• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Child named Adolf Hitler removed from home in New Jersey

The social services unit responsible for removing children from homes needs reform. Their powers are too broad and their definitions of abuse too flippant.
 
Zyphlin said:
A post full of Hockey and Football comments...NCFY....

:naughty

They're going to need to take away this

gaycard030.jpg


and get this

mancard2.jpg


Ziggy Ziggy Ziggy

;)
Click to expand...

It's not about Hockey, it's about inter-city rivalry :lol:
 
Ikari said:
What unintelligent tripe this is. You couldn't even figure out the argument, you saw religion in something, read a little something, and then made a knee jerk reactionary statement. How dare someone critique religion, right?

Let me educate you on the argument. It was said that it was good that these people had their children taken away because the name was a form of indoctrination and abuse. I merely changed the subject and kept the argument the same. If you're going to say that the State has legitimate purpose intervening in this case because a name constitutes indoctrination into something you don't agree with and thus is child abuse; you'd damned well be prepared for the consequences. The argument can be made of pretty much anything, and before you know it; you've authorized the government to act in well more than it should have been able to act in. This is the end result of the argument used to say the govenrment had right to intercede in this case only because of the name. This is the argument taken to its natural ends. It is not I whom seriously argues for removing a persons ability to raise their child in a religion of their choice. It is the people whom make the claim that the government can rightfully intercede here based only on the name who make that very argument.

Logic, it doesn't have to be your enemy.

Also, you never supported the final conclusion of your post. Why should libertarians whom use public school have their children taken away? What form of child abuse did they commit? Mine is quite clear how the indoctrination argument can be expanded; you didn't provide anything.
Click to expand...

You argued and did not critique one religion but all, and said, “I think indoctrination into religion is a form of child abuse,” well “Libertarian” let’s reword that for your hypocritical illogical mind and let us see if you can logically extrapolate what is the obvious response; “I think indoctrination into government ownership and control of schools is a form of child abuse”:

“This indoctrination of gods is a form of child abuse and needs to stop. Anyone who sends their kids to church or Sunday school, or a religious school should have their children take by the state.” (Libertarian)

Maybe you need to change that “Lean: Libertarian” to National Socialist Libertarian, as it might make more sense, although however illogical a Chomsky like you would be; let us extrapolate further using your words with a twist:

“This indoctrination of politics leaning away from the Libertarian ideals is a form of child abuse and needs to stop. Any Libertarian who sends their kids to Socialist schools, or a political school leaning away from Libertarian ideas of Reading, Writing, and Math--so as to be logical with what you said, “that they have no bias when they are old enough to choose for themselves a belief structure”--should have their children take [sic] by the state.”

You asked: “How dare someone critique religion, right?”

You were not critiquing one religion but all religion, for sure, gag me with a spoon. If you want to critique all religion, I will critique all Libertarians as hypocrites. Libertarians and clapping monkeys who agree with you--who send their children to Socialist public schools, to be indoctrinated into the national socialist public school model of the approved political and religious (evolution, big bang without a change of state to make it go bump in the night) curriculum of the National Socialist Department of Education--are hypocrites.

The logical argument did follow from your bigoted fallacy and label:

“All Libertarians who send their children to public school are child abusers.”

How dare someone critique Libertarians, right?

The form of child abuse the Libertarians committed by sending their children to public schools was gross hypocrisy. The religiously minded who understand the reason for government separation into States (republics), which have differently worded Bill of Rights, due to different sects being in the original thirteen colonies, are not hypocrites like your kind of illogical Libertarian. (See, New York constitution, the word “but,” and the Biblical word “lasciviousness“)

I like most on here do not know the logic of why they took away the children, as “liberals” have no logic, still following my logic assumed there might be another reason, but I rejected the free speech argument as the State has a different amendment, and figured it was simply a violation of the child‘s civil rights. According to the “liberal” Supreme Court of nine appointed for life tyrants (see, Plato‘s “Republic“), “free speech” is climbing up a flag poll stealing a flag that is not yours and burning it; logically it should follow that wearing a sheet and burning a cross or hanging noose from a tree on Public School grounds would be free speech too. Logic does not apply to what the “liberal” government does. I speculated it had to do with the parents depriving the child of “civil rights” to choose his own speech, not to be flung into the fire, due to the State‘s amendment only giving the parents the right “to write and publish” their (his) “sentiments on all subjects.” And I will admit it is a stretch of sea lawyer sarcasm in their defense:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...removed-home-new-jersey-5.html#post1057883967

