United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: CPS Charges Parents With ‘Neglect’ For Allowing Kids to Walk Home From Playground (“We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families,” )
Source:
Infowars
URL Source: http://www.infowars.com/cps-charges ... -to-walk-home-from-playground/
Published: Mar 6, 2015
Author: Paul Joseph Watson
Post Date: 2015-03-06 08:55:23 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 6307
Comments: 47
Child Protective Services have charged two parents in Maryland with “unsubstantiated child neglect” after they allowed their 10-year-old and 6-year old to walk home one mile from their local playground. Police were called after someone spotted the two children making their way home on December 20 in Silver Spring, a suburb outside Washington, D.C. “Police had also received an anonymous call about the kids two months earlier, on Oct. 27, after the kids were playing at a closer park, just blocks away from their home. That case was later dropped by CPS,” reports the Today Show. Parents Danielle and Alexander Meitiv received a letter from CPS last month informing them of the “unsubstantiated child neglect” charge, which means that the case will remain in the state’s database for five years if no further reports are added to the file. “I don’t want there to be a file. We never should have been on their radar in the first place. We shouldn’t be in their system at all and certainly not with some allegation of neglect, whether substantiated or not,” said Danielle Meitiv, who is a science consultant and writer. Both Danielle and her husband, Alexander Meitiv, a physicist at the National Institute of Health, have refused to allow the investigation to change their parenting style, which emphasizes independence and trust. They plan on appealing the charge in an effort to expunge the record, although Sandra Barnes, an assistant attorney general in the Maryland Department of Human Resources, said that such a move could lead to the charge being escalated to an “indicated” case of child neglect. “I absolutely am nervous, and that’s why we have to fight this,” said Danielle. “What happens the next time? I refuse to be bullied into this, ‘We know this is right and healthy for our kids, but we’re going to keep them home because we’re scared of CPS?’ That’s just insane. That’s why we have to fight it.” Cases such as this emphasize how parents are increasingly being treated with suspicion merely for allowing their kids to be “free range” to a limited extent. A similar circumstance leading to a CPS investigation would have been unheard of 20 years ago. Such incidents dovetail with media PR campaigns about how children to longer belong to their parents, but to the “community” and the state. “We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families,” said MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry during a 2013 promotional campaign which argued for more public money to be used for government education.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
Are children taken away by CPS winding up in the sex trafficking trade? If so, how is that possible? Isn’t Child Protective Services about wrenching children away from their parents in order to “protect” them from harm? In these cases, apparently not. According to the video below, human trafficking busts have turned up that large quantities of victims who are actually wards of the state — via CPS. The Free Range Kids movement, as with homeschooling, has actually grown to large numbers and has many people in both parties involved. It isn't exactly a Left/Right divide and may actually have more liberals practicing it than conservatives. For instance, a lot more libs homeschool that you ever hear about. And the Free Range Kids concept is similarly nonpartisan. At some point, they may flex their political muscle. Like in an election where one candidate is probably most famous for saying "It takes a village...".
I do like the Free Rangers' statement on their mission:
I was trying to tell you as far back as 2008, that CPS or DSS is the new government devil. They have more non warranted entry rights into a dwelling than LE does. They will deem spanking a child, as abuse, far quicker than a cop. lol
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
"A couple in Nevada has been denied the opportunity to be foster parents because of the fact that they regularly carry firearms for self defense (legally of course). Brian and Valerie Wilson were denied as foster parents because of the fact that they carry firearms. The couple is now hoping that a new bill being considering the state legislature will change that. Read more: http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/couple-denied-as-foster- parents-because-they-legally-carry-guns/#ixzz3Te4zNxH8"
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
A 10-year-old and a 6-year old at a playground one mile from home. The 10-year- old cuts her leg on the swing. Bad. Blood is gushing. She starts to faint from blood loss. Now what? Does the 6-year-old know first aid?
The nanny state is here, and you like it. I bet you were a good boy and put your helmet on tight before riding a bike. (I think it may have been too tight, but meh..)
