State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'

Started by Men's Rights Activist, Oct 09, 2010, 11:16 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

The Gonzman

Sorry, folks, I think the baby being taken away is justified in this case. 


Well, we're glad to have the Fascist opinion on this case.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.

.

#16
Oct 11, 2010, 09:52 AM Last Edit: Oct 11, 2010, 10:47 AM by John Dias
Well, we're glad to have the Fascist opinion on this case.


And yet you wrote this, not too long ago:

I'm inclined to give a guy even a second chance.  Five time loser?

Now a great leap of intuitive thought to think ol' Mike Wooten may be the one with the problem.

It indicates a pattern of questionable behavior.  5 marriages - not one, not two, but five - gone south.  Multiple black marks in his jacket.  Repeated substantiated charges in the document you presented for his defense.  etc.

He's just not credible as a victim.


Why is it a "pattern" that justifies government intervention when the subject (Mike Wooten) is considered the enemy of one of your favorite political personas (Sarah Palin), but it's not a pattern that justifies government intervention when Jon Irish shacks up with a married woman who repeatedly calls the cops on him?  And if those calls to the cops were legit, then doesn't that also negatively reflect on the parental priorities of the mother in this case, since she stayed with him?  And in comparing Wooten vs. Irish, what exactly is the pattern describing in each case?  With Jon Irish, it's a pattern of alleged violence.  But with Mike Wooten, it's only a pattern of failed marriages, hardly in itself an indication of violence.  And yet you supported both Sarah Palin's and her sister Molly Wooten's efforts to separate Mike Wooten from his home and kids via a bogus restraining order.

Wooten was never a threat to his kids, nor his then-wife.  And when his marriages went south, each time he did the proper thing by ending them rather than exacting violent control over his wife.  Contrast that with Jon Irish, who not only cohabits with a married woman but is also repeatedly accused by her of abuse, yet they're still together in what seems like a volatile, unhealthy, codependent and possibly violent relationship.  And yet you still take Irish's side?

I think that your ideological loyalties are eclipsing your better judgment, Gonzo.  I suppose if Satan was a gun activist you'd support him for president too.  It seems to me that there was a credible chance that that baby would become the victim of violence within that household, whether perpetrated by the mother or father.  What would you propose to have headed off that possible outcome, without intruding on the sanctity of the parents' privacy rights?  What is your alternative?

Virtue

Quote
Sadly this is why its smart to avoid single mothers


Now all we have to do is get this info past the male sex drive.......any ideas on how we can do that?
Imagine waking up tomorrow to find
that unbelievably rape is now legal.

You would be freaking out, telling everyone you ran into this is crazy- something needs to be done... now!!! And then every man you told this to just very smugly and condescendingly says...

"Hey... not all men are 'like that.'"

neoteny


Quote
Sadly this is why its smart to avoid single mothers


Now all we have to do is get this info past the male sex drive.......any ideas on how we can do that?


I almost said "schooling"... but then I realized that longer education doesn't mean less sex but rather more "hook-up" opportunity in colleges where the ratio of the sexes is something like 2:1 (females being in the majority).
The spreading of information about the [quantum] system through the [classical] environment is ultimately responsible for the emergence of "objective reality." 

Wojciech Hubert Zurek: Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical

Men's Rights Activist

#19
Oct 11, 2010, 11:43 AM Last Edit: Oct 11, 2010, 11:47 AM by Men's Rights Activist
Quote
An affidavit given to the couple (seen in the video below) does appear to cite Irish's affiliation with the "militia" Oath Keepers, as well as the purchase of several weapons, in framing the reasoning. But it also paints Irish as an abusive and violent man who refused to complete a state-ordered domestic violence program.


Quote
Whether the affidavit referencing Oath Keepers is part of the original order or simply supporting documentation may be insignificant, however. Both Rhodes and the Monitor treat the documents as essentially connected, and Rhodes claims to have "confirmed" them.


It appears there are "reported reasons" to argue either point.  The apparent mentioning of "Oath Keepers" is certainly a troubling issue.  Why not also mention:  "He's a man,"  "He's a conservative,"  "He's a war veteran,"  "He's a Christian," etc. as valid DCYF reasons to take a child?  They (CPS) mentioned it.  These (DCYF, CPS, whatever) tramplers of the constitution need to explain their reasoning.

We also know domestic violence law is a major witch hunt against men, and enormously lacking in credibility.  The Nanny State is not only a bastard parent, it is a huge batterer of innocent men.  Whether the man in this case is guilty of d.v. or not is very questionable, given the lack of integrity of the state.  This case certainly raises as many, or more, questions about government behavior, as any individuals behavior, IMO.
Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of Happiness are fundamental rights for all (including males), & not contingent on gender feminist approval or denial. Consider my "Independence" from all tyrannical gender feminist ideology "Declared" - Here & Now!

The Gonzman

#20
Oct 11, 2010, 02:29 PM Last Edit: Oct 11, 2010, 02:32 PM by The Gonzman

Well, we're glad to have the Fascist opinion on this case.


And yet you wrote this, not too long ago:

I'm inclined to give a guy even a second chance.  Five time loser?

Now a great leap of intuitive thought to think ol' Mike Wooten may be the one with the problem.

It indicates a pattern of questionable behavior.  5 marriages - not one, not two, but five - gone south.  Multiple black marks in his jacket.  Repeated substantiated charges in the document you presented for his defense.  etc.

He's just not credible as a victim.


Why is it a "pattern" that justifies government intervention when the subject (Mike Wooten) is considered the enemy of one of your favorite political personas (Sarah Palin), but it's not a pattern that justifies government intervention when Jon Irish shacks up with a married woman who repeatedly calls the cops on him?  And if those calls to the cops were legit, then doesn't that also negatively reflect on the parental priorities of the mother in this case, since she stayed with him?  And in comparing Wooten vs. Irish, what exactly is the pattern describing in each case?  With Jon Irish, it's a pattern of alleged violence.  But with Mike Wooten, it's only (???? - G) a pattern of failed marriages, hardly in itself an indication of violence.  And yet you supported both Sarah Palin's and her sister Molly Wooten's efforts to separate Mike Wooten from his home and kids via a bogus restraining order.

Wooten was never a threat to his kids, nor his then-wife.  And when his marriages went south, each time he did the proper thing by ending them rather than exacting violent control over his wife.  Contrast that with Jon Irish, who not only cohabits with a married woman but is also repeatedly accused by her of abuse, yet they're still together in what seems like a volatile, unhealthy, codependent and possibly violent relationship.  And yet you still take Irish's side?

I think that your ideological loyalties are eclipsing your better judgment, Gonzo.  I suppose if Satan was a gun activist you'd support him for president too.  It seems to me that there was a credible chance that that baby would become the victim of violence within that household, whether perpetrated by the mother or father.  What would you propose to have headed off that possible outcome, without intruding on the sanctity of the parents' privacy rights?  What is your alternative?


Jeez, if you're going to try to quote me out of context, don't quote me in context in the same message.

If you're citing someone's political beliefs as a reason, in whole or part, to treat them differently under the law, you're a fascist.  Period.

And in the case of cops, I hold them to a higher standard.  Period.  Those who have power over people's lives and freedom should be all but perfect, at all times, or find another line of work.

And I will repeat - Tasering a kid *IS* a threat.  It is just not done, no matter what, for any reason, at any setting, even if the kid "begs." (Which I doubt his story on that.)  Responsible adults do NOT do that.

Period.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.

.

#21
Oct 11, 2010, 02:47 PM Last Edit: Oct 11, 2010, 03:04 PM by John Dias
If you're citing someone's political beliefs as a reason, in whole or part, to treat them differently under the law, you're a fascist.  Period.


Premise established.

And now, your citation of your own political beliefs in an attempt to justify an arbitrary application of the law which is not currently on the books:

And in the case of cops, I hold them to a higher standard.  Period.  Those who have power over people's lives and freedom should be all but perfect, at all times, or find another line of work.


By your own logic, Gonzo, you indict yourself.  Even if a particular cop had always enforced the law in both spirit and letter, it seems pretty clear that you believe that if he has been divorced X number of times, this justifies a restraining order against him which separates him from his home and his children.  Just the lack of marital perfection itself, not necessarily any unprofessional conduct, in your view justifies the police state powers of a restraining order.  "Well, he asked for it!" you say, pointing to his desire to remain employed as a police officer, thinking of this as legitimizing an arbitrary application of the law stripping the officer of every individual right that he has.  Hello, Mussolini.

Cordell Walker

if he is an abuser, take the kids cuz of that
if he is a junkie, take the kids cuz of that
BUT DONT, PERIOD, NO MATTER WHAT, TAKE THE KIDS CUZ OF ASSOCIATING WITH A LEGIT POLITICAL ORGANIZATION, OR FOR OWNING FIREARMS
the fact that the oath keepers were mentioned anywhere, in any way, makes me think that its a witchhunt and homie is probably being made an example of
kinda like  that ole hombre charles dyer
"how can you kill women and children?"---private joker
"Easy, ya just dont lead em as much" ---Animal Mother

.

The fact that the oath keepers were mentioned anywhere, in any way, makes me think that it's a witchhunt and homie is probably being made an example of.


That may be.  I remember seeing a movie which breaks down and analyzes the federal response to the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, and it seems that the feds are most threatened by (and lash out in destructive ways toward) any group that asserts their gun rights.  So yes, he may be incurring more government wrath than the average Joe because of his politics.  That still does not negate the coincidental possibility that he may in fact be violently misanthropic, or violent toward his family, or violent toward his girlfriend's kids.  He shouldn't receive a pass making him immune to scrutiny, simply because some overzealous government bureaucrat with liberal politics cited his political activism in order to justify the agency's removal of their daughter.  And in fact, thousands of parents in the U.S. are targeted every day, for similar reasons, by similar agencies, and such agencies target such parents with a far lower threshold of proof than was cited by the agency in this case.

TheDude


Sorry, folks, I think the baby being taken away is justified in this case. 


Well, we're glad to have the Fascist opinion on this case.


