Parents of 'Adolf Hitler' Lose Custody of Newborn

We had a yellow lab once that we named Henry David --- *can you guess what his last name was?

It was amazing how many people (friends of ours, in fact) didn't get the joke.




*let me qualify that: it's not exactly Thoreau --- but (*)(*)(*)(*)ed close.

 

Oh c'mon, its the most infamous name in history and its associated with the single largest act of genocide. That being said, its not the government's job to pick and choose whose fit to be a parent. Sure, these people are idiots, but how are they any worse then parents who feed their kids fast food all the time? Bad parenting happens to some, its a part of life, get over it.

 

While in a free society we cannot monitor parents to make sure they are doing what is right and not filling their kids head full of vile (*)(*)(*)(*), those sorts of things are going to go on. If on the other hand parents want to bring it out into the open, then they should be made an example of.

 

---I don't understand how you can protest the State treating the parents like an unperson while simultaneously upholding the "right" of the parents to treat another human being as an unperson.

 

Thats bull(*)(*)(*)(*) though. I'm an atheist, thats my belief system, and you can be (*)(*)(*)(*) sure I wll teach my kids that there is no god. Should my kids be taken away because we live in a christian society? Restricting someone's natural right to parenthood because of political disagreements (a horrible idealogy, but still just an idealogy) is fundamentally unamerican.

 

Modern liberalism is fundamentally un-American, this is simply another example of that.

 

I would say this action is more statist-authoritarian in nature, ironically, sounds like something a fascist state would do. Fascism is at the extreme end of right wing political ideology, hate to break it to ya.

 

If teaching atheism to you is telling them that Christians and others that follow religion are less than human, and you advocate violence against that group, then yeah I do believe you should have them taken from you. You are abusing them mentally if you do things like that, which the last time I checked is considered child abuse.

 

Well who said anything about violence? Not all white supremacists are violent, actually the vast majority are wimpy keyboard warriors. But hey, they could be teaching young Adolf to call someone the n-word on youtube!

 

When people have been taught their entire life that a particular group of people are less than human they are more prone to violence against that group. What happens when little Adolph steps out from behind that computer screen and has to deal directly with that person he has been taught to hate?

 

Actually, no its not, that is merely a myth perpetrated by the left to distance themselves from one form of socialist thought that was demonized by its actual practice. They figured going with the victorious communist route would be safer for them, that failed too... Yet they still try, its really amazing...

 

Unfortunately, that's somewhat what children become in a free society.

It's one of the burdens of freedom. We have little choice but to sit back and watch when parents subject their children to absurdities like indoctrinating them into racist ideologies or extremist religions.

Protective Services can only intervene when it comes to physical or sexual abuse, and even then, intervention requires quite a bit of litigation.

We tend to err on the side of freedom, because it's a slippery slope otherwise.

This situation in the OP will likely involve a rather profitable lawsuit for the parents involved, because there is no legal basis for seizing this child. It doesn't matter that the parents are nutcases politically. It would have to be proven that they are neglecting or abusing their children physically for intervention to be allowed.

 

Statism isn't actually left or right exclusively.

Fascism is right wing, Communism is left wing.

Anarchism is the opposite of Statism. Libertarians lean more towards anarchism than statism, but liberals and conservatives have their own leanings toward statism in addition to their leanings toward anarchism.

 

Your willingness to relinquish my individual liberty to the state on 'what ifs' and hypotheticals is noted, and quite disturbing...

and places you firmly within the totalitarian camp...where all leftists, actively or inadvertantly, seek to reside.

 

Its not so cut and dry when looking at the full spectrum (globally), its very much cut and dry when looking only at the American left and right and how they view government. Its like the left's jedi mind trick, toss out the global perspective to avoid actually looking at it in the American perspective. Who are the statists here? Who desires more central government? Look at in terms of this country and only this country and the ball falls to one side every time. Only through silly attempts to obscure the issue does this become a matter that falls anywhere near the right in America.

 

I would consider several conservative agendas to be statist.

Banning gay marriage
the War on Drugs
FCC intervention on media content

...just to name a few.

 

Yet it was a liberal Democrat that signed DOMA into law...

The war on drugs is as much a foreign policy issue as anything else, which falls under the small umbrella supported by conservatives as a legitimate function of the federal government.

Fairness Doctrine??? Both sides play around with the FCC.

 

Multiple states have passed their own bans, most of which have been supported by conservatives.

Being against gay marriage itself isn't a liberal stance anyway.