When I was 10, i didn't play a mile away from the house but I would be at least 4 or 5 blocks away... and if I cut myself, still too far for my parents to medicaly help me. In life, shit happens. Trying to protect everyone by trying to regulate away misfortune, is not viable Imho.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Toto, we're not in South Dakota anymore.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. C.S. Lewis
When I was six years old, my mom would send me The worst thing that ever happened was that the old But that was when I was six - so I guess the world
If you injured yourself severely on a swing when you were 10, would your parents have sued the swing manufacturer for a defective product, the park district for not maintaining playground equipment, and the city just because? Look, I don't care how these parents raise their kids. Why should I? But if something bad happens to those kids, I expect the parents to take full responsibility. No lawsuits, no free medical care, no $500,000 manhunts, no Amber alerts, etc. But we both know that won't happen. The parents will come whining to the rest of us to make things right. And of course we'll help. But I'm saying we help on our terms. And our terms are, "Don't leave 6 and 10-year- olds unattended in the first place". Unless, of course, you believe that people can do whatever they want and the rest of us have to pick up the pieces for them.
The nanny state is here because the lack-of-personal-responsibility state is here. You'll ride your motorcycle without a helmet, hit a tree, then expect the rest of us to foot the bill for your $1 million rehabilitation program. Yeah, you would. However, if you take personal responsibility and purchase health insurance, you can ride naked for all I care. See how that works?
The nanny state is here because the lack-of-personal-responsibility state is here. You'll ride your motorcycle without a helmet, hit a tree, then expect the rest of us to foot the bill for your $1 million rehabilitation program. Yeah, you would --- However, if you take personal responsibility and purchase health insurance, you can ride naked for all I care. See how that works? --- misterwhite At your post #6, we see how it 'works', when you're being honest:--- Of course not. But you are inferring that because they are alone, that laws should be written to prevent that happening. --- YOU - are promoting nanny state laws. Case in point: ---
You of course have a valid point. I have many times tried to educate people to how liability lawsuits have changed the fabric of our society. It's liability lawsuits that has changed police work and it's policies and procedures. It's not Serpico, Alex Jones, Cop Block, Deckard or some vast nazi conspiracy theory of a police state... it's expensive liability judgements that are mostly unfair and in civil lawsuits, everyone's culpability is often not factored. Kinda like the black hoodlum that climbs up a Coke machine outside a walmart... Tips it over to commit a larceny of the machines coins... the machine squashes his ignorant inner city criminal zoo animal ass... and his parents win a liability suit because the machine wasn't bolted to the building. Liability suits play a huge factor of why we are like we are. It can not be overlooked.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Grandi, I'd like your opinion on my previous post, seeing that misterwhite cannot work up the courage to answer: --- White claimed, at his post #6: ---
So what's your opinion, Grandi? -- Is whitey a nanny state promoter? If Mr. White thinks that laws or regulations designed to PREVENT unfortunate or illegal incidents are a good idea, or work, then yes, he'd be promoting a nanny state ideology, in most cases. If Mr. White is realistic in that no law prevents any crime or unfortunate event in a free society, but a written law or regulation could be used for punishment towards unlawful or irresponsible behaviors, then maybe not. Flat out ask him if he feels laws prevent crimes. In most cases, they don't. In some cases they do. If it wasn't for a speed law, everyone would most likely speed. The law, the posted signs and the enforcement along with a stiff fine if you get caught, really does reduce speeding. Things like murder or rape... people that opt to do those don't really care about the consequences. I'll suggest that people with addictions or a pro drug agenda... don't either.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
I can't flat out ask him anything, as he pretends to ignore me; -- due to the fact he can't win in a debate. We used to debate a lot, years ago on FR. It developed that misterwhite/robertpaulsen was a die hard majority rule authoritarian, convinced that our govts have the power to write laws prohibiting ANY damn thing or type of behavior. Govts do not have that power under our Constitution, of course, and when this was proved, whitey quit debating. --- Now he just spouts the same old authoritarian line, but will not debate it's principles. -- Or our Constitution.
