Yet Another Outrageous Act From The Chief Nitwit

On Aug 18, 12:37*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:

... And on the
human side, that insane nanny bit the Texans did, taking away hundreds
of children from their polygamous parents was nothing that could be
laid at the feet of "libs," unless all the morally presumptuous
wingnut Baptists in Texas have gone thru some makeover that hasn't
made the Seattle papers yet.

Your years at BYU have endowed you with a horrific blind spot
vis a vis some of the most disgusting cultists in America. If
the polygamous cultists aren't going to protect their 14 year-old
girls from ritual rape then who will ? Protecting children isn't
morally presumptuous or the sole province of wingnut Baptists it
is the responsibility of the state.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Well you did notice that all the children had to be returned to their
mothers, and that the original accusers turn out to be ficticous
right?

As for my sojurn in Utah. . . .

I had the privilege of working for a 3 term, cigar smoking Lunch
Bucket Democrat Governor of Utah, Calvin Rampton, as a very junior
planner for the State of Utah. I learned reluctantly what happens when
you press the law too closely into the culturally different. First,
lets make it clear that the LDS church does not in any way support
polygamy, and that "Mormons" do more to discourage it than any
thieving Texas prosecutor or show boating Federal (or State) law
enforcement carpetbagger has ever done. The polygamous groups are all
breakoffs. The church got out of polygamy over 100 years ago.

What I learned is that if you don't leave a little discretion to State
and local law enforcement, if you press things too much with the power
of the State because some nut bag up on the mountain doesn't want to
send his kids to school, or talks Nazi bull****, or because three or
more people want to form a family, you end up with Sheriffs forced to
kill primarily Wingnuts, you end up with the whole bunch of women and
kids on welfare, you end up with kids who hate the State because it
killed or jailed their father (or Mother in the case of Ruby Ridge),
you end up with Sheriffs who retire early because they have local
blood on their hands, you end up with children leading chaotic lives
hunted by asshole tabloid NY reporters and junketing Federal lawmen.

There are abuses and dealing with them is best left to local
government and local law enforcement. But if you see this stuff close
up you might realize that there are worse outcomes when you apply the
full power of the State to enforce in every nook and cranny a
particular idea of what the proper age for marriage is, who should be
in school and taught what, how many married people in a family is
proper, and blur the natural law's definition of rape. Sometimes you
just let em be and say, no I don't know where you can find them.

Dave
Freedom isn't just for those you agree with

Ken Fortenberry wrote in
:

Protecting children isn't
morally presumptuous or the sole province of wingnut Baptists it
is the responsibility of the state.


Can't blame the courts if the State didn't do its job. I can understand
not accepting a blanket determination to remove the children when a case-
by-case argument is what should be expected of a court system that
recognizes an individual's rights. There was a window when the children
were in state custody when such cases could have been gathered-- sort of a
convenient workaround to give the State some working time to make their
cases right.

Sometimes, when you try to maintain civil rights, the wrong thing happens,
but that's a price we pay.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:37:07 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:

... And on the
human side, that insane nanny bit the Texans did, taking away hundreds
of children from their polygamous parents was nothing that could be
laid at the feet of "libs," unless all the morally presumptuous
wingnut Baptists in Texas have gone thru some makeover that hasn't
made the Seattle papers yet.

Your years at BYU have endowed you with a horrific blind spot
vis a vis some of the most disgusting cultists in America. If
the polygamous cultists aren't going to protect their 14 year-old
girls from ritual rape then who will ? Protecting children isn't
morally presumptuous or the sole province of wingnut Baptists it
is the responsibility of the state.

Tut-tut-tut...you need to be more like Obama and pray to Jesus for
guidance as to what He, your Savior, would want you to think about
this...see, they aren't polygamous cultists, they simply relate to God
differently...and that's OK...now, those that DON'T believe, hoo-boy,
it's hellfire and damnation...well, not so much hellfire and damnation
as, um, well, probably hellish, like warm white Zinfandel and cold Brie
with stale water biscuits or Volvos with no navigation or, for the truly
wicked, a week with Al and Tipper...but anyway, one shouldn't tell
another how to believe... except, of course, when that belief leads to
crazy ****, like Hillary being the nominee or, ahem, a certain someone's
high yaller ass not getting into the White House or something...

HTH,
R

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:36:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

in the case of Ruby Ridge

Please. Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. are really pretty simple - criminal
nutcases doing stupid **** that they know is going to provoke
confrontation and getting that confrontation from over-zealous wannabes
who have absolutely no business whatsoever playing with loaded guns...or
any weapons beyond perhaps sporks...IOW, idiots ****ing with idiots. But
even with that, in both cases, the ball was in the court of the actors,
not the responders, and in both cases, all they had to do was surrender
peacefully. And the suggestion that if they had, the LEOs would have
wiped them out is ridiculous. They might have had some sympathy had
they surrendered beforehand. As it went, it's pretty hard to feel much
sympathy for someone when their main bitch, distilled down to its
essence, is that they lost the firefight they started...

HTH,
R

Dave
Freedom isn't just for those you agree with

wrote:
On Aug 18, 12:37 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:

... And on the
human side, that insane nanny bit the Texans did, taking away hundreds
of children from their polygamous parents was nothing that could be
laid at the feet of "libs," unless all the morally presumptuous
wingnut Baptists in Texas have gone thru some makeover that hasn't
made the Seattle papers yet.
Your years at BYU have endowed you with a horrific blind spot
vis a vis some of the most disgusting cultists in America. If
the polygamous cultists aren't going to protect their 14 year-old
girls from ritual rape then who will ? Protecting children isn't
morally presumptuous or the sole province of wingnut Baptists it
is the responsibility of the state.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Well you did notice that all the children had to be returned to their
mothers, and that the original accusers turn out to be ficticous
right?

