• 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

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.

Like I said, it doesn't matter whether you agree with their views or not. I personally don't. But that doesn't give me or anyone the right to take their kids away because the name of their kid is inspired after their own belief system. This is an issue of freedom of speech. The state violated that by taking away the kids.
 
Not in the least. Most are overworked, underpaid, and undertrained.

Having actually worked as a CPS agent in the past I can tell you for a fact that this is true.

Here in the Harris county area there has been a major push for better training which has added another week to the training regime. Unfortunately the job can still be overwhelming. You could have anywhere from 15-45 cases per month which requires alot of investigating and multiple face to face contact. I would literally visit anywhere up to 5 families a day and then spend a week to fill in the paper work on all of the cases while more backed up.

A majority of the cases were pure BS and I spent a good amount of time entering people's names into our database which IMHO really shouldn't have been there and wondering why we didn't have a fast track system for cases we ruled out.

Of course, there were some major problems. I was one of 3 males in my class of 50 which was uncommon...because they had never had that many males in a while. There were some people I worked with were "crusader" who seemed to pretty much go after people no holds bar and without much evidence if any to substantiate their belief. Men often bore the brunt of these ladies despite not having any evidence or testimony. Homeschoolers used to be treated pretty badly but alot of the new training goes over that and alot are being left alone now.

The last straw for me (beside the 24/7 on call rotation, complete screw-up of our overtime, crappy vehicle reimbursement, and dealing with some of the lowest of the low scum) was the FLDS thing. One of my special investigator buddies gave me a heads up not to get involved after he had done a rotation there. Apparently we had a solid base of evidence but they were unprepared for the magnitude nor were they handling it very well.

Looking forward to the police academy now. :lol:
 
The argument was thus:

“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;”

And NOT what you vomited in my face as if it was mine:

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.

It's NOT ok to punish along indoctrination lines so long as it's not my indoctrination lines, but it is ok to punish PUBLIC indoctrination lines that are incompatible with the morals or social contract of the Republic’s preferred cultural state. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Do unto others (public), as you would want them to do unto you (respect your Public). You shall have your Public I shall have mine:

“109.006
YUSUFALI: To you be your Way, and to me mine.
PICKTHAL: Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
SHAKIR: You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.”
CRCC: Center For Muslim-Jewish Engagement: Resources: Religious Texts

It is impossible for the Muslim to have their preferred cultural state, their way, where Democracy or a Republic means anything, if you can display porn in public in their State, or publicly insult them with a name: Mr. Mohammad the Pedophile. Islam has proven by history that it is somewhat tolerant of other faiths (in my opinion not necessarily Idolaters or Pagans), as long as the public display appears that only Allah is worshiped. Is it too much to ask that one respect another Republic’s Public?

You did not understand the argument, the key word is “Public,” nor did you refute the argument, therefore, the argument stands, and your Libertarian Republic (State, virtual for argument purposes) is a fallacy (guile, trickery; disrespecting of valid argument) nobody should have to respect.
 
You haven't done anything but mouth off a bunch of gibberish. I've based my arguments on rights, you've based yours on nothing. It still comes down to the fact that you were pissed that someone mentioned religion. It doesn't matter what the "public" wants. The Public can want to stone people to death in the streets, but that doesn't mean that the government gets to enact that. Our system is based on the rights of the individual and not mob rule. So till you come up with an argument based on that, you've nothing but silly gibberish wherein you think it's ok for a child to be taken away because of a name but it's ok for a Christian group to incited hate and intolerance of other groups and indoctrinate that into their children. It's an irrational position to hold.
 
You haven't done anything but mouth off a bunch of gibberish. I've based my arguments on rights, you've based yours on nothing. It still comes down to the fact that you were pissed that someone mentioned religion. It doesn't matter what the "public" wants. The Public can want to stone people to death in the streets, but that doesn't mean that the government gets to enact that. Our system is based on the rights of the individual and not mob rule. So till you come up with an argument based on that, you've nothing but silly gibberish wherein you think it's ok for a child to be taken away because of a name but it's ok for a Christian group to incited hate and intolerance of other groups and indoctrinate that into their children. It's an irrational position to hold.

