On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:50:35 -0400, Greegor <Greegor47@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sup****t.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/ea0a09a494f5177d
>
> News stories where CPS screws up are abundant and severe.
> This is not the best example of where CPS screwed up.
> It seems to be some sort of sales pitch to try to
> enlarge funding and authority to enlarge CPS
> and their intrusions.
>
> DS > From the info in the article Rawls
> DS > was probably 18 or older at the
> DS >time CPS removed his younger brother.
>
> BT > Are you a CPS booster then?
>
> Yes, Dan is. He LIES about it but he is.
>
> Why did you come to that conclusion so quickly though
> when all Dan pointed out was that this Dad was not
> legally a subject of the previous Child Abuse case?
>
> I can't shake the wierd feeling that this was
> some kind of GAME about forcing me to defend
> an opponent, Dan, for such a blatant fact.
>
> NWA, I disagree with the position you took
> that CPS agencies don't make cases lightly.
I took no such position -- I simply ask the poster, "What makes you think
CPS takes kids for minor indiscretions"
Of course CPS takes kids for minor indiscretions -- CPS takes kids for NO
indiscretions -- CPS takes kids when they freakin' feel like it.
>
> CPS agencies commonly DO waste a lot of
> time on cases made over trivia, while at the
> same time, they decide NOT to make cases where
> tyhere have been numerous calls and AMPLE
> evidence. Their mistakes do not cut just one way.
> Their bias on cases seems almost schitzophrenic
> in this way. Ignoring hard core blatant cases
> while obsessing about spending massive amounts
> of time and resources on cases without real merit.
>
> DS > CPS sucks and rarely comes to the proper conclusion.
>
> Again, Dan said something that is TRUE.
>
> The problem we have is that Dan and CPS
> know that in order to burrow into the
> cause of family rights against CPS, you
> have to say things that make you appear to
> be on the family rights side.
>
> Dan says things that ON THE SURFACE make
> him appear to be in the family rights cause.
>
> But dig a little deeper and you find that
> Dan has said a lot of things and taken
> positions that contradict this.
>
> Dan has been kicked out of several
> Family Rights groups online and off.
>
> One of his biggest online references,
> Kane (Pa****okenkookoo) claimed to be
> on the side of Family Rights, but
> similarly his deeper positions gave
> him away. Actually he was spotted
> as a caseworker almost immediately.
> He lied about it for YEARS and when
> he was finally ID'd as a former
> CPS caseworker and a rabid ****ll for
> the Child Protection INDUSTRY,
> he scampered away.
>
> Before Kane was outed, though, Dan
> and Kane used to post profuse TESTIMONIALS
> for each other, it was a MUTUAL thing,
> and some referred to it as them sucking
> each other off in public.
>
> This is part of why the PRO CPS group
> of posters Dan is allied with is called
> a bunch of "system sucks".
> Several of them are BENEFICIARIES of the
> Child Protection INDUSTRY somehow.
>
> They operate as a pack and so are sometimes
> refererred to as the hyena pack as well.
>
> Lately their dishonesty has backfired
> on them SEVERELY in several instances.
>
> Yes, CPS sucks, they screw up BOTH ways,
> but this news story is NOT the best example
> of CPS screwups, as it is.
>
> Now if you found out that this Dad and the
> family was under CPS supervision, or that
> there were many re****ts and ample evidence
> but CPS took no action, (yes, there are stories
> like that or worse!) then this story would
> take on a whole new dimension.
>
> In fact, WITHOUT THOSE, this article sup****ts
> such a weak strain of criticism of CPS that
> it could have been posted to water down
> REAL criticism. (And paint parents as evil.)
>
> Buel, You're on the Family Rights side, right?
>
> Why did you use such a flawed and WEAK
> article when there are others that much
> more blatantly lead to criticism of CPS?
--
..
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
|
