Bush is a hero

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#180610 Jul 24, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
Ou have a very vivid imagination if you see either a personal attack or a concession.
When you include in your characterization the absurd suggestion that the state owns children, you don't know what you are talking about. That implies a lack of knowledge, not a personal flaw.
Parens Patriae

"[Latin, Parent of the country.] A doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

MEADOWS v. MEADOWS,(Aug 2008)

“The primary control and custody of infants is with the government.”

Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62

“There is no wider area for the exercise of judicial discretion than that of providing for and protecting the best interests of children.“

Ex parte Handley, 460 So.2d 167 (Ala.1984).

“The court stands in the position of parens patria[e] of children.“

Ayers v. Kelley, 284 Ala. 321, 224 So.2d 673 (1969)․

“…we held that the best interest of the child took precedence over the parent’s right to travel.“

Everett, 660 So.2d at 601-02.

“In 1984, the Court of Appeals of Idaho ruled that the State had a ‘compelling governmental interest’ that justified restricting the residence of the custodial parent, holding that the best interests of a child had priority over the parent’s right to travel.“

Obviously the State thinks they can raise our children better than us.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#180611 Jul 24, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Parens Patriae
"[Latin, Parent of the country.] A doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
MEADOWS v. MEADOWS,(Aug 2008)
“The primary control and custody of infants is with the government.”
Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62
“There is no wider area for the exercise of judicial discretion than that of providing for and protecting the best interests of children.“
Ex parte Handley, 460 So.2d 167 (Ala.1984).
“The court stands in the position of parens patria[e] of children.“
Ayers v. Kelley, 284 Ala. 321, 224 So.2d 673 (1969)&#8228;
“…we held that the best interest of the child took precedence over the parent’s right to travel.“
Everett, 660 So.2d at 601-02.
“In 1984, the Court of Appeals of Idaho ruled that the State had a ‘compelling governmental interest’ that justified restricting the residence of the custodial parent, holding that the best interests of a child had priority over the parent’s right to travel.“
Obviously the State thinks they can raise our children better than us.
Hahaha.

Better stick to sheetwall, Redneck.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#180612 Jul 24, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
John Kerry has a perpetual need to be relevant and he never quite gets there. I hope Israel flattens Hamas and does whatever it takes to do it. Ka-BOOM!
Heh heh. Yep, and after that I want the IDF to fly around Lebanon strafing Hezbollah thugs, until their planes run outta ammunition. After that, I'd like to see Israeli attack helicopters "light up" ISIS in western Iraq, then swing by Tehran and drop off some 2000 pounders on the mayor's tent.

And if they have time on the way home, maybe circle around to Yemen to see if any of them sand monkeys can use a little LEAD poisoning. Just a polite PR calling card to let all future potential Jew & West-haters know that they can't play mean and get away with it.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#180613 Jul 24, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
Hahaha.
Better stick to sheetwall, Redneck.
That takes A LOT of duct tape.

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#180614 Jul 24, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Parens Patriae
"[Latin, Parent of the country.] A doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
MEADOWS v. MEADOWS,(Aug 2008)
“The primary control and custody of infants is with the government.”
Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62
“There is no wider area for the exercise of judicial discretion than that of providing for and protecting the best interests of children.“
Ex parte Handley, 460 So.2d 167 (Ala.1984).
“The court stands in the position of parens patria[e] of children.“
Ayers v. Kelley, 284 Ala. 321, 224 So.2d 673 (1969)&#8228;
“…we held that the best interest of the child took precedence over the parent’s right to travel.“
Everett, 660 So.2d at 601-02.
“In 1984, the Court of Appeals of Idaho ruled that the State had a ‘compelling governmental interest’ that justified restricting the residence of the custodial parent, holding that the best interests of a child had priority over the parent’s right to travel.“
Obviously the State thinks they can raise our children better than us.
You said that the state of California owns children. Yet the link you provided doesn't say anything of the sort. It says that the state can step in if there is a danger to the child's welfare when there is a disagreement between parents or when a child or adult is mentally unable to care for itself.

"The state is the supreme guardian of all children within its jurisdiction, and state courts have the inherent power to intervene to protect the best interests of children whose welfare is jeopardized by controversies between parents."

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#180615 Jul 24, 2014
Strength and Honor wrote:
<quoted text>
You said that the state of California owns children. Yet the link you provided doesn't say anything of the sort. It says that the state can step in if there is a danger to the child's welfare when there is a disagreement between parents or when a child or adult is mentally unable to care for itself.
"The state is the supreme guardian of all children within its jurisdiction, and state courts have the inherent power to intervene to protect the best interests of children whose welfare is jeopardized by controversies between parents."
"Owns the children" was a figure of speech, my man. Not a literal phrase.