You are a master of the, “this is what I think, therefore, it must be true,” argument.

Our system is NOT based on the rights of the individual, and “mob rule” is not what a Republic with a Constitution is.

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Not: “We the {insert name here}, in order to form a perfect disunion, establish individual justice of survival of the fittest, insure domestic abuse, provide for the common disorder, promote the general illfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to our self and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the {insert name here}.”

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”

Rights of the Republic, not rights to abuse a child against the wishes of the Republic’s ability to “insure domestic tranquility.”

“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.”

Lacking enough information that is why I first looked at the State constitution. If the State has no law prohibiting such abuse (you may be named Sue), and if the State constitution and the Courts have not ruled such a thing is abuse, which reasonable people may believe could lead to destruction of domestic tranquility for our State’s resident Joos and or the child, then the power is left to the parents to name their child Adolf Hitler or Sue:

YouTube - Johnny Cash "A Boy Named Sue" ORIGINAL

Our founding fathers did not legislate from the grave, we the people can amend your rights any time we want to. Article III is as much a part of the Constitution as any other part where you claim rights, that is why it is so important Congress understands they can impeach the “liberal“ tyranny that an FDR or an Obamanation might Pack.

I've based my arguments on rights, articulated in the Constitution, you've based yours on nothing but YOUR mouth.
 
You have again said nothing other than support mob rule. If enough people say you can't name your kid Sue, then it's rightful use of government to steal someone's kids if they name them Sue. That's insanity. If you think that's rightful, then it's rightful for me to use government to suppress one's ability to raise their children in their religion of choice. After all, we can legislate your rights away; including your right to religion.


But in the end you can't legislate my rights away, my rights are innate and inalienable. You an legislate to attempt to suppress my rights through government force; but you can't take them. You can enact tyranny and treason to try to suppress my free exercise of my rights; but you can not take them. But thanks for reminding me why I'm well armed.
 
it's rightful for me to use government to suppress one's ability to raise their children in their religion of choice.

Your kind of tyranny has already done that. I was sitting in sixth grade class when YOUR Gestapo Communist Manifesto Government made my English teacher remove the daily Proverb from the chalkboard against the wishes of the Republic (of which we have no rights but what you shove in our face). A year later she said, “you are rude, crude, and unattractive.“ It is your kind’s fault. The Bible Belt public cannot teach the kids religion in public schools, or even put a freaking proverb on the board, and YOU (little Libertarian god, kin to the Goddamn Gestapo Communist Manifesto Government) make me pay for it.

You say words but do not understand them; mob rule has no constitution, or due process, so there is no social contract, it is pure unrestrained unbounded Democracy (inseparable Universal Values imposed by the tyranny in a time slice irrespective of Republican ideals, due process that can be recorded in history but never articulated into law with any sense), it is “liberal.” What we are discussing is rights in a Republic, the ability of the Public to name what is child abuse, to not offend rights, and to defend the innate and inalienable rights of Adolf Hitler to pursue happiness in the Public‘s Republic. Only hypocrisy would see an innate and inalienable right to name a child to offend the Public’s rights, while claiming we have the same rights as you (little Libertarian god).

The more choices and Republics the better for everyone, to have a choice, and the less chance of being forced to live as ONE under mob rule (polls), where the next manifestation is the Great Leader (proclaimed by the hive mind as being the best president ever before he shot his wad in the seat of power).

If one has innate and inalienable rights the Public cannot abuse, then, do not name “it” or even number “it,” just say, “hey you,” until it figures out that hay is for horses and your child kicks your teeth in.

What you call “mob rule” has more than one Constitution to deal with, the script of their contract, and other various checks and balances that are not inanimate objects but include your gun and those of the Republican Public. If you do not like many Republics to choose from being able to protect their public senses, because some of them Bible thumpers offend you, feel free to destroy the right of Republics to exist. Especially, get rid of the Bible Belt ones. At some point the Universal Values that Obamanation Democracy Demands will fill the void of the lost Republics and Imagine you as ONE.

Insanity is unhealthy, a lack of control or perception; it could be said someone who thinks they have indestructible rights against the Republic, the right to abuse the Public’s sight in Public to corrupt their mind, with only their two puny arms as defense from death is insane. But, I cannot do that here.

