Question Dr. lose child to CPS

[Maverick]

It really isn't a matter of what the "usual suspects" say or don't say. In this case it is relatively easy as the majority of answers are in the current bill. Some things as time passes may change, but it is in black and white. I would go to the government site itself rather than read a interpretation of it. Or if you do, the old saying applies, "trust but verify".

Agreed. However, we've already discussed how language can be skewed and bills are written much like the CDL regs. I've had no fewer than four different answers to my question of dual wheels on the van. Hard to verify who will do what....if stopped.

Alarmist have they're place, right along with those who trust in what they're both told, and read. I could sit here and tear into everything you stated, or simply respect your right to say it. I choose the latter.

Darn. Ford has placed the star bolts up front, and regular bolt heads in the back of seat mount. Off topic but wish to glide on out of this discussion and into further adventures. It's been a hoot as usual....if not one step below scintillating.

 

[Pilgrim]

The final passage bill does appear to be a slimmed down 900 computer pages. Original draft appears to have been the 2000 range and who knows what the actual printed number is? So one could print it to be 500 or 5000 pages. Guess it would depend on print settings and font. Since members who voted themselves an opt out, of they're own bill, might lead one to believe it's not good......no matter the page amount.

Ya'll are talking about the length of Obamacare, but leaving out the really good stuff - the OBAMACARE REGULATIONS. As of October 2012 this leviathan had grown to 2.8 MILLION WORDS (up from 2,163,744 in Feb 2012) compared to the 425,116 words of the statute. This has been estimated to be about 20,000 pages by Mitch McConnell's office. By comparison, War & Peace is 560,000 words and the Bible has 830,314 in the King James version; the IRS tax code and its associated regulations in 2012 was estimated to be 73,608 pages or about 5.6 million words depending on the source. Once the IRS takes Obamacare as its new bride, the phrase "be fruitful and multiply" will take on a whole new meaning when applied to regulations.

Obamacare regulations now at 2.8 million words | Obamacare Watcher

How big is the tax code, 2012 version - Don't Mess With Taxes

One last thought: considering the recent revelations about the IRS, imagine being a Tea Party member a few years from now and applying to Obamacare for an emergency appendectomy.

 

[Turtle]

Ya'll are talking about the length of Obamacare, but leaving out the really good stuff - the OBAMACARE REGULATIONS.

Not really, as the OBAMACARE REGULATIONS don't cover the CPS incident in the OP, either. <snort>

 

[Maverick]

Not really, as the OBAMACARE REGULATIONS don't cover the CPS incident in the OP, either. <snort>

Goodness. Do you ever stop to think about what people are trying to say? It's potential here, as per language of the bill; not a MR Spock, show me the figures, absolute and defined accuracy, silly pick pick pick scenario.

I think it great to have the cash register totally accurate (down to the penny) at the end of shift. But if it's off a nickle, and all customers were treated in a courteous manner, acknowledged appreciation for patronage, and will most likely return again? I'd give up the nickle and keep the cashier.

"Sheesh"

 

[Turtle]

Goodness. Do you ever stop to think about what people are trying to say?

Of course I do. And it's usually pretty easy to tell what they are trying to say, even if they don't say it explicitly. Take you, for example. It's very easy to tell what you are trying to say. You're afraid, you want everyone else to be just as afraid, and you'll use exaggerations, half truths and even lies to scare people to ensure they are just as afraid as you are. You're so scared that you don't even know what the truth is, all you know is it's gonna be bad, bad, bad, whatever it is. You're so caught up in screaming and running around with your arms flailing about that you haven't stopped yourself to think about what you are saying, what you are afraid of, or about the truth.

It's potential here, as per language of the bill; not a MR Spock, show me the figures, absolute and defined accuracy, silly pick pick pick scenario.

But you didn't speak in potentials, in possibilities. Instead, you spouted alarmist rhetoric in terms of absolutes. You believe what you are saying, no question, but you can't back any of it up, nor do you think you should. You think people should believe your alarmist statements at face value, the same way you believed the Snopes/WND thing at face value.

