily be abused. Should parents be afforded the same due process as anyone else accused of committing a crime?

Some people here seem to think that the claims of their neighbors that they were running a scam or bullying others is justification for taking their kids from them. Really? Is that all it should take?

I'm pretty sure that is what the hearing is for.

 

[dblack]

Or if you are trying to alert people to the potential dangers of intrusive government.

But since there is no evidence in this case to support such an argument, non-sequitur.

You're not familiar with the word "potential"?

Look, what these kinds of threads are really all about is to probe the limits of the authoritarian mindset. Some of us wonder just how far statists will go in pursuing their ideal society. I doubt the veracity of this story as much as any of you, but what if it is true as reported? Are you in favor of that kind of intrusive government? Should government have the power to take children from parents because their neighbors don't approve of their lifestyle?

If your answer is, "No, but I think this story is bullshit", then we have no quarrel. The thing is, I suspect plenty of people here,
on this board, would be in favor of the state having the authority to do just what was reported, and that raises disturbing questions which warrant discussion.

That makes no sense. The progression of your argument amounts to:

A: "the sky is green!"
B: "No it's blue. Look" (proves sky is blue)
A: "but what if the sky were green!?"

Huh??

You seem to be missing the point. I don't know whether the story is true or not. Neither do you. But it's certainly possible, and raises some interesting questions about the fact that government can mess with people in the name of child welfare in ways that can easily be abused. Should parents be afforded the same due process as anyone else accused of committing a crime?

Some people here seem to think that the claims of their neighbors that they were running a scam or bullying others is justification for taking their kids from them. Really? Is that all it should take?

I'm pretty sure that is what the hearing is for.

No. The hearing is for deciding guilt or innocence based on the evidence and the law. What I'm asking is whether the laws themselves are just, and what sort of circumstances should justify taking children from their parents. If people don't want to discuss it then they shouldn't. There's no need to try to silence others.

 

[Pogo]

But since we don't know all the facts in this case, I see no reason to even bring it up, unless you are trying to stir up doubt.

Or if you are trying to alert people to the potential dangers of intrusive government.

But since there is no evidence in this case to support such an argument, non-sequitur.

You're not familiar with the word "potential"?

Look, what these kinds of threads are really all about is to probe the limits of the authoritarian mindset. Some of us wonder just how far statists will go in pursuing their ideal society. I doubt the veracity of this story as much as any of you, but what if it is true as reported? Are you in favor of that kind of intrusive government? Should government have the power to take children from parents because their neighbors don't approve of their lifestyle?

If your answer is, "No, but I think this story is bullshit", then we have no quarrel. The thing is, I suspect plenty of people here,
on this board, would be in favor of the state having the authority to do just what was reported, and that raises disturbing questions which warrant discussion.

That makes no sense. The progression of your argument amounts to:

A: "the sky is green!"
B: "No it's blue. Look" (proves sky is blue)
A: "but what if the sky were green!?"

Huh??

You seem to be missing the point. I don't know whether the story is true or not. Neither do you. But it's certainly possible, and raises some interesting questions about the fact that government can mess with people in the name of child welfare in ways that can easily be abused. Should parents be afforded the same due process as anyone else accused of committing a crime?

Some people here seem to think that the claims of their neighbors that they were running a scam or bullying others is justification for taking their kids from them. Really? Is that all it should take?

No I think you're missing the point. We don't know for a fact -- at all -- that CPS was unjustified in whatever it is they're trying to do. If that lack of justification does not exist, then by definition it cannot raise interesting questions about anything.

 

[orogenicman]

It was very revealing that the default position of some people here was that the parents of these kids were innocent victims of Nazi/Chinese communist/North Korean government tactics without knowing a single fact about the case.

There are far too fucking many bozos on this forum who leap to wild goddam conclusions based on their partisan hack biases.

Cut out the bullshit!

Or based on their actual experiences and putting some of the liberal's sayings and writings together over the years.