No, I think you could fall either way on this issue - given the meager facts that we have.

The only hysterical extremist here ... is you. I don't really see any fascists weighing in here.

Cordell Walker


The fact that the oath keepers were mentioned anywhere, in any way, makes me think that it's a witchhunt and homie is probably being made an example of.


That may be.  I remember seeing a movie which breaks down and analyzes the federal response to the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, and it seems that the feds are most threatened by (and lash out in destructive ways toward) any group that asserts their gun rights.  So yes, he may be incurring more government wrath than the average Joe because of his politics.  That still does not negate the coincidental possibility that he may in fact be violently misanthropic, or violent toward his family, or violent toward his girlfriend's kids.  He shouldn't receive a pass making him immune to scrutiny, simply because some overzealous government bureaucrat with liberal politics cited his political activism in order to justify the agency's removal of their daughter.  And in fact, thousands of parents in the U.S. are targeted every day, for similar reasons, by similar agencies, and such agencies target such parents with a far lower threshold of proof than was cited by the agency in this case.


well, if he is a wife beater, a kid beater or whatever, then take his kids cuz of that and leave his beliefs out of it period
when hitler invaded the USSR in 41, churchill, no fan of stalin, said something to the effect of, if hitler invaded hell, he would give the devil a favorable mention in the house of lords.
since THEY, not me, went there, went as far as to say that one reason they were fuckin with him was his association with the oath keepers and the fact he is a gun owner, means, at least to me, THEY are the bad guys, not him.
now if they produce a youtube vid of him slitting a 2 year olds throat and drinking the blood, while at the same time raping a dozen newborn kittens while wiping his ass with the american flag, with 12 of his buddies , 2 police sketch artists, a local news network, and his mom there to confirm his identity, then I MIGHT entertain the thought that the CPS is justified in this case
"how can you kill women and children?"---private joker
"Easy, ya just dont lead em as much" ---Animal Mother

The Biscuit Queen

Cordell, never thought I would say this but you seem to be the voice of reason here.  :greener:

The discussion is not about if he deserved to be arrested or not, it is that the media and the CPS both make the claim that it is his association with the Oath Keepers which caused him to lose his child (and hers, as she lost custody as well.) It should have been irrelevant that he was an Oath Keeper, or if it was the reason they needed to be clear what the provocation was (Waco/ Koolaid  fear.)  As it has been presented, it appears that belonging to this legitimate, non-violent political group caused the children to be taken. THAT is unconstitutional.

If he abused the children then CPS and the media need to explain what he did and list that as the reason.
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

The Gonzman

By your own logic, Gonzo, you indict yourself.  Even if a particular cop had always enforced the law in both spirit and letter, it seems pretty clear that you believe that if he has been divorced X number of times, this justifies a restraining order against him which separates him from his home and his children.  Just the lack of marital perfection itself, not necessarily any unprofessional conduct, in your view justifies the police state powers of a restraining order.  "Well, he asked for it!" you say, pointing to his desire to remain employed as a police officer, thinking of this as legitimizing an arbitrary application of the law stripping the officer of every individual right that he has.  Hello, Mussolini.


Bullshit, and you're roundabout attempt to avoid Godwin's Law is noted.

What is justified is him losing his job for drinking on the job, abuse of power, and child abuse.  What is justified is prosecution for those crimes.  And what is justified is any fallout arising from them.

You want to harp on "five failed marriages?"  Consider the rest  "Multiple black marks in his jacket.  Repeated substantiated charges in the document you presented for his defense.  etc."  Saint John Wooten is as much of a problem child as the guy who shot the judge and his wife.

He's a fucking cop, though, so he gets away with it. 

Hello, Defender of the Police State.  I'm willing to wager if any of us tasered a kid, we'd be in Jail'

One Standard for the Police - another standard for the peons.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.

The Gonzman



Sorry, folks, I think the baby being taken away is justified in this case. 


Well, we're glad to have the Fascist opinion on this case.


No, I think you could fall either way on this issue - given the meager facts that we have.

The only hysterical extremist here ... is you. I don't really see any fascists weighing in here.



Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Duly noted; if I walked out on the water to save a drowning child, your take on it would be "Gonzo can't swim!"

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.

Men's Rights Activist

Quote
That may be.  I remember seeing a movie which breaks down and analyzes the federal response to the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, and it seems that the feds are most threatened by (and lash out in destructive ways toward) any group that asserts their gun rights.


Arguably, the genesis for Oklahoma City (at least), and possibly Waco, can both be found in Ruby Ridge.  There were issues of gun possession in that case.  Without getting into all the details, let's just say Ruby Ridge went badly.  Agents of the FBI, U.S. Marshall's, and ATF were involved in that incident in which a 14-year-old boy and a mother holding her baby were shot and killed.  The government paid a $3,000,000.00 out of court settlement to be out of that one.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" -  Ronald Reagan
Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of Happiness are fundamental rights for all (including males), & not contingent on gender feminist approval or denial. Consider my "Independence" from all tyrannical gender feminist ideology "Declared" - Here & Now!

Go Up