Using your own words with a twist:

If you're going to say that no State has a legitimate purpose intervening in such a case, because a name does not constitute indoctrination into something you don't agree with, and thus is not child abuse; you'd damned well be prepared for the consequences of dead children named “Islam Sucks“ after your cultural state is lost from a lack of establishing proper education. The argument can be made of pretty much anything, like I am doing, and before you know it you've authorized your worse nightmare of Islam (the religion of Jenin’s peace) to acquire critical mass in government, and to act in well more than it should have been able to act in. {when naked can you prove you are not a Jew? I have German, Celtic, Anglo Saxon, and Cherokee ancestry, to name the ones I know, and as an American mutt with a cold nose I cannot. I do not know what a Jewish tree looks like to hide behind for when Jenin/Hamas‘s Islam seeks to bring judgment day}

“[7.36] And (as for) those who reject Our
communications and turn away from them
haughtily these are the inmates of the fire they
shall abide in it.
[7.37] Who is then more unjust than he who
forges a lie against Allah or rejects His
communications? (As for) those, their portion
of the Book shall reach them, until when Our
messengers come to them causing them to
die, they shall say: Where is that which you
used to call upon besides Allah? They would
say: They are gone away from us; and they
shall bear witness against themselves that
they were unbelievers”
(posted August 30, 2001 10:35 PM)

You said: “It was said that it was good that these people had their children taken away because the name was a form of indoctrination and abuse. I merely changed the subject and kept the argument the same.”

I kept the argument the same, by juxtaposing your critique of religion with my critique of Libertarians.

You said: “Adults can make up their mind, but they shouldn't be indoctrinated into it as a child.”

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

See Dick the Digambara run on that “free exercise thereof;” the proof of concept of our Constitution is its continued application even in the light of “liberal“ abuses. See Jane the Libertarian hypocrite cry out, “What is it that, with ’it’ so big; I see DICK run!” {now illustrate the children’s book for me, and let‘s get it in our “Libertarian” public schools}

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

When you understand it, you can have a Republic too; a lack of understanding and bad schools gives you what you have.

Under the guise of civil rights, you will destroy this country. I am sure Islam will teach you how to read the clear communications of our Constitution.

If you do not want bias from the City-State--illogically either way (acceptable god of Moloch; flinging the children into the fire), establishing or not what is good according to your State’s majority rule and the Tenth Amendment, in compliance with the other Bill of Rights whose words alone are not restricted and apply to all States (See all “redundant” Bill of Rights in State Constitutions, and FDR‘s Sol Bloom illogic born of Supreme abuse)--you might as well open the gates and let in the Trojan Horse in for more than a veiling of the Digambara’s Dick.
 
There was a whole lot of nothing. You provided nothing for your attack, instead it still comes off as nothing more than a post made because one read "religion" without consideration of the whole argument and made and emotionalized response to it. The point is clear. The first post was made in response to one whom thought that it was the State's business to take these children based on name alone (this may not be the full reason for State intervention in this specific case, but the argument was that it was rightful even if based only on the name). If you're going to allow this argument, there is fall out from it. Child abuse because of a name is an opinion based on what that name is. But then if we are to legislate on opinion of this manner, there is no reason why other opinion shouldn't be legislated. Congress can make no law, but if your religion says to shoot non-believers, do you think you'd be allowed to practice it? It's not an absolute when the rights of others are involved. The argument was made that the name is some form of child abuse as it is indoctrination into racism. Though there is no proof of that from the name alone, it's merely an allegation. So it set indoctrination as a form of abuse. That argument can be made of many things, I simply took something that most people would be opposed to so they could see the full ramifications of the indoctrination argument. Children are indoctrinated into religion, taught from an early age that the specific religion of their parents is right and taught to continually engage and worship in it. Yet there could be negative consequences, certainly the attitude against gays is based in some religion. Should the Westboro Baptist folk have their children taken away? Should those whom said the secularists and others caused 9/11 to happen have their children taken away? There are those whom call Islam as a whole a violent religion, should any Islamic parent have their children taken because they were indoctrinating into hate? No religion is going to be immune from these sorts of arguments. If you think these children should be taken away merely because of name or "indoctrination" then your answer to these questions must also be "yes". This is the natural conclusion of indoctrination arguments. As much as there are people whom hate the name Adolf Hitler, there are others whom hate just about everything else. If you allow this one case, it's not going to just end at that case; it will be taken further by others. If you authorize the State to act in cases of "indoctrination", it will take that to its utmost conclusion. You're not going to be immune.