You say your rights, but argue nothing; you think, therefore, it must be true.

Since senses include more than touching the public’s nose with your gun, they include sight, hearing, taste, and smell, which all can be polluted, therefore, the public’s rights in Public do not end at the nose.

You have innate and inalienable rights, just like the rest of us. You can have a “castle” to pursue your channel flipping senses and consensual pleasures, a district to speak your logic in support of your senses, but if you go naked Mr. Gay Digambara to a little league game in the wrong Republic you will find reality. You can fight to pollute the Public senses against the will of the Public in their Republic, until your illogic kills the many choices of Republics we were given by a Christian colonial Public, until States only exist for picking State flowers and birds, then I fear you will find reality in the Universal Values Obamanation Democracy Demands making all senses uniform.

Since you have innate and inalienable rights just like the rest of us in the Public have, therefore, the public’s senses cannot be polluted against the will of the Public in their Republic without violating the innate and inalienable rights of many more than you.

Because of the nature of free will, many preferred cultural States (republics), sanctuaries, will be offensive when visited by you and the many (earthly mob). Become so offended by one Republic protecting a child from abuse (in their opinion), due to a hatred of a possible Christian Republic, you kill your choices. Destroy the rights of the Public to have many Republics, meet the tyranny of mob rule you helped to create.

*****

What right to land ownership do you have with innate and inalienable rights, only that space you occupy? “My house is a ‘castle.’“ The constitution covers that part:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

If you do not want a large number of armed barbarians raping your significant other and pillaging “your” land, it is advisable to form a contract with a Public and pay a percentage of what you have to protect. A “fair tax” might tax the income of the pretty girl more than the ugly. God‘s desire to give us free will (an uncertainty principle), to keep him from being lonely, made us sin and lie to ourselves about all of us being created equal.

*****

Since the Universal Values Democracy Demands, the principalities and powers of the air, have not yet changed our mindset and imagined us into a hive mind insect ONE, therefore, my advice would be to keep your gun. It would be nice if you had a Republic that would fight with you, but you are too hell bent on destroying their rights to exist in diverse numbers of choices; just because you hate Christians...
 
Very very interesting. They say that there have been no reports of abuse or neglect. What else would cause them (they removed all three children) to be removed from the home?

I`m just going to go ahead and cross the line here...What about the ebonics crowd?
 
I`m just going to go ahead and cross the line here...What about the ebonics crowd?



....... :yawn:

Perhaps social services doesn't particularly care what they name their children, since they never expect them to leave their inner-city neighborhoods anyway, until such time as they enter the penal system and become a number rather than a name.
Good enough?

:roll:
 
I`m just going to go ahead and cross the line here...What about the ebonics crowd?

Yep, I think we can blame the blacks for these kids being removed. :roll:
 
I`m just going to go ahead and cross the line here...What about the ebonics crowd?

Why try to soft soap what you are saying here? :roll:
 
The parents are neo-nazis, regardless of what they say. I live within 40 minutes of them, and there is a large neo-nazi contingent out there. I have been advised by friends, who know my religious background, to be careful if I wander into some of the out of the way areas.
I live about twenty minutes from the Greenwich ShopRite where the whole birthday cake for Adolf Hitler controversy started this pathetic ball rolling. (In fact, we shopped there just a few hours ago.) Go a few miles north of our place, into Oxford, NJ, and it's probably best to be... well, white. That's one of the few towns in the northeast that still has an active branch of the KKK. You don't need to go back too many years and all the cops (uh, all three of 'em) in Oxford were in the Klan.

However, these idiots can name their kids whatever they want. It is not cause for child removal, if that has anything to do with why this occurred. I am curious as to whether there was any indication of emotional/psychological abuse. This might be cause, though it would need to be clearly documented.
I kinda got the impression from the articles on this incident that DYFS has some cards they're not showing. Man, I hope so. As much as I think the parents exercised some really poor judgment in their choices of names, I'm not convinced that that alone is a good reason for DYFS to snatch 'em.

"And if I ever have a boy, I think I'll name him Bill ... or George ... anything but Adolf."

Regards,
DAR
 
Back
Top Bottom