Right, so how many people here (raise your hands) have ten children, are living "off the grid", and are being "victimized by evil CPS guvment agents".

 

[orogenicman]

Out one side of your mouth, you say that the CPS is corrupt, and out the other side you say they made the right move. Make up your mind.

What is wrong with you?
You can have corruption in the agencies and not all of the case workers are guilty.
Nor are all of agencies across the States corrupt.

But since we don't know all the facts in this case, I see no reason to even bring it up, unless you are trying to stir up doubt.

Or if you are trying to alert people to the potential dangers of intrusive government.

But since there is no evidence in this case to support such an argument, non-sequitur.

You're not familiar with the word "potential"?

Look, what these kinds of threads are really all about is to probe the limits of the authoritarian mindset. Some of us wonder just how far statists will go in pursuing their ideal society. I doubt the veracity of this story as much as any of you, but what if it is true as reported? Are you in favor of that kind of intrusive government? Should government have the power to take children from parents because their neighbors don't approve of their lifestyle?

If your answer is, "No, but I think this story is bullshit", then we have no quarrel. The thing is, I suspect plenty of people here, on this board, would be in favor of the state having the authority to do just what was reported, and that raises disturbing questions which warrant discussion.

Breckinridge County parents won t regain custody of 10 kids this week Local News - WLKY Home

Breckinridge County parents won't regain custody of 10 kids this week

This is an update to the case.

 

[orogenicman]

But since we don't know all the facts in this case, I see no reason to even bring it up, unless you are trying to stir up doubt.

Or if you are trying to alert people to the potential dangers of intrusive government.

But since there is no evidence in this case to support such an argument, non-sequitur.

You're not familiar with the word "potential"?

Look, what these kinds of threads are really all about is to probe the limits of the authoritarian mindset. Some of us wonder just how far statists will go in pursuing their ideal society. I doubt the veracity of this story as much as any of you, but what if it is true as reported? Are you in favor of that kind of intrusive government? Should government have the power to take children from parents because their neighbors don't approve of their lifestyle?

If your answer is, "No, but I think this story is bullshit", then we have no quarrel. The thing is, I suspect plenty of people here,
on this board, would be in favor of the state having the authority to do just what was reported, and that raises disturbing questions which warrant discussion.

That makes no sense. The progression of your argument amounts to:

A: "the sky is green!"
B: "No it's blue. Look" (proves sky is blue)
A: "but what if the sky were green!?"

Huh??

You seem to be missing the point. I don't know whether the story is true or not. Neither do you. But it's certainly possible, and raises some interesting questions about the fact that government can mess with people in the name of child welfare in ways that can easily be abused. Should parents be afforded the same due process as anyone else accused of committing a crime?

Some people here seem to think that the claims of their neighbors that they were running a scam or bullying others is justification for taking their kids from them. Really? Is that all it should take?

Whether or not the government can "mess with people in the name of child welfare" is irrelevant to whether or not the government ACTUALLY MESSED WITH PEOPLE IN THE NAME OF CHILD WELFARE in this case. Let's stick with the facts, shall we?

 

[orogenicman]

But since there is no evidence in this case to support such an argument, non-sequitur.

You're not familiar with the word "potential"?

Look, what these kinds of threads are really all about is to probe the limits of the authoritarian mindset. Some of us wonder just how far statists will go in pursuing their ideal society. I doubt the veracity of this story as much as any of you, but what if it is true as reported? Are you in favor of that kind of intrusive government? Should government have the power to take children from parents because their neighbors don't approve of their lifestyle?

If your answer is, "No, but I think this story is bullshit", then we have no quarrel. The thing is, I suspect plenty of people here,
on this board, would be in favor of the state having the authority to do just what was reported, and that raises disturbing questions which warrant discussion.

That makes no sense. The progression of your argument amounts to:

A: "the sky is green!"
B: "No it's blue. Look" (proves sky is blue)
A: "but what if the sky were green!?"

Huh??