Why do I have to explain that?

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#180616 Jul 24, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
"Owns the children" was a figure of speech, my man. Not a literal phrase.
Why do I have to explain that?
Oh, well that clears that one up.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#180617 Jul 24, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
Not that you needed to reinforce your credentials as a bigot, but you then chose to use the multiculturalism debate as an excuse to link to a video produced by supporters of Dr. David Duke, a notorious American racist and hatemonger.
If you want to pin David Duke then you must also look at Roosevelt appointing KKK member Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Democrat and Kleagle Robert Byrd.

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/robert_c._byrd/

I will never submit to fight beneath that banner with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."”

http://www.conservapedia.com/Robert_Byrd
----------

The fact 80%Democrats voted against the 13th Amendment ending slavery. These are just a few things.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#180618 Jul 24, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Parens Patriae
"[Latin, Parent of the country.] A doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
MEADOWS v. MEADOWS,(Aug 2008)
“The primary control and custody of infants is with the government.”
Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62
“There is no wider area for the exercise of judicial discretion than that of providing for and protecting the best interests of children.“
Ex parte Handley, 460 So.2d 167 (Ala.1984).
“The court stands in the position of parens patria[e] of children.“
Ayers v. Kelley, 284 Ala. 321, 224 So.2d 673 (1969)&#8228;
“…we held that the best interest of the child took precedence over the parent’s right to travel.“
Everett, 660 So.2d at 601-02.
“In 1984, the Court of Appeals of Idaho ruled that the State had a ‘compelling governmental interest’ that justified restricting the residence of the custodial parent, holding that the best interests of a child had priority over the parent’s right to travel.“
Obviously the State thinks they can raise our children better than us.
Yes, the courts have the authority to determine the best interests of the children in child custody and abuse cases.

And?

Leaving aside the fact that you made a claim about California and appear to be backing your claim up with cases primarily from Alabama, all your post shows is how easy it is to create an impression that will scare the snot out of someone, just by cherry picking language out of court cases completely out of context.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#180619 Jul 24, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
Yes, the courts have the authority to determine the best interests of the children in child custody and abuse cases.
And?
Leaving aside the fact that you made a claim about California and appear to be backing your claim up with cases primarily from Alabama, all your post shows is how easy it is to create an impression that will scare the snot out of someone, just by cherry picking language out of court cases completely out of context.
You must've either missed or misread the first sentence.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#180620 Jul 24, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> If you want to pin David Duke then you must also look at Roosevelt appointing KKK member Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Democrat and Kleagle Robert Byrd.
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/robert_c._byrd/
I will never submit to fight beneath that banner with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."”
http://www.conservapedia.com/Robert_Byrd
----------
The fact 80%Democrats voted against the 13th Amendment ending slavery. These are just a few things.
What's your point, here, Skippy? What is it you think these things rebut?

David Duke is a hatemonger TODAY, in the year of our Lord 2014.

Robert Byrd was born in 1917, and has been dead since 2010. Like a lot of politicians from the South and border states (at least) of his era he was at one time or another active in the Klan, or some other form of racism and support for segregation. Among those was a prominent ultimately Republican Senator who ran for President against Truman as a Dixiecrat on a platform of segregation.

Hugo Black's been dead 42 years, and was appointed to the Supreme Court 77 years ago. The former Klansman voted in favor of many of the momentous civil rights cases of the 50s and 60s. FDR's been dead for sixty nine years.

The vote on the 13th amendment was one hundred fifty years ago.

I don't think your 'points' prove squat. They really wouldn't prove squat if I'd taken the cheap shot at Republicans by pointing out Duke's U.S. Senate campaign. I didn't (and wouldn't), because in this context it's not relevant.

The truth of the matter is that David Duke is just a hatemonger. He's not a Democrat or a Republican, or even a conservative. He's just scum. No matter how much you dress that pig up, it's still going to be a pig.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#180621 Jul 24, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
You must've either missed or misread the first sentence.
No to either point. I read the sentence; I followed the link.

Like I said ... you can make some pretty crazy, sweeping assumptions if you take the language of a legal ruling/finding out of context.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#180622 Jul 24, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
"Owns the children" was a figure of speech, my man. Not a literal phrase.
Why do I have to explain that?
Just speculation but do you have an axe to grind? Why not just come out and say it.?

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#180623 Jul 24, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
"Owns the children" was a figure of speech, my man. Not a literal phrase.
Why do I have to explain that?
Because the way you used your 'figure of speech' didn't hint at it being anything other than literal.