Well, I gotta tell ya, you are a little course... a bit gruff, sarcastic and you do, at times have some anger management issues. I've found you to be intelligent, intolerant and argumentative all rolled up into one. I actually enjoy debating with you... but I've been seasoned with 20 years of being spit on, swore at... and an occasional jab at my head. I can take it as well as I dish it out... mr. White might not be tollerant of your debate techniques.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
He's ignorant and a coward and not worth anyone's time. I've wasted plenty.
Our laws reflect what is not acceptable to society. Period. No one expects any law to eliminate any activity. We can hope that it minimizes it. The main reason we have so many laws is that more people use laws as their guiding moral principle. It used to be that a person's moral character prevented them from behaving inappropriately. You know -- "With freedom comes responsibility". But nowadays, personal responsibility is for suckers. Everyone's attitude is, "If it's legal I can do it and don't you dare judge me". So now we need more laws to regulate the behavior people used to regulate themselves.
2) The main reason we have so many laws is that more people use laws as their guiding moral principle. It used to be that a person's moral character prevented them from behaving inappropriately. You know -- "With freedom comes responsibility". 3) But nowadays, personal responsibility is for suckers. Everyone's attitude is, "If it's legal I can do it and don't you dare judge me". So now we need more laws to regulate the behavior people used to regulate themselves. 1) & 2) I completly agree with... spot on. 3)... not so much agreeance. Personal responsibility is out the door, that I agree with but try to regulate behavior is always a slippery slope. Example... manufacturing meth. Make a law that dictates its unlawful... I have no problem with that... but making it illegal to buy more than one package of Sudafed a month, to make it harder on meth heads to manufacture is just ignorant. They find ways to buy it... and it just hurts the law abiding people who now have to ask for it from some secure vault and now can't buy two boxes on sale. What we need to do is PUNISH THE SHIT out of criminals for breaking our existing laws... but since most of America is to weak and soft to punish, Personal responsibility takes a shit... and it's then that politicians sell votes with feel good laws designed to "regulate behavior"... which really isn't possible in s free society.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Did the parents also let their kids choose their gender?
However, if you take personal responsibility and purchase health insurance, you can ride naked for all I care. See how that works? Well, why dont you spend your energies on tort reform? Nah, you NEVER would, giving up your lever to control others is not something you would ever give up willingly. Heck, you believe you have the moral right to tell others how to live, and you dont have the shame to see you're just a vapid, angry control freak who hates that another person somewhere may be laughing. And your argument about the socialization of costs because of majority rule statists is the ready made fig leaf you hide behind. Btw, you know nothing about me. So take your opinions on what I would do and shove em sport.
Liability suits play a huge factor of why we are like we are. It can not be overlooked. It is part and parcel of the fleecing of the taxpayer. Everyone here plays a part, with insurance companies the taxpayers and consumers being the target. Many, MANY people benefit greatly from this system. The lawyers, naturally, the courts, (they get to hire new staff, increase their budgets, and of course, control over others.) an army of inspectors gets to inspect everything about everything, and again, it bloats the behemoth even more. The list is endless, and that is why it wont go away, too many pigs feed on it, and useful idiots like whitey are very much ok with it. He never rails against the system thats set up, he rails against those who dare call it what it is.
Only when they tell me that I have to pay for the consequences of their reckless and irresponsible actions. Then I want some say-so in how they act. But, as I've said before, if people are willing to take personal responsibity for their actions, I don't care what they do.
If it won't go away, then we have to deal with what is. And that is people, businesses, and local government telling people what they can and can't do in order to protect themselves from the lawsuits generated by the "many, MANY people (who) benefit greatly from this system". You want it both ways. You want the freedom to do whatever you want AND the freedom to hold the rest of us responsible for your f**k ups. Just like the parents in this article.
misterwhite claims (#21): --- There he goes again, claiming that "society" has the power to make valid law on the basis of what is "acceptable". -- NOT true, as such law must comply with our Constitution, before it is deemed acceptable.. Prohibitive laws tries to eliminate all activity, thus encouraging scoflaws and black markets. Human nature hasn't changed. -- Over 100 years ago people in the USA were free to buy and use 'dangerous' drugs and weapons. Some still call the late 1800's a golden age... Misterwhite is chanting the proggresive 'line', the one they used to justify their takeover early in the 1900's. -- Progressivism is over, and a return to constitutionalism is near. ----------------------------------------------------- That's a pity. I don't believe you would agree, if you knew what misterwhite really meant with his carefully worded comments. You should. The after affects of booze prohibition still linger on, not to mention the general lawless culture brought on by drug prohibitions. Punishing the shit out of criminal blackmarketeers has never worked, as you well know, and as you admit just above in your regulating behavior comment. Thanks.. Hope I wasn't too "intolerant and argumentative".