And it's not considered a legitimate function by many others including both liberals and libertarians.

It can just as easily be seen as statist.

True, but the fact that conservatives are part of this mess shows their own leanings toward statism.

 

What do you expect from this couple? They are obviously white trash. There's a gag order on the case, probably to attempt to allow the kids some privacy but their white trash parents have decided to try and make it into a media frenzy.

 

No, as it happens I am not one of those "the Holocaust was a myth folks". The entirety of the Polish side of my family was wiped out by the Nazi`s. My grandfather got to Canada in 36, and the rest stayed. all 28 of them were slaughtered in Buchenwald, except my great uncle, who managed to survive and then got carted of to the Middleast where the brits dumped his ass off and basically told him and his fellow jews "lawl heres some wood and a mattress, make yo bed on top of a fire anthill of racial hatred KTHANKZBY!".

As for the next part of your post. Sure it was hitler whos signed the orders. But who put Hitler in power? Who let him stay in power? Who smelled the flesh burning every day in some towns, yet did NOTHING?!??!!?!?!

The (*)(*)(*)(*)ing German people.

Not all of them were spineless. There were a few thousand, like Colonel Stauffenberg, who tried to revolt, or ferry people out or to safety. But the vast majority were sheep.
They let themselves be manipulated because they wanted a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing excuse for their failures in the first WW. They couldn`t take the fact they had lost and that the consequences were harsh. So they let themselves be carried into dreamy top of the world land by a mad man who was doing meth and was possibly Syphilitic. God (*)(*)(*)(*).
And when he carted them into another WW that everyone knew was going to be even worse than the last they said "(*)(*)(*)(*) YEAH! LETS RAPE THE (*)(*)(*)(*) OUT OF THE CONTINENT LOL!!!!"

When your government is evil and you are idiotic enough not to see it you deserve no pity in the history books. When you choose to do nothing when millions are being slaughtered and oppressed for believing in one half of the god (*)(*)(*)(*) bible you do something. Even if it means your death YOU DO SOMETHING

Even though a great many people didn`t know the full extent of the problem, almost everyone knew something was going on. Pretty hard not to when you see people being loaded up onto trucks like cattle in broad daylight, and being shot for stepping out of line.
Its pretty hard not to realize somethings up when theres monetary rewards for turning in a person just because of their faith.
You would have to be a real (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idiot or a blind monster not to put the pieces together.



When you were responding to the persons post about how MLK was not like hitler you said "That depends on how you look at it." and then went on a nonsensical tangent about how insignificant life is when compared to wood eating insects and how that gave the nazi`s an "excuse". Then you threw in some conservative mudslinging at the end just cause.

I took it like i saw it at the time.

 

Conservatives support State's rights, liberals support an all encompassing federal government, like the fascists...

I'm not concerned with liberals or libertarians when it comes to foreign policy, neither one seems to understand it in the least. Sorry to my libertarian friends, but I've never seen a decent platform for foreign policy by your camp.

Honestly I don't follow what the FCC does or doesn't do, I don't watch TV and rarely listen to the radio. When they start censoring the internet, we will have a problem.

 

If we're limiting this discussion to federalism vs. federal involvement, then yes, liberals are more statist by that measure.

However, statism is generally defined at all levels of government. More government involvement even at the state level is statist by definition.

I think we can agree that not all statism is bad. Some government intervention is needed to maintain order and protect rights.

 

---Who cares about liberty if it is not measured with responsibility.

 

Which means fascism falls towards the American left, not the right, as was my contention from the start. Its like pulling teeth to get a even the most rudimentary acknowledgement of reality from today's liberals...

No, statism is not generally defined at all levels, its the central, overlord, level that has people concerned. The local and state levels do not have authority over anyone but those that live within that particular region. While our freedoms are dwindling, we are still free to move from one city or state to another...

What we can agree on is that in order to have a society in which people actually want to live, we need a structured government. From there its a matter of how much control one is willing to give them over their lives. Anyone who wants to give the government more control does so only by limiting themselves and their freedoms. I oppose such notions and desire a small government that handles only those items they were empowered to handle by the Founding Fathers.

 

Do you also include banning bestiality as an example of statism?

As for the war on drugs I tend to agree that drugs should be legal.

But only if society is willing to ban the welfare state that coddles drug zombies who cannot take care of themselves.

Druggies should be free to take any drugs they want but also free to starve or freeze to death under a bridge with no interference from us.