Also, I didn't take offense to critique against Libertarianism. I merely asked you to explain; something you still hadn't done in your emotionalized retort.
 
Last edited:
Child Protective Services is made up of Nazi's.
 
Isn't living in Jersey enough to have a child removed? :2razz:
 
Ikari said:
There was a whole lot of nothing. You provided nothing for your attack, instead it still comes off as nothing more than a post made because one read "religion" without consideration of the whole argument and made and emotionalized response to it. The point is clear. The first post was made in response to one whom thought that it was the State's business to take these children based on name alone (this may not be the full reason for State intervention in this specific case, but the argument was that it was rightful even if based only on the name). If you're going to allow this argument, there is fall out from it. Child abuse because of a name is an opinion based on what that name is. But then if we are to legislate on opinion of this manner, there is no reason why other opinion shouldn't be legislated. Congress can make no law, but if your religion says to shoot non-believers, do you think you'd be allowed to practice it? It's not an absolute when the rights of others are involved. The argument was made that the name is some form of child abuse as it is indoctrination into racism. Though there is no proof of that from the name alone, it's merely an allegation. So it set indoctrination as a form of abuse. That argument can be made of many things, I simply took something that most people would be opposed to so they could see the full ramifications of the indoctrination argument. Children are indoctrinated into religion, taught from an early age that the specific religion of their parents is right and taught to continually engage and worship in it. Yet there could be negative consequences, certainly the attitude against gays is based in some religion. Should the Westboro Baptist folk have their children taken away? Should those whom said the secularists and others caused 9/11 to happen have their children taken away? There are those whom call Islam as a whole a violent religion, should any Islamic parent have their children taken because they were indoctrinating into hate? No religion is going to be immune from these sorts of arguments. If you think these children should be taken away merely because of name or "indoctrination" then your answer to these questions must also be "yes". This is the natural conclusion of indoctrination arguments. As much as there are people whom hate the name Adolf Hitler, there are others whom hate just about everything else. If you allow this one case, it's not going to just end at that case; it will be taken further by others. If you authorize the State to act in cases of "indoctrination", it will take that to its utmost conclusion. You're not going to be immune.
Click to expand...

God help me, my eyes are glassing over. I thought that was one of my run-on sentences. {That was a joke, you are supposed to laugh}

You asked: “Congress can make no law, but if your religion says to shoot non-believers, do you think you'd be allowed to practice it?”

“but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

If you knew your Constitutional history you would know the Federalists argued against the Anti-federalists who wanted the First Amendment; that part in Article VI, which we would only have if the Federalists had won the argument, would be sufficient and no First Amendment would be needed.

It is a little bit hard to have the right to run for office if dead.

You keep asking me “should” something or other, well my social contract allows me to suck dick and eat *****, but I cannot tap my shoe in the public bathroom without fear of being arrested or marry more than one *****.

Beliefs are one thing, and public display is another.

The answer to all the questions does not have to be yes, different strokes for different folks. That is my point. It is conceivable a Gay state might want to prohibit the printing and preaching of the Old Testament part about them being an abomination to be killed, and might want to teach in Public Schools that Gay is okay and an alternative lifestyle, and religion is myth, and might still want to prohibit names like Kill Abominable Homos. I never said I “think these children should be taken away merely because of name or ‘indoctrination.’” I am arguing for the right of a Gay state, and others we may not like, on grounds of less arrogance that the State’s people should have a right to establish what is right and wrong in our PUBLIC culture. The name is something the Public will see, and if the Public has no right to restrict what the Public sees then the Public has no rights; using the consequences, this is an argument and not a statement (see, Knee-Jerks in another topic):

Since the Public has no rights to restrict what is Public in a Republic, therefore, the Public has no rights and the Republic is a fallacy.