I think it great to have the cash register totally accurate (down to the penny) at the end of shift. But if it's off a nickle, and all customers were treated in a courteous manner, acknowledged appreciation for patronage, and will most likely return again? I'd give up the nickle and keep the cashier.

Nice parable, but in this case the drawer is not just a nickel short, it's only got a nickel in it.

"Sheesh"

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Pilgrim]

Not really, as the OBAMACARE REGULATIONS don't cover the CPS incident in the OP, either. <snort>

No, they don't - yet.

 

[Turtle]

No, they don't - yet.

And yet, according to Mav, they absolutely do. Not maybe, not possibly, not potentially, but absolutely.

Like I said, Obamacare is bad enough all on its own, without having to invent stuff to try and make it seeeem worse than it is. When people do that, and the fakes and lies are exposed, all of a sudden Obamacare ain't all that bad.

Obamacare has Death Panels? Oh, noooo, Mr Bill, I'm scared!
Wait. What? No Death Panels? Oh, well, OK, then Obamacare isn't scary at all. Yay for Obamacare!

It's much better to look at Obamacare for what it is, and then work the problem rather than inventing bigger problems that cannot be worked.

 

[Maverick]

Sigh.....I won't quote the absurd in the event someone with a cellphone is needing space for the entertainment provided by the delusional. Cards lost (or I'd be watching some good video so we have time to address the absurd.

It's always convenient to attack a person in this way. It's a defensive mechanism to cover for nothing else to display. Attempts to alert people of the potential of this bill has been met with, either a gatekeeper....or someone who lives inside a box, a very broad one in admittance, but a box none the less. Even though I've been dubbed everything from a liar to a theorist, the attempt here was to bring reality to those who may hold things in question.....as it used to be the American way.

Let's clear the decks. I fear NOTHING. Upon joining this forum it was my intent to contribute with any knowledge one could bring to the table. I value ALL peoples opinions, thoughts, and input, whether I agree or not.

You want to talk as if you know me? Forget it pal......you've just proven you don't know me at all. The OP was right all along, and posed the question, as a question. It was you, and you alone, who decided to attack anyone who did not meet with your opinion, views, and strict adherence.

Stay in your box as you speak with much intelligence within those parameters. To move outside that box and speak to something other than your learned responses and comfort zone? Well, you've just proven that is beyond your reach.

 

[Pilgrim]

Obamacare shocker: Send in the social workers

written by gregory a. Hession j.d.
Wednesday, 12 august 2009 01:34

the proposed obama government healthcare bill has a government snitch network built into it, allowing social workers to gain access to your home under the pretext of checking on your new baby, or soon-to-be-born baby. It will result in many many more children being taken from families by state child protective services agencies. this is the fulfillment of a long-held dream by child protection agencies to gain access to homes, without first getting a report of abuse or neglect, as currently required by law. Mandated visits to homes by government agents has been a favorite cause of hillary clinton, and of the radical bureaucrats running the u.s. Administration of children and families.
this “home invasion” program is found on page 838 of the lengthy bill, in section 1904, and it is called the “home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children.” the pretext on which the state agents would enter the home would be to “to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children.” it sounds pretty innocuous, but based on my 15 years of fighting these bureaucrats in court on behalf of innocent families, it can be predicted that the way it will work in real life will be much more sinister.
visits from the bureaucrats are voluntary in theory. (however, so are income taxes.) here is how it will work: After your first appointment with your ob/gyn to confirm a pregnancy, the doctor will be required to report it to the leviathan healthcare bureaucracy. If you somehow fall through the cracks during the pregnancy, the birth hospital will do the honors of reporting you to the state. Then, chirpy social workers will show up at your house one day, and pressure you to allow them to come “voluntarily” into your house. These people are so-called “mandated reporters,” who must report any abuse or neglect or potentially face fines and jail.
certain populations will be targeted for this “help,” and this should raise even more concern. Here is what the bill says: “the state shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families or a high incidence of child maltreatment.” translated, this means that poor and racial minority communities will be targeted, since they are more vulnerable and they cannot as readily access legal muscle to repel the invaders

ObamaCare Shocker: Send in the Social Workers | How Child Protection Services Buys and Sells Our Children

Maybe Obamacare's tentacles reach into the DHS & CPS areas after all?!