You seem to be missing the point. I don't know whether the story is true or not. Neither do you. But it's certainly possible, and raises some interesting questions about the fact that government can mess with people in the name of child welfare in ways that can easily be abused. Should parents be afforded the same due process as anyone else accused of committing a crime?

Some people here seem to think that the claims of their neighbors that they were running a scam or bullying others is justification for taking their kids from them. Really? Is that all it should take?

I'm pretty sure that is what the hearing is for.

No. The hearing is for deciding guilt or innocence based on the evidence and the law. What I'm asking is whether the laws themselves are just, and what sort of circumstances should justify taking children from their parents. If people don't want to discuss it then they shouldn't. There's no need to try to silence others.

The hearing was to decide temporary custody. The parents lost.

 

[orogenicman]

What is wrong with you?
You can have corruption in the agencies and not all of the case workers are guilty.
Nor are all of agencies across the States corrupt.

But since we don't know all the facts in this case, I see no reason to even bring it up, unless you are trying to stir up doubt.

Or if you are trying to alert people to the potential dangers of intrusive government.

But since there is no evidence in this case to support such an argument, non-sequitur.

You're not familiar with the word "potential"?

Look, what these kinds of threads are really all about is to probe the limits of the authoritarian mindset. Some of us wonder just how far statists will go in pursuing their ideal society. I doubt the veracity of this story as much as any of you, but what if it is true as reported? Are you in favor of that kind of intrusive government? Should government have the power to take children from parents because their neighbors don't approve of their lifestyle?

If your answer is, "No, but I think this story is bullshit", then we have no quarrel. The thing is, I suspect plenty of people here, on this board, would be in favor of the state having the authority to do just what was reported, and that raises disturbing questions which warrant discussion.

Breckinridge County parents won t regain custody of 10 kids this week Local News - WLKY Home

Breckinridge County parents won't regain custody of 10 kids this week

This is an update to the case.

I find it interesting that the oldest son (who is 19) is not supportive of the parents.

 

[Flopper]

Why they 'll just come along and take them!


Let’s be very clear about this – Joe and Nicole had done nothing to violate the law whatsoever. All of their kids were happy, healthy and very intelligent. But because the control freaks running things in Kentucky got wind of their “off the grid lifestyle”, they have now had all of their children unlawfully abducted from them.


So, let's see what the liberals have to say about this? What happened to Liberty in this country?


Read more @ Police Abduct 10 Children From A Family In Kentucky Because Of Their Off The Grid Lifestyle

There are always two sides to every story. I don't think you're going hear both sides reading "End of the American Dream"

 

[danielpalos]

Should he claim to be teaching his apprentices, the Art of bakery?

 

[dblack]

You're not familiar with the word "potential"?

Look, what these kinds of threads are really all about is to probe the limits of the authoritarian mindset. Some of us wonder just how far statists will go in pursuing their ideal society. I doubt the veracity of this story as much as any of you, but what if it is true as reported? Are you in favor of that kind of intrusive government? Should government have the power to take children from parents because their neighbors don't approve of their lifestyle?

If your answer is, "No, but I think this story is bullshit", then we have no quarrel. The thing is, I suspect plenty of people here,
on this board, would be in favor of the state having the authority to do just what was reported, and that raises disturbing questions which warrant discussion.

That makes no sense. The progression of your argument amounts to:

A: "the sky is green!"
B: "No it's blue. Look" (proves sky is blue)
A: "but what if the sky were green!?"

Huh??

You seem to be missing the point. I don't know whether the story is true or not. Neither do you. But it's certainly possible, and raises some interesting questions about the fact that government can mess with people in the name of child welfare in ways that can easily be abused. Should parents be afforded the same due process as anyone else accused of committing a crime?

Some people here seem to think that the claims of their neighbors that they were running a scam or bullying others is justification for taking their kids from them. Really? Is that all it should take?

I'm pretty sure that is what the hearing is for.