There is a reason DC is not a State, and it has nothing to do with discrimination against black folks.

Mr. Kill Abominable Homos might be born a mutated dangerous freak or promiscuously Gay depending upon what you believe about dangerous fruit loops of coated viruses. Once the Supreme Court ruled and argued that we could not deprive Homosexuals of their destiny, it could then be argued that the State should promote that the “eunuchs” should be monogamous, as a matter of survival to deny them the promiscuous spread of plague. After the flight attendant with the new disease was on tape claiming nobody could stop him from going to the bathhouse, what right did the government of any Republic have to close down the public bathhouses?

Should all social contracts have a choice, or should they all be alike?

If all social contracts must be alike, Libertarian, without any indoctrination or choice of what you are born into, how can you call yourself free?

This is our dilemma, until the child becomes of age, they have no choice. We the People still have a district for freedom of people or a representative to preach against their State’s abuses, and then what our State is allowed to do, does or does not do, sets the stage of what choices we have.

Maybe you should wire the kid up with some brainy like image viewer (see other technology topic) and ask the kid what he wants, maybe the kid in a Libertarian mommy’s tummy wants to live in a communist country. Would you deny the baby his rights or would you just say, “tough luck?”

Those who spew a “natural conclusion of indoctrination arguments” should look to a little nature and history before they talk of immunity. Immunity from bad religions and politics, just as with disease, requires more than just letting it all happen. Without some means of defense our bodies would be impossible and so would our preferred cultural state.

You said: “If you authorize the State to act in cases of ‘indoctrination‘, it will take that to its utmost conclusion. You're not going to be immune.”

There is always a danger in going either way. You scare me about big government, I say, “Adolf Hitler scares me,” and somewhere on peaceful ground we hopefully meet; that is simply how the system works. A state without any ability to publicly restrict has no immunity from the spread of a viral idea; it works with bodies as well a cultures. When the Greeks show up claiming peace and UN proclaimed rights of immigration, forget you are a State, and let the Horse in. If the Greeks have a fifth column, do not restrict their public displays in any way, let them preach about their Horse god, let them win converts to killing Jooish Libertarians who disrespect Black Horse Idols, do not teach your kids the story of the Trojan Horse, it is bigoted as all Greeks are not like that, the Horse is peaceful.
 
Orius said:
The social services unit responsible for removing children from homes needs reform. Their powers are too broad and their definitions of abuse too flippant.
Click to expand...

I cannot help but wonder if a bunch of folks after hearing about this in the media did not contact social services with total bull**** claims about these parents simply because they do not agree with the kids names:roll:

Of course you would think social services would have to have more than a bunch of bogus phone calls to remove em but they must look into each and every call and report that comes in:confused:
 
RightinNYC said:
I guess I can see the argument that by giving the kids these names they're subjecting them to abuse or indicating that the parents are unstable, but if that's enough to take away kids nowadays, then the state is gonna have a whole lot of Princess/Lafawndah/Neveah/Candii/Sparklez/Bubbles in the foster care system.
Click to expand...

I once knew a city bus driver named Cinderella.
Middle-aged, mean, skinny, black. A real hardcase.
I found it rather poignant and endearing.
It didn't make me think less of her. It made me think about how much her mother must have loved her, to give her that name.
But it was so ill-suited, it also made me wonder why she didn't change it, or shorten it or something.
 
1069 said:
I once knew a city bus driver named Cinderella.
Middle-aged, mean, skinny, black. A real hardcase.
I found it rather poignant and endearing.
It didn't make me think less of her. It made me think about how much her mother must have loved her, to give her that name.
But it was so ill-suited, it also made me wonder why she didn't change it, or shorten it or something.
Click to expand...

That was her real name? Or was it like Snow Ball in Full Metal Jacket? If that's her real name apparently she's not alone....

31 people in Texas named Cinderella.

Cinderella as a first name : WhitePages.com
 
Hatuey said:
That was her real name? Or was it like Snow Ball in Full Metal Jacket? If that's her real name apparently she's not alone....