I try not reading past what was written down. If you tried that, you might not be so argumentative during a discussion. When YOU try and word or spin someone else's response into what you believe it meant... is when communication stops.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Thanks.. Hope I wasn't too "intolerant and argumentative". I strongly disagree with you here. There are literally billions of criminal charges and convictions on early released ex-cons, that they acquire during their time OUT ON EARLY RELEASE. Common sense says that a person with 4 rape related convictions on his criminal history would not have had more than one IF we incarcrrated the piece of shit, for life, the first time a proved to be a dangerous sexual deviant.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
I've been in the position to have dealt with hundreds of people with 50 and 60 Separate criminal charge histories. There is no reason to allow anyone the ability to victimize society SIXTY times, regardless how trivial the charges are. IMHO, the only place our forefathers dropped the ball, constitutionally, was their broad writting of "cruel and unusual punishment" After the 30th criminal charge for a petit larceny, KILL IT. It's a stain on society. I remember the worst I've ever encountered. His first name was Napoleon. By the time I retired, he was about 45 years old. I, myself, have arrested him over 10 times for larcenies and drug charges. He had such an extensive criminal history, that every time I printed his rap sheet, I'd have to make sure A FULL REAM OF PAPER in the printer. He had well over 125 criminal convictions. He was on welfare from the time I started in 94 until now. He walks the streets as we speak unless he's in some counties lock up for a month or two.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
misterwhite claims (#21): --- There he goes again, claiming that "society" has the power to make valid law on the basis of what is "acceptable". -- NOT true, as such law must comply with our Constitution, before it is deemed acceptable.. You agreed with whitey, and that's a pity. I don't believe you would agree, if you knew what misterwhite really meant with his carefully worded comments. I tried to explain to you that whitey has become very adept at choosing his words, - in order to mask his majority rule/anti-constitutional beliefs. (Reread my post#18) -- But believe me, over the years, he has exposed himself many times. Robertpaulsen/misterwhites political positions are well documented over at FR. - - I'm not being argumentative about them, I'm stating facts. -- This is why whitey stopped communicating with me. -- He couldn't counter those facts.
You could be 100% right. I didn't follow LP after Goldi banned me on election night, 2012. I honestly never returned with a retread... I respected her decision. To me, that's trespassing. I lurked about once every month.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Paulsen posted for years at freerepublic, and his opinions on majority rule ,democracy' are searchable, including his indefensible support of California's 'right' to prohibit assault rifles and other such 'dangerous' arms.
Betas like you are incapable of understanding someone like me. Your projection is apparent.
You seem to know these people quite well also, lol. Tell me, where is any proof you have of all your bullshit claims? Oh, thats right, you dont have any. You're dismissed.
misterwhite claims (#21): --- 1) Our laws reflect what is not acceptable to society. Period. There he goes again, claiming that "society" has the power to make valid law on the basis of what is "acceptable". -- NOT true, as such law must comply with our Constitution, before it is deemed acceptable.. You agreed with whitey, and that's a pity. I don't believe you would agree, if you knew what misterwhite really meant with his carefully worded comments. I try not reading past what was written down. I tried to explain to you that whitey has become very adept at choosing his words, - in order to mask his majority rule/anti-constitutional beliefs. (Reread my post#18) -- But believe me, over the years, he has exposed himself many times. If you tried that, you might not be so argumentative during a discussion. When YOU try and word or spin someone else's response into what you believe it meant... is when communication stops. Robertpaulsen/misterwhites political positions are well documented over at FR. - - I'm not being argumentative about them, I'm stating facts. -- This is why whitey stopped communicating with me. -- He couldn't counter those facts. Any response you wish to make?