No. The hearing is for deciding guilt or innocence based on the evidence and the law. What I'm asking is whether the laws themselves are just, and what sort of circumstances should justify taking children from their parents. If people don't want to discuss it then they shouldn't. There's no need to try to silence others.

The hearing was to decide temporary custody. The parents lost.

The point being, it wasn't to decide whether these kinds of laws and legal policies are a good idea.

 

[dblack]

Or if you are trying to alert people to the potential dangers of intrusive government.

But since there is no evidence in this case to support such an argument, non-sequitur.

You're not familiar with the word "potential"?

Look, what these kinds of threads are really all about is to probe the limits of the authoritarian mindset. Some of us wonder just how far statists will go in pursuing their ideal society. I doubt the veracity of this story as much as any of you, but what if it is true as reported? Are you in favor of that kind of intrusive government? Should government have the power to take children from parents because their neighbors don't approve of their lifestyle?

If your answer is, "No, but I think this story is bullshit", then we have no quarrel. The thing is, I suspect plenty of people here,
on this board, would be in favor of the state having the authority to do just what was reported, and that raises disturbing questions which warrant discussion.

That makes no sense. The progression of your argument amounts to:

A: "the sky is green!"
B: "No it's blue. Look" (proves sky is blue)
A: "but what if the sky were green!?"

Huh??

You seem to be missing the point. I don't know whether the story is true or not. Neither do you. But it's certainly possible, and raises some interesting questions about the fact that government can mess with people in the name of child welfare in ways that can easily be abused. Should parents be afforded the same due process as anyone else accused of committing a crime?

Some people here seem to think that the claims of their neighbors that they were running a scam or bullying others is justification for taking their kids from them. Really? Is that all it should take?

Whether or not the government can "mess with people in the name of child welfare" is irrelevant to whether or not the government ACTUALLY MESSED WITH PEOPLE IN THE NAME OF CHILD WELFARE in this case. Let's stick with the facts, shall we?

You're welcome to stick with the facts. I'd rather talk about the principles involved.

 

[danielpalos]

That makes no sense. The progression of your argument amounts to:

A: "the sky is green!"
B: "No it's blue. Look" (proves sky is blue)
A: "but what if the sky were green!?"

Huh??

You seem to be missing the point. I don't know whether the story is true or not. Neither do you. But it's certainly possible, and raises some interesting questions about the fact that government can mess with people in the name of child welfare in ways that can easily be abused. Should parents be afforded the same due process as anyone else accused of committing a crime?

Some people here seem to think that the claims of their neighbors that they were running a scam or bullying others is justification for taking their kids from them. Really? Is that all it should take?

I'm pretty sure that is what the hearing is for.

No. The hearing is for deciding guilt or innocence based on the evidence and the law. What I'm asking is whether the laws themselves are just, and what sort of circumstances should justify taking children from their parents. If people don't want to discuss it then they shouldn't. There's no need to try to silence others.

The hearing was to decide temporary custody. The parents lost.

The point being, it wasn't to decide whether these kinds of laws and legal policies are a good idea.

If Bakers can claim an exemption to laws based on religious freedom, why can't pater familias.

Should private Persons have to go for-profit to be able to "purchase" religious liberty privileges and immunities?

This social dilemma would not exist but for Institutional blindness to our own laws regarding a recognized federal Doctrine and our own State laws regarding the concept of employment at will.

 

[longknife]

I didn't see anything in the pictures that depicted "horrid living conditions". It appeared to be clean and orderly - although certainly not by so-called modern conditions.

I have no respect for them procreating like animals. One should use a bit of common sense.

But to have their children taken away and facing criminal charges?

A bit overboard IMHO.

Check these out:

 

[Pogo]

Huh??

You seem to be missing the point. I don't know whether the story is true or not. Neither do you. But it's certainly possible, and raises some interesting questions about the fact that government can mess with people in the name of child welfare in ways that can easily be abused. Should parents be afforded the same due process as anyone else accused of committing a crime?

Some people here seem to think that the claims of their neighbors that they were running a scam or bullying others is justification for taking their kids from them. Really? Is that all it should take?

I'm pretty sure that is what the hearing is for.

No. The hearing is for deciding guilt or innocence based on the evidence and the law. What I'm asking is whether the laws themselves are just, and what sort of circumstances should justify taking children from their parents. If people don't want to discuss it then they shouldn't. There's no need to try to silence others.

The hearing was to decide temporary custody. The parents lost.

The point being, it wasn't to decide whether these kinds of laws and legal policies are a good idea.

If Bakers can claim an exemption to laws based on religious freedom, why can't pater familias.

Should private Persons have to go for-profit to be able to "purchase" religious liberty privileges and immunities?

This social dilemma would not exist but for Institutional blindness to our own laws regarding a recognized federal Doctrine and our own State laws regarding the concept of employment at will.

Wtf is up with all these bizarre comments about "bakers"?
There's nothing in this story that has anything whatsoever to do with "baking". K?? Sheesh.

 

[Pogo]

I didn't see anything in the pictures that depicted "horrid living conditions". It appeared to be clean and orderly - although certainly not by so-called modern conditions.

I have no respect for them procreating like animals. One should use a bit of common sense.

But to have their children taken away and facing criminal charges?

A bit overboard IMHO.

Only if that's all there is as a basis. Clearly it isn't.

 

[nodoginnafight]

IMHO: What I immediately object to is taking the snippet of the story, making wild, unwarranted assumptions, and then using those assumptions to grind an ideological ax.

The argument invariably deteriorates into hyper-partisan crap.

Now if you wanna say: Hey, let's look at the bigger picture (s), I got no problems with that at all.

 

[peach174]

It was very revealing that the default position of some people here was that the parents of these kids were innocent victims of Nazi/Chinese communist/North Korean government tactics without knowing a single fact about the case.

There are far too fucking many bozos on this forum who leap to wild goddam conclusions based on their partisan hack biases.

Cut out the bullshit!

Or based on their actual experiences and putting some of the liberal's sayings and writings together over the years.

Right, so how many people here (raise your hands) have ten children, are living "off the grid", and are being "victimized by evil CPS guvment agents".

Discussing corruption in our government departments is not evil CPS government agents.
It has nothing to do with actually being in the exact same situation as this family.
It has to do with how the system is set up and how it should be changed, in order not to have the problems and abuses that is happening within them.

 

[Pogo]

It was very revealing that the default position of some people here was that the parents of these kids were innocent victims of Nazi/Chinese communist/North Korean government tactics without knowing a single fact about the case.

There are far too fucking many bozos on this forum who leap to wild goddam conclusions based on their partisan hack biases.

Cut out the bullshit!

Or based on their actual experiences and putting some of the liberal's sayings and writings together over the years.

Right, so how many people here (raise your hands) have ten children, are living "off the grid", and are being "victimized by evil CPS guvment agents".

Discussing corruption in our government departments is not evil CPS government agents.
It has nothing to do with actually being in the exact same situation as this family.
It has to do with how the system is set up and how it should be changed, in order not to have the problems and abuses that is happening within them.

The argument is a non sequitur. Has no known basis here.

 

[peach174]

It was very revealing that the default position of some people here was that the parents of these kids were innocent victims of Nazi/Chinese communist/North Korean government tactics without knowing a single fact about the case.

There are far too fucking many bozos on this forum who leap to wild goddam conclusions based on their partisan hack biases.

Cut out the bullshit!

Or based on their actual experiences and putting some of the liberal's sayings and writings together over the years.

Right, so how many people here (raise your hands) have ten children, are living "off the grid", and are being "victimized by evil CPS guvment agents".

Discussing corruption in our government departments is not evil CPS government agents.
It has nothing to do with actually being in the exact same situation as this family.
It has to do with how the system is set up and how it should be changed, in order not to have the problems and abuses that is happening within them.

The argument is a non sequitur. Has no known basis here.

The question of the thread is - The Government Doesn't Like the Way You Raise Your Kids?