31 people in Texas named Cinderella.

Cinderella as a first name : WhitePages.com
Click to expand...

That was her real name.
Although if there's only 31 of them, I apologize for posting it; I hadn't meant to violate her privacy.

Although I think if she ever did read this, she'd appreciate my description of her.
She really is a ****ing hardcase. :lol:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Only the fortunate get to live in Jersey. The rest have to settle for some wasteland like the midwest. :2razz:
Click to expand...

It was -15 degrees here yesterday morning.

Help us! :2wave:
 
The reason the children were removed is to give them a new start in a Bulgarian art school.
 
DivineComedy said:
God help me, my eyes are glassing over. I thought that was one of my run-on sentences. {That was a joke, you are supposed to laugh}

You asked: “Congress can make no law, but if your religion says to shoot non-believers, do you think you'd be allowed to practice it?”

“but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

If you knew your Constitutional history you would know the Federalists argued against the Anti-federalists who wanted the First Amendment; that part in Article VI, which we would only have if the Federalists had won the argument, would be sufficient and no First Amendment would be needed.

It is a little bit hard to have the right to run for office if dead.

You keep asking me “should” something or other, well my social contract allows me to suck dick and eat *****, but I cannot tap my shoe in the public bathroom without fear of being arrested or marry more than one *****.

Beliefs are one thing, and public display is another.

The answer to all the questions does not have to be yes, different strokes for different folks. That is my point. It is conceivable a Gay state might want to prohibit the printing and preaching of the Old Testament part about them being an abomination to be killed, and might want to teach in Public Schools that Gay is okay and an alternative lifestyle, and religion is myth, and might still want to prohibit names like Kill Abominable Homos. I never said I “think these children should be taken away merely because of name or ‘indoctrination.’” I am arguing for the right of a Gay state, and others we may not like, on grounds of less arrogance that the State’s people should have a right to establish what is right and wrong in our PUBLIC culture. The name is something the Public will see, and if the Public has no right to restrict what the Public sees then the Public has no rights; using the consequences, this is an argument and not a statement (see, Knee-Jerks in another topic):

Since the Public has no rights to restrict what is Public in a Republic, therefore, the Public has no rights and the Republic is a fallacy.

There is a reason DC is not a State, and it has nothing to do with discrimination against black folks.

Mr. Kill Abominable Homos might be born a mutated dangerous freak or promiscuously Gay depending upon what you believe about dangerous fruit loops of coated viruses. Once the Supreme Court ruled and argued that we could not deprive Homosexuals of their destiny, it could then be argued that the State should promote that the “eunuchs” should be monogamous, as a matter of survival to deny them the promiscuous spread of plague. After the flight attendant with the new disease was on tape claiming nobody could stop him from going to the bathhouse, what right did the government of any Republic have to close down the public bathhouses?

Should all social contracts have a choice, or should they all be alike?

If all social contracts must be alike, Libertarian, without any indoctrination or choice of what you are born into, how can you call yourself free?

This is our dilemma, until the child becomes of age, they have no choice. We the People still have a district for freedom of people or a representative to preach against their State’s abuses, and then what our State is allowed to do, does or does not do, sets the stage of what choices we have.

Maybe you should wire the kid up with some brainy like image viewer (see other technology topic) and ask the kid what he wants, maybe the kid in a Libertarian mommy’s tummy wants to live in a communist country. Would you deny the baby his rights or would you just say, “tough luck?”

Those who spew a “natural conclusion of indoctrination arguments” should look to a little nature and history before they talk of immunity. Immunity from bad religions and politics, just as with disease, requires more than just letting it all happen. Without some means of defense our bodies would be impossible and so would our preferred cultural state.

You said: “If you authorize the State to act in cases of ‘indoctrination‘, it will take that to its utmost conclusion. You're not going to be immune.”