You asked misterwhite: --- I will not hold my breath while waiting for a truly responsive reply. Whitey is becoming a master of evasive response.
Lol, ya, and he also has a mystical insight into everyone he's never met. When he has nothing, he just makes stuff up. Sad Panda.
Burp. You got a question?
Robertpaulsen/misterwhites political positions are well documented over at FR. - - I'm not being argumentative about them, I'm stating facts. -- This is why whitey stopped communicating with me. -- He couldn't counter those facts. Yep, -- who's a coward now?
Comments (42 - 47) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Video Description from TheLipTV:
Child Protective Services agencies are intended to take care of children with nowhere else to go, but corruption has infiltrated the government custodial system — putting kids at great risk. National Safe Child founder Tammi Stefano takes a look at the problem and reveals cases of CPS children who ended up working in the growing human sex trafficking trade in this short clip from the full length Buzzsaw interview with Sean Stone.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
#3. To: Deckard (#1)
Fighting the belief that our children are in constant danger from creeps, kidnapping, germs, grades, flashers, frustration, failure, baby snatchers, bugs, bullies, men, sleepovers and/or the perils of a non-organic grape.
#4. To: Deckard (#0)
#5. To: Deckard (#1)
#6. To: Deckard (#0)
"10-year-old and 6-year old to walk home one mile from their local playground."
#7. To: misterwhite (#6)
#8. To: misterwhite (#6)
#9. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
#10. To: GrandIsland (#8)
#11. To: Deckard (#0)
to walk to a local store (about exactly a mile
away) to pick out some kind of cake or pastries
or whatever to have for desert after Sunday dinner.
lady who ran the place would yell at me to 'Make
up your mind' or else 'Go home and get your mother
to come back and buy whatever she wants.'
I would frequently take too much time apparently.
has changed a bit in 44 years...
#12. To: GrandIsland (#8)
"In life, shit happens. Trying to protect everyone by trying to regulate away misfortune, is not viable Imho."
#13. To: Dead Culture Watch (#7)
"The nanny state is here, and you like it."
#14. To: misterwhite, dead culture watch, Y'ALL (#6)
(Edited)
Dead Culture Watch (#7) --- "The nanny state is here, and you like it."
"10-year-old and 6-year old to walk home one mile from their local playground." -----
A 10-year-old and a 6-year old at a playground one mile from home. The 10-year- old cuts her leg on the swing. Bad. Blood is gushing. She starts to faint from blood loss. ---- Now what? Does the 6-year-old know first aid?
But I'm saying we help on our terms. And our terms are, "Don't leave 6 and 10-year- olds unattended in the first place". - misterwhite
#15. To: misterwhite (#12)
(Edited)
If you injured yourself severely on a swing when you were 10, would your parents have sued the swing manufacturer for a defective product, the park district for not maintaining playground equipment, and the city just because?
#16. To: GrandIsland (#15)
A 10-year-old and a 6-year old at a playground one mile from home. The 10-year- old cuts her leg on the swing. Bad. Blood is gushing. She starts to faint from blood loss. ---- Now what? Does the 6-year-old know first aid?
Of course not. But you are inferring that because they are alone, that laws should be written to prevent that happening. --- YOU - are promoting nanny state laws. Case in point: --- But I'm saying we help on our terms. And our terms are, "Don't leave 6 and 10- year- olds unattended in the first place". - misterwhite
So what's your opinion, Grandi? -- Is whitey a nanny state promoter?
#17. To: tpaine (#16)
(Edited)
#18. To: GrandIsland, misterwhite, Y'ALL (#17)
Flat out ask him if he feels laws prevent crimes. In most cases, they don't.
#19. To: tpaine (#18)
(Edited)
We used to debate a lot, years ago on FR.
#20. To: GrandIsland (#19)
"I've found you to be intelligent, intolerant and argumentative all rolled up into one."
#21. To: GrandIsland (#17)
"If Mr. White is realistic in that no law prevents any crime ..."
#22. To: misterwhite (#21)
1) Our laws reflect what is not acceptable to society. Period. No one expects any law to eliminate any activity. We can hope that it minimizes it.
#23. To: Deckard (#0)
#24. To: misterwhite (#13)
The nanny state is here because the lack-of-personal-responsibility state is here. You'll ride your motorcycle without a helmet, hit a tree, then expect the rest of us to foot the bill for your $1 million rehabilitation program. Yeah, you would.
#25. To: GrandIsland (#15)
(Edited)
Kinda like the black hoodlum that climbs up a Coke machine outside a walmart... Tips it over to commit a larceny of the machines coins... the machine squashes his ignorant inner city criminal zoo animal ass... and his parents win a liability suit because the machine wasn't bolted to the building.
#26. To: Dead Culture Watch (#24)
"you believe you have the moral right to tell others how to live"
#27. To: Dead Culture Watch (#25)
"The list is endless, and that is why it wont go away"
#28. To: GrandIsland (#22)
(Edited)
1) Our laws reflect what is not acceptable to society. Period.
No one expects any law to eliminate any activity. We can hope that it minimizes it.
2) The main reason we have so many laws is that more people use laws as their guiding moral principle. It used to be that a person's moral character prevented them from behaving inappropriately. You know -- "With freedom comes responsibility".
3) But nowadays, personal responsibility is for suckers. Everyone's attitude is, "If it's legal I can do it and don't you dare judge me". So now we need more laws to regulate the behavior people used to regulate themselves.
GrandIsland --- 1) & 2) I completly agree with... spot on.
3)... not so much agreeance. Personal responsibility is out the door, that I agree with but try to regulate behavior is always a slippery slope. --- Example... manufacturing meth. Make a law that dictates its unlawful... I have no problem with that...
…. but making it illegal to buy more than one package of Sudafed a month, to make it harder on meth heads to manufacture is just ignorant. They find ways to buy it... and it just hurts the law abiding people who now have to ask for it from some secure vault and now can't buy two boxes on sale. --- What we need to do is PUNISH THE SHIT out of criminals for breaking our existing laws... but since most of America is to weak and soft to punish, Personal responsibility takes a shit... and it's then that politicians sell votes with feel good laws designed to "regulate behavior"... which really isn't possible in s free society.
#29. To: tpaine (#28)
That's a pity. I don't believe you would agree, if you knew what misterwhite really meant with his carefully worded comments.
#30. To: tpaine (#28)
(Edited)
Punishing the shit out of criminal blackmarketeers has never worked, as you well know, and as you admit just above in your regulating behavior comment.
#31. To: tpaine (#28)
Punishing the shit out of criminal blackmarketeers has never worked, as you well know, and as you admit just above in your regulating behavior comment.
#32. To: GrandIsland (#29)
(Edited)
1) Our laws reflect what is not acceptable to society. Period.
I try not reading past what was written down.
If you tried that, you might not be so argumentative during a discussion. When YOU try and word or spin someone else's response into what you believe it meant... is when communication stops.
#33. To: tpaine (#32)
(Edited)
Robertpaulsen/misterwhites political positions are well documented over at FR. - - I'm not being argumentative about them, I'm stating facts. -- This is why whitey stopped communicating with me. -- He couldn't counter those facts.
#34. To: GrandIsland, Y'ALL, misterwhite's support of gun control. (#33)
I didn't follow LP ---
#35. To: misterwhite (#27)
You want it both ways. You want the freedom to do whatever you want AND the freedom to hold the rest of us responsible for your f**k ups. Just like the parents in this article.
#36. To: misterwhite (#27)
Just like the parents in this article.
#37. To: tpaine, misterwhite (#32)
#38. To: Dead Culture Watch, Y'ALL (#37)
Any response you wish to make?
#39. To: tpaine (#38)
#40. To: Dead Culture Watch (#37)
"Any response you wish to make?"
#41. To: misterwhite (#40)
Any response you wish to make? --- Dead Culture Watch
miserwhite --- Burp. You got a question?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]