Did you notice that several other women came forward to verify
the essence of the accusations and that the DNA gathered showed
conclusively that several of those children were born to 15 year
old mothers ?

There are abuses and dealing with them is best left to local
government and local law enforcement. But if you see this stuff close
up you might realize that there are worse outcomes when you apply the
full power of the State to enforce in every nook and cranny a
particular idea of what the proper age for marriage is, who should be
in school and taught what, how many married people in a family is
proper, and blur the natural law's definition of rape. ...

Lawlessness, what an excellent idea. It worked great the last
time the Mormons were run out of Illinois.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Aug 18, 3:31*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 18, 12:37 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:

... And on the
human side, that insane nanny bit the Texans did, taking away hundreds
of children from their polygamous parents was nothing that could be
laid at the feet of "libs," unless all the morally presumptuous
wingnut Baptists in Texas have gone thru some makeover that hasn't
made the Seattle papers yet.
Your years at BYU have endowed you with a horrific blind spot
vis a vis some of the most disgusting cultists in America. If
the polygamous cultists aren't going to protect their 14 year-old
girls from ritual rape then who will ? Protecting children isn't
morally presumptuous or the sole province of wingnut Baptists it
is the responsibility of the state.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Well you did notice that all the children had to be returned to their
mothers, and that the original accusers turn out to be ficticous
right?

Did you notice that several other women came forward to verify
the essence of the accusations and that the DNA gathered showed
conclusively that several of those children were born to 15 year
old mothers ?

There are abuses and dealing with them is best left to local
government and local law enforcement. But if you see this stuff close
up you might realize that there are worse outcomes when you apply the
full power of the State to enforce in every nook and cranny a
particular idea of what the proper age for marriage is, who should be
in school and taught what, how many married people in a family is
proper, and blur the natural law's definition of rape. ...

Lawlessness, what an excellent idea. It worked great the last
time the Mormons were run out of Illinois.

--
Ken Fortenberry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Of course you must be referring to the fact that Mormons were murdered
and run out of Southern Illinois and Missouri because, among other
things they were anti-slavery.

Dave
Rest easy Brother Porter Rockwell, he doesn't mean it.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:31:30 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
On Aug 18, 12:37 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:

... And on the
human side, that insane nanny bit the Texans did, taking away hundreds
of children from their polygamous parents was nothing that could be
laid at the feet of "libs," unless all the morally presumptuous
wingnut Baptists in Texas have gone thru some makeover that hasn't
made the Seattle papers yet.
Your years at BYU have endowed you with a horrific blind spot
vis a vis some of the most disgusting cultists in America. If
the polygamous cultists aren't going to protect their 14 year-old
girls from ritual rape then who will ? Protecting children isn't
morally presumptuous or the sole province of wingnut Baptists it
is the responsibility of the state.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Well you did notice that all the children had to be returned to their
mothers, and that the original accusers turn out to be ficticous
right?

Did you notice that several other women came forward to verify
the essence of the accusations and that the DNA gathered showed
conclusively that several of those children were born to 15 year
old mothers ?

Oh, man, I don't like where this is headed...OTOH, Texas Child
Protective Services, even if they have the desire, probably doesn't have
the manpower to invade Mexico...or even BedSty and Harlem...AHA!...maybe
some faith-based programs can teach abstinence...

There are abuses and dealing with them is best left to local
government and local law enforcement. But if you see this stuff close
up you might realize that there are worse outcomes when you apply the
full power of the State to enforce in every nook and cranny a
particular idea of what the proper age for marriage is, who should be
in school and taught what, how many married people in a family is
proper, and blur the natural law's definition of rape. ...

Lawlessness, what an excellent idea. It worked great the last
time the Mormons were run out of Illinois.

Oh, _MorMons_...when I first glanced at it, I was prepared to suggest
that they hadn't been "run out" as much as left to go campaigning...and
accepting all religions, faiths, creeds, colors, and national
origins...well, for proper-voting Democrats, anyway...

HTH,
R
"...Republican niggas beyond carbolated dark need not apply..."

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:27:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Ideology is Un-American, ask General Washington

It was a joke, David. Take a deep breath and ............

Dave

On Aug 18, 4:11*pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:27:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Ideology is Un-American, ask General Washington

It was a joke, David. *Take a deep breath and ............

Dave

No offence ment.
I was generally agreeing with your sentiment regarding protection for
coyotes, just not that it was a particularly "lib" thing. The
ignorant of washington passed a law that prevents hunting bear and
cougar with dogs, so now the State has to pay contract hunters with
dogs to "remove" peskies.

Dave

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:26:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Aug 18, 4:11*pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:27:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Ideology is Un-American, ask General Washington

It was a joke, David. *Take a deep breath and ............

Dave

No offence ment.
I was generally agreeing with your sentiment regarding protection for
coyotes, just not that it was a particularly "lib" thing. The
ignorant of washington passed a law that prevents hunting bear and
cougar with dogs, so now the State has to pay contract hunters with
dogs to "remove" peskies.

Dave

A few years ago my daughters were among those that had to pay a
professional hunter to kill deer on Plum Island here in Mass.