There is always a danger in going either way. You scare me about big government, I say, “Adolf Hitler scares me,” and somewhere on peaceful ground we hopefully meet; that is simply how the system works. A state without any ability to publicly restrict has no immunity from the spread of a viral idea; it works with bodies as well a cultures. When the Greeks show up claiming peace and UN proclaimed rights of immigration, forget you are a State, and let the Horse in. If the Greeks have a fifth column, do not restrict their public displays in any way, let them preach about their Horse god, let them win converts to killing Jooish Libertarians who disrespect Black Horse Idols, do not teach your kids the story of the Trojan Horse, it is bigoted as all Greeks are not like that, the Horse is peaceful.
Click to expand...

So basically it comes down to you're ok for the State taking a kid away over only a name but if someone actually teaches that child to hate other groups like many churches, you'd be pissed if they took the kids away.

Interesting, it's ok to punish along indoctrination lines so long as it's not your indoctrination lines.
 
Hatuey said:
That was her real name? Or was it like Snow Ball in Full Metal Jacket? If that's her real name apparently she's not alone....

31 people in Texas named Cinderella.

Cinderella as a first name : WhitePages.com
Click to expand...

My parents seriously thought about naming me Cinderella because I was born at exactly the stroke of midnight, and then just calling me 'ella' for short. I am beyond thankful they didn't.


I am thinking most of these wierd names might have come up right after a woman gave birth, after all she is not exactly thinking straight after what she just went thru. :lol:
 
I know a girl named Kevin.;)
 
winston53660 said:
I know a girl named Kevin.;)
Click to expand...

Yesterday at work, I spoke to a guy named Isabelle. :shrug:


I don't think I could live with a common guys name myself. I would legally have it changed as soon as I could and have a serious talk with my parents about why they hate me.
 
americanwoman said:
Yesterday at work, I spoke to a guy named Isabelle. :shrug:


I don't think I could live with a common guys name myself. I would legally have it changed as soon as I could and have a serious talk with my parents about why they hate me.
Click to expand...

She got use to it and actually has fun with it now. :lol:
 
dclxvinoise said:
So much for freedom of speech. I mean, I don't agree with the parents neo-nazi bull**** ideology at all and I think it's atrocious that they would name their kid after Adolf Hitler, but they really have the right to do so if they want to. If we are going to allow freedom of speech from everyone that means everyone, including neo-nazis. How much of a threat are they anyway? Their numbers have to be dwindling pretty low at this point.
Click to expand...


Wouldnt you agree that a child has no freedom of speech, it is the parent's decision and the life that kid would lead would be a life of torment and ridicule most like following the footsteps of his namesake he would take violent action. The name in itself is neglect and abuse.
 
MBona said:
Wouldnt you agree that a child has no freedom of speech, it is the parent's decision and the life that kid would lead would be a life of torment and ridicule most like following the footsteps of his namesake he would take violent action. The name in itself is neglect and abuse.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I don't consider it neglect and abuse, especially when compared to some of the idiotic names that celebrities give their kids as well as Star Wars and Trekkie nerds. I see it as people expressing their personal beliefs, which they have every right to have. If we are going to allow other groups of people to engage in this kind of behavior we have to allow it for all of them whether we agree with their views or not.
 
If no abuse or neglect was given--I smell big money for Adolf and family, this might be a blessing in disguise. You cannot take a kid away from family because his name was Satan, Saddam, Adolf, Pol Pot, Lucifer, Lenin or whatever.... Ridiculous.

Besides, you take away the bad policies of Hitler's National Socialism such as the Racial and gun control and you have America--the New land of the Socialists, a new Europe nation across the sea. It's so sad many of the sheeple cannot recognize how much in common they have with Hitler's National Socialism.

YouTube - A Boy Named Hitler
 
Last edited:
dclxvinoise said:
I'm sorry, but I don't consider it neglect and abuse, especially when compared to some of the idiotic names that celebrities give their kids as well as Star Wars and Trekkie nerds. I see it as people expressing their personal beliefs, which they have every right to have. If we are going to allow other groups of people to engage in this kind of behavior we have to allow it for all of them whether we agree with their views or not.
Click to expand...


I agree but naming your kid clenon 4040 or whatever the hell they name their kids is not the same as adolf hitler. It is a form of hate speech and could possibly reincite race riots.

I guess the point that we should be discussing is whether or not taking the child out of the home was a fair decision. I think it was a good decision because the child will not lead a healthy life being surrounded by all of the hate at home and hate against him in school.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom