On Aug 18, 8:49 am, Firemonkey <firemonke...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 9:47 am, Firemonkey <firemonke...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 18, 5:40 am, "Condoleezza HaHa" <condolee...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:18:05 -0400, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> > > > On Aug 17, 9:58 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > >> On Aug 17, 1:12 am, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > >>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sup****t.child-protective-services/...
>
> > > >> > On Aug 16, 11:39 pm, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
> > > >> > > On Aug 16, 9:49 pm, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > >> > > > On Aug 15, 8:01 pm, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
> > > >> > > > > On Aug 15, 1:43 pm, LK <Patis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > >> > > > > >http://millennialsw.wordpress.com/
>
> > > >> > > > > Here is my opinion of the statements made in the blog you
link
> > > >> to:
>
> > > >> > > > > Good, fine, someone, anyone, is gay. I got nothing
against gay
> > > >> > > > > people. They don't bother me, I don't bother them. I
find
> > > >> some of
> > > >> > > > > the flaming femme guys a little offensive in their
downright
> > > >> hate for
> > > >> > > > > women (mad because my breasts are real?, sorry!), their
> > > >> demeanor, and
> > > >> > > > > their attitudes, but other than that, I don't have to
tolerate
> > > >> it, so
> > > >> > > > > don't care.
>
> > > >> > > > > Now, where this gay parenting things comes to pieces in
my most
> > > >> humble
> > > >> > > > > opinion is here: If you have a kid, and you're gay,
regardless
> > > >> of
> > > >> > > > > what your ***ual preferences AFTER you have that kid,
it's
> > > >> still your
> > > >> > > > > kid, and still your right to rear that kid. Even if you
choose
> > > >> a life
> > > >> > > > > partner of the same *** to help you rear your kid.
>
> > > >> > > > > When you take a child and place them in a same *** home
that is
> > > >> a BIG
> > > >> > > > > NO NO.
> > > >> > > > > Why? Not because I have a preference against gays, but
because
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > mandate of DFS, who removes children from their families,
is to
> > > >> place
> > > >> > > > > the child in a setting MOST LIKE THE HOME OF THEIR
BIOLOGICAL
> > > >> FAMILY.
> > > >> > > > > That means in regard to the *** of the parents, religion,
> > > >> political
> > > >> > > > > views, heritage, etc.
>
> > > >> > > > > If DFS removes a child from the family home, and that
home has
> > > >> one
> > > >> > > > > mother, one father, and both are hetero***ual, then it is
DFS's
> > > >> > > > > mandate to place the child in a home exactly like the one
they
> > > >> came
> > > >> > > > > from. Not in a home with two female parents, not in a
home
> > > >> with two
> > > >> > > > > male parents. If the child comes from a home where both
> > > >> parents are
> > > >> > > > > the same ***, then it is DFS's mandate to place the child
in a
> > > >> home
> > > >> > > > > where both parents are the same ***.
>
> > > >> > > > > I know that will never happen, but that's the way it's
supposed
> > > >> to be.
>
> > > >> > G > I have said this myself, Betty, but I didn't see you
> > > >> > G > chiming in with your agreement! Why was that?
>
> > > >> > BW > Because I didn't see you say it?
>
> > > >> > How much ya wanna bet you QUOTED it?
>
> > > >> Word for word? Show me.
>
> > > >> > BW > You see me saying it now, so what's the beef?
> > > >> > BW > It's not as if I'm disputing, is it?
>
> > > >> > It was politically convenient for you to stand idly by
> > > >> > and remain quiet when I said the same thing!
>
> > > >> So, what you are saying is that I had some kind of politically
> > > >> motivated reason to have not commented (remain quiet) on
something you
> > > >> said at some unknown time in regard to some unknown subject?
You're
> > > >> joking, right?
>
> > > >> > > > Another way to describe it is respect for the the family's
> > > >> culture.
>
> > > >> > > > I even mentioned a story the kids of a CLERGYMAN
> > > >> > > > in MO (YOUR STATE) were put in a GAY home.
>
> > > >> > > > The truth is that the agency geeks actually DO
> > > >> > > > attempt ""social engineering"" like taking kids
> > > >> > > > from a straight laced anti-gay home and placing
> > > >> > > > them into a gay home to ""correct"" that.
>
> > > >> > > > In that MO case, the Clergy and their
> > > >> > > > followers raised some hell anf got a
> > > >> > > > politician in MO to raise some hell as well.
> > > >> > > > The perverse placement was changed.
>
> > > >> > > > The agency made a PUBLIC RELATIONS boo boo
> > > >> > > > when they messed with those people!
> > > >> > > > The agencies do seem to be more on the side of
> > > >> > > > allowing little boys to be indoctrinated into the
> > > >> > > > gay community (pederasty) than finding a way
> > > >> > > > to weed out those gays (pederasts) from gays
> > > >> > > > who are NOT pederasts. They may be two
> > > >> > > > slightly different lifestyles, but the agencies seem
> > > >> > > > unable to tell pederasts from other gays.
>
> > > >> > BW > Do you have some foolproof method that
> > > >> > BW > you could recommend that would
> > > >> > BW > accomplish that for social services?
>
> > > >> > I don't think they can find their way out of a paper bag.
> > > >> > But they REPRESENT themselves as competent!
>
> > > >> Funny how you didn't answer the question. Do you have some fool
proof
> > > >> method for weeding out those who should not foster children that
could
> > > >> be implemented by DFS to ensure the safety of our children placed
in
> > > >> care?
> > > >> A simple yes, or no would suffice.
>
> > > >> > I've said many times that the Child Protection INDUSTRY
> > > >> > needs to weed out the perverts among their OWN ranks
> > > >> > before they point any fingers at anybody else!
>
> > > >> And they may do so by what method, Greg?
>
> > > >> > I've also countered *****ing about "homophobia"
> > > >> > by pointing out that "homophilia" is an ill as well!
>
> > > >> > CPS being "groupies"/patronizing gays/lesbians
> > > >> > is just as wrong as being phobic about them.
>
> > > >> Huh? Did you read that before you posted it?
>
> > > >> > And CPS has a long track record of homophilia
> > > >> > and affinity for gays, and that is likely part of their
> > > >> > problem with numbers of PEDERASTS within the
> > > >> > Child Protection INDUSTRY itself.
>
> > > >> I am sure that the first question on the application after
'address'
> > > >> is '***ual preference' with a little note in parenthesis saying
that
> > > >> homo***uals get first consideration. <rolling eyes> Only you
could
> > > >> come up with such a boogie man out to get you theory.
>
> > > >> > Give me an AMEN Betty! LOL- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > Is that the best you could come up with after Kane's
> > > > back channel coaching of you he also sent to me?
>
> > > > Did you know he sent it to me, Betty?
>
> > > > At first I thought these e-mails I get from Kane
> > > > were a result of his mental decline, but sometimes
> > > > I wonder if he deliberately sends them to me.
>
> > > > Did you get Kane's memo on how to respond here?
>
> > > I wonder why Don/Kane/d;geezer goes koo-koo every time homo***uals
are
> > > mentioned? Wonder if it's a family affair. lol
> > > ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**-Hidequoted
text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > What are you talking about Liza?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Kane hasn't posted here for months. WTF?
It's the Kanespiracy Theory again.
That reminds me, did you send in your cult dues yet?
<tapping foot> I'm waiting.
|