 

[xiggi]

Re: Question Dr., lose child to CPS

Well the real problem is the op attaches everything to obama. Because of this i take very little he says seriously. You know the boy who cried Wolfe Syndrome.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

 

[Turtle]

It's always convenient to attack a person in this way. It's a defensive mechanism to cover for nothing else to display.

Sorry, that dog don't hunt. I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking the ridiculous things you've said, and your attempt at defending them, and of altering the contexts and meanings when you can't.

Attempts to alert people of the potential of this bill has been met with, either a gatekeeper....or someone who lives inside a box, a very broad one in admittance, but a box none the less.

But you didn't attempt to alert people of the potential of this law, you attempted to make people believe the law is something other than it is. In other words, you lied about the bill to further spread your own fear about it. To insinuate that I am somehow a gatekeeper in a box defending Obamacare is ridiculous to anyone who can understand what I have written, not only in this thread but in others.

Even though I've been dubbed everything from a liar to a theorist, the attempt here was to bring reality to those who may hold things in question.....as it used to be the American way.

And you're still doing it. You are referring to your own unsubstantiated (and refuted) theories as being that of "reality." You're saying things in absolutes, as if they are true, when they're not, which is why you've been dubbed a liar.

You want to talk as if you know me? Forget it pal......you've just proven you don't know me at all. The OP was right all along, and posed the question, as a question. It was you, and you alone, who decided to attack anyone who did not meet with your opinion, views, and strict adherence.

Since you've said nothing to dispel or refute my characterization of you, I'd say that I've got you nailed pretty well. The only think I attacked is the ridiculous and the ignorant, and the defense thereof. My favorite, though, is the adorable effort you made when you tried sooo hard with that "read the bill and know what is present" nonsense and admonishing me to properly school myself in preparation for a debate so that I know at least some of what the bill contains, when you hadn't even read it yourself and no idea, other than what you've been told, of what's in there. It just sucks when you take a bluff stance like that and get called on it, huh.

Stay in your box as you speak with much intelligence within those parameters. To move outside that box and speak to something other than your learned responses and comfort zone? Well, you've just proven that is beyond your reach.

It's hilarious when people who speak chiefly in learned responses, most often from wacko Web sites that wouldn't know the truth if it bit them, are the ones to levy that charge against others. Beyond my reach? My box is the box of the unadulterated truth, not a box of biased political rhetoric and fear mongering.

 

[Maverick]

Re: Question Dr., lose child to CPS

Well the real problem is the op attaches everything to obama. Because of this i take very little he says seriously. You know the boy who cried Wolfe Syndrome.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

Your right. But this begs a question. Who are you attaching it to? Sometimes Occam's Razor does really explains things pretty well. Are you implying this signed bill was signed by another person?

 

[Maverick]

My box is the box of the unadulterated truth, not a box of biased political rhetoric and fear mongering."

Prove it. In what way are you the authority? Let's go rhetorical here and let us hear how you are the only one who knows truth?

This is the epitome of arrogance and self aggrandizement. Suppositions have been offered but YOU are truth? I shudder to think.

 

[Turtle]

Maybe Obamacare's tentacles reach into the DHS & CPS areas after all?!

Maybe, but the above piece is a conclusion-drawn opinion piece based on an early draft of the bill and not on the final legislation. The section discussed in the piece did not make into the final bill.

Of course, there is little doubt in my mind that CPS will continue as they have been, to try any way they can to expand their powers and reduce or eliminate oversight of their activities.

I've said in the past here, I think parents should be able to raise their children any way they see fit. Period. Child Protective Services, for anything other than blatantly abused or abandoned children on the streets, are a scourge on American and personal liberties. Child Protective Services started out doing good, and with good intentions, but they have become an abomination of everything that is right and good.

Child Protective Services was borne out of a legitimate need to protect abused, neglected and abandoned children. As a way to help abandoned and abused kids get off the streets, as much as anything. As early as 1690 there were criminal court cases involving child abuse. Various agencies were created over the years to deal with such cases, but it was in 1973 that things became political and Congress got involved, mandating that the states have child protection agencies. Spurred on by the Civil Rights Movement, the role of children in society was redefined, partly because of feel-good intentions (it's all about the chiiiiildren) and partly about the good old fashioned American way of wanting to tell other people what to do and how to live their lives. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act was then passed in 1974, which required states "to prevent, identify and treat child abuse and neglect." The unintended consequences has been the state agencies themselves to be able to redefine what abuse and neglect actually means, and they have typically done so in ways that just so happen to give them more power and authority.

Most state CPS agencies are at least partially funded by federal dollars, so it's not at all unlikely that the tentacles of the federal government, be it Obamacare or some other mechanism, will reach into these areas.

But of course, "not at all unlikely" is very different from "absolutely does."

 

[Maverick]

Could you please provide the masses with your " I am unadulterated truth" offering? This lapse in response is making me tired.

It should be a simple thing....announce your anointing date, and where this took place (complete with witnesses to your blessing) and we'll clear this whole thing up?

tap tap

Too late. Guess we must be typing one of those quoted things for all manner of silliness and puffed up attributes to oneself......while telling others of their folly, according to the anointed one. How silly of me to think otherwise.

 

[Turtle]

My box is the box of the unadulterated truth, not a box of biased political rhetoric and fear mongering."

Prove it. In what way are you the authority? Let's go rhetorical here and let us hear how you are the only one who knows truth?

This is the epitome of arrogance and self aggrandizement. Suppositions have been offered but YOU are truth? I shudder to think.

I never said I was an authority. Nor do I pretend to be. But I do prefer the truth, and will seek it out in favor of the untruth, in favor of the skewed biased truth, in favor of believing things at face value. I will also not claim something to be true unless it is, unless I wholly believe it to be verifiable and irrefutable. Not just true, but verifiable so that others can see it for themselves. In the unlikely event that I rushed myself and something I state is refuted, I will accept the refutation rather than hang on to the falsehood. There are people here who live for the day when they can catch me in something wrong. I can't let that happen. So I have to be extra vigilant with the truth.

You want proof? The proof is in years of my posts here on EO where my goal and intent is to always post the truth and never post anything false or misleading. I'm not perfect, but I think I've lived up to that quite well.

 

[Turtle]

Could you please provide the masses with your " I am unadulterated truth" offering? This lapse in response is making me tired.

If you're going to quote me, please do so accurately. I never said that I am unadulterated truth.

It should be a simple thing....announce your anointing date, and where this took place (complete with witnesses to your blessing) and we'll clear this whole thing up?

tap tap

You really are quire immature, aren't you?

Too late. Guess we must be typing one of those quoted things for all manner of silliness and puffed up attributes to oneself......while telling others of their folly, according to the anointed one. How silly of me to think otherwise.

Alright. Here's one for you. Prove to me that you're not a complete and total moron.

Good luck with that.

 

[Turtle]

Re: Question Dr., lose child to CPS

Your right. But this begs a question. Who are you attaching it to? Sometimes Occam's Razor does really explains things pretty well. Are you implying this signed bill was signed by another person?

Begging the question, Occam's Razor. Interesting use of logical fallacies. I can speak for xiggi in saying that he doesn't think the bill was signed by anyone other than Obama. But your question in who he is attaching it to is a logical fallacy in and of itself, as the OP linked the actions of a state agency, CPS, to that of Obama and Obamacare, where no such link actually exists. Attaching the actions in the story of the OP to Obama is a false premise, so anything based on that is also false.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Re: Question Dr., lose child to CPS

I'm fed up with this BS. Turtle... as good as your arguments are, when it comes to debating, you are nothing more than a bully. You use paragraphs for every sentence your opponent uses. In like terms, you would be in a fist fight, knock your opponent down with a sledgehammer, then drive over him with a steamroller for effect.

I got your opinion, and agreed with it, the FIRST time you said it. The other 98 times, I just find I despise your rhetoric. Methinks they used to say, "You're not very sporting."

 

[xiggi]

Re: Question Dr., lose child to CPS

Your right. But this begs a question. Who are you attaching it to? Sometimes Occam's Razor does really explains things pretty well. Are you implying this signed bill was signed by another person?

I am not implying anything. I stated exactly how i feel when it comes to the op"s posts.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.