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#180624 Jul 24, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>No to either point. I read the sentence; I followed the link.
Like I said ... you can make some pretty crazy, sweeping assumptions if you take the language of a legal ruling/finding out of context.
Hey Willie, did you ever get the feeling that some people will say you're wrong even if you agree with them? Topixland at its finest.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#180625 Jul 24, 2014
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Just speculation but do you have an axe to grind? Why not just come out and say it.?
No not at all. Just bringing up a strange topic.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#180626 Jul 24, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
Because the way you used your 'figure of speech' didn't hint at it being anything other than literal.
"The state owns the children, not the parents."

Parents don't own their children. "Own" should've been obvious that it wasn't literal.

Ugh.

Again, I can't believe I'm having to explain how that's a figure of speech.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#180627 Jul 24, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>What's your point, here, Skippy?
The point is obvious skippy.
David Duke is a hatemonger TODAY, in the year of our Lord 2014.
Who cares. I know one thing .You appear to be a judgmental p[r*ck.
Robert Byrd was born in 1917, and has been dead since 2010. Like a lot of politicians from the South and border states (at least) of his era he was at one time or another active in the Klan, or some other form of racism and support for segregation. Among those was a prominent ultimately Republican Senator who ran for President against Truman as a Dixiecrat on a platform of segregation.
Hugo Black's been dead 42 years, and was appointed to the Supreme Court 77 years ago. The former Klansman voted in favor of many of the momentous civil rights cases of the 50s and 60s. FDR's been dead for sixty nine years.
The vote on the 13th amendment was one hundred fifty years ago.
I don't think your 'points' prove squat. They really wouldn't prove squat if I'd taken the cheap shot at Republicans by pointing out Duke's U.S. Senate campaign. I didn't (and wouldn't), because in this context it's not relevant.
The truth of the matter is that David Duke is just a hatemonger. He's not a Democrat or a Republican, or even a conservative. He's just scum. No matter how much you dress that pig up, it's still going to be a pig.
Well it looks like i struck a nerve. You know you refer to other people as scum and judge Duke an unrepentant racist or whatever. I just thought i would enlighten everybody with a little history from some Dems of not so long ago. You seem to demonstrate a double standard. The Dems by a far majority voted against 13, 14, and 15TH amendment. That is ending slavery, citizen rights for blacks, and right to vote. Given Dems history as a whole they got no business saying anything about racism since their history is riddled with it. You have elected KKK members who are Dems. Then you want to whine about David Duke? What was he elected to? Was he in the Supreme Court? What a joke.
The Awakener

Liverpool, Australia

#180628 Jul 24, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>No, I would not like to visit or live in any of the areas you describe.
So?
There's lots of other places in my country, in your country, and in any other country, I wouldn't want to visit or live, and THOSE places are populated by natives as opposed to immigrants.
Your supposedly articulate questions are based on the false premise that there's some kind of either/or here. See, the TRUTH of the matter is that most of the people living in the neighborhoods you describe - people of the same race/ethnicity as the thugs you focus on - wouldn't want to live there either.
Oh, and for the record ... I spent most of my adult life in the city of St. Louis, which vies for the title of 'murder capital' only slightly less often than the baseball Cardinals vie for the National League pennant. There were places in my home town I wouldn't go - and I had friends who wouldn't come visit me at night at my place. I had to shoe the occasional unregulated pharmaceutical salesman or woman engaged in (very) public relations off my stoop. Once I had to take the bus to work because my car was blocked in by the crime scene van investigating a homicide.
See, I'm not really as much a stranger to this stuff your 'questions' suppose. In fact, I'm not really a stranger to your 'questions'. I've been asked them before, at least twice in this thread in fact. Had a keybored warrior in here think he had a gotcha because he Googled. Where. I. Lived (at the time I was living in a small country down about as diverse as a bag of marshmallows).
Come to think of it, the first time I can remember them being deployed at me I was all of 15, and a lot of American cities were still smoldering in the aftermath of the riots following the murder of Martin Luther King Jr.
You'd think, with all the advances in technology and marketing, your methods of persuasion would have gotten a little better, but from what I can see it's the same old sales pitch.
I am not a "keyboard warrior" - just being blunt about the truth about the situation "multiculturalism" brings to any country. You, on the other hand, display yourself as a left-winger whose mind is being clouded by the brainwashing methods of political-correctness AKA Cultural Marxism that has prevented you from accepting the truth on the dismantling of Western societies due to the evils of Hollywood and political methods in morally-bankrupting today's generation of Americans, additionally with the case of Australians, English, Dutch, Canadians etc etc.

If you know a thing or two about Is-rael, you would realize that they make it very, very hard for a G-oyim (G-entile) to become a Is-raeli Citizenship - especially if the G-entile is Black. Temporary African workers in Is-rael openly get abused - physically, verbally and socially, and this is tolerated, even encouraged by the general Is-raeli public. Now, this appears to be a striking contrast to Western countries who has "multiculturalism" and laws that prevent this sort of scenario. Is this a fair establishment the Is-raelis have set up? I do not think so. The Z-ionists look down on the G-oyim, which includes you and me. They think that they are "God's Chosen People" - justifying this claim to rule over non-J-ews. They encourage the process of interracial-mixing in order for G-entile Whites to be undermined.

Your use of the words "hatemonger" and "racist" is what the far-Left, Pro-Z-ionists encourage in order to prevent others from speaking out about all of this. Typical of you to be one to do this kind of thing. That is the problem with today's Western society. We cannot speak out the harsh truth on this without being branded as being "racist" "bigot" or "hatemonger". But, in the long-run, this will eventually change as more and more people are starting to realize that what these people have been saying is actually true, and the ripple effects on this will lead to a tsunami effect that will contest all this.
The Awakener

Liverpool, Australia

#180629 Jul 24, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>No, I would not like to visit or live in any of the areas you describe.
So?
There's lots of other places in my country, in your country, and in any other country, I wouldn't want to visit or live, and THOSE places are populated by natives as opposed to immigrants.
Your supposedly articulate questions are based on the false premise that there's some kind of either/or here. See, the TRUTH of the matter is that most of the people living in the neighborhoods you describe - people of the same race/ethnicity as the thugs you focus on - wouldn't want to live there either.
Oh, and for the record ... I spent most of my adult life in the city of St. Louis, which vies for the title of 'murder capital' only slightly less often than the baseball Cardinals vie for the National League pennant. There were places in my home town I wouldn't go - and I had friends who wouldn't come visit me at night at my place. I had to shoe the occasional unregulated pharmaceutical salesman or woman engaged in (very) public relations off my stoop. Once I had to take the bus to work because my car was blocked in by the crime scene van investigating a homicide.
Come to think of it, the first time I can remember them being deployed at me I was all of 15, and a lot of American cities were still smoldering in the aftermath of the riots following the murder of Martin Luther King Jr.
You'd think, with all the advances in technology and marketing, your methods of persuasion would have gotten a little better, but from what I can see it's the same old sales pitch.
I am not a "keyboard warrior" - just being blunt about the truth about the situation "multiculturalism" brings to any country. You, on the other hand, display yourself as a left-winger whose mind is being clouded by the brainwashing methods of political-correctness AKA Cultural Marxism that has prevented you from accepting the truth on the dismantling of Western societies due to the evils of Hollywood and political methods in morally-bankrupting today's generation of Americans, additionally with the case of Australians, English, Dutch, Canadians etc etc.

If you know a thing or two about Is-rael, you would realize that they make it very, very hard for a G-oyim (G-entile) to become a Is-raeli Citizenship - especially if the G-entile is Black. Temporary African workers in Is-rael openly get abused - physically, verbally and socially, and this is tolerated, even encouraged by the general Is-raeli public. Now, this appears to be a striking contrast to Western countries who has "multiculturalism" and laws that prevent this sort of scenario. Is this a fair establishment the Is-raelis have set up? I do not think so. The Z-ionists look down on the G-oyim, which includes you and me. They think that they are "God's Chosen People" - justifying this claim to rule over non-J-ews. They encourage the process of interracial-mixing in order for G-entile Whites to be undermined.

Your use of the words "hatemonger" and "racist" is what the far-Left, Pro-Z-ionists encourage in order to prevent others from speaking out about all of this. Typical of you to be one to do this kind of thing. That is the problem with today's Western society. We cannot speak out the harsh truth on this without being branded as being "racist" "bigot" or "hatemonger". But, in the long-run, this will eventually change as more and more people are starting to realize that what these people have been saying is actually true, and the ripple effects on this will lead to a tsunami effect that will contest all this.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 min Whiskey Ben Solo 15,014
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min Mirrormirorwall 683,460
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 hr another viewer 982,979
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr Here For Now 619,680
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 11 hr USA-1 39,246
AT&T is run by a bunch of crooks who should be ... (Dec '14) 13 hr Doctor REALITY 10
Chinese are dishonest, greedy and cold-blooded. (Jan '14) 16 hr a_visitor 39
More from around the web