Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
HereWeGoAgain
Isn't it funny that the libbies here were demanding that I apologize for making a false thread, but after they are exposed as slanderers they don't even show much as show a sign of apology. Demon crazed.
You should the horrible things they said about me when I made a thread that documented how I lost over 2/3 of my income because of Obamacare. They are DEMONIC
Obamacare just ruined my life US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Is it any wonder that they worship Satan?
HereWeGoAgain
Isn't it funny that the libbies here were demanding that I apologize for making a false thread, but after they are exposed as slanderers they don't even show much as show a sign of apology. Demon crazed.
You should the horrible things they said about me when I made a thread that documented how I lost over 2/3 of my income because of Obamacare. They are DEMONIC
Obamacare just ruined my life US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Is it any wonder that they worship Satan?
Thats exactly why I feel no sympathy for min wage slackers.
I went through hell growing up yet I managed to retire at 46 without a college education. Yet they want me to give up what I gave my blood sweat and tears for?
They're going to have to kill me for it. And thats no bullshit!
Actually, most reasoanable and rational people would refer to them as armed robbers rather than lazy bums.Hey Luddly Neddite it seems that you and MSM failed to neglect that's a picture of the house they are currently building and the tarps are there temporarily:
You liberals are the most digusting slanderous piles of filth I've ever witnessed. I no longer despise you for your ignorance, because you are not ignorant, you're intentional deceitfully to bring us under your control. I HATE YOU.
Ready for the ironic part?
For all your railing against "Liberals" -- you're here to defend a cultish family who, according to those who have described them, mooch, con, beg, steal, threaten and fake their way through life, not bothering to get actual jobs. In other words they're not "off the grid" out of some kind of self-sufficiency - they can't afford water, shelter or electricity (yet have a thriving Facebook page and lots of quality photography) because they refuse to find an income for themselves (and those young kids), preferring to mooch, con, beg and steal from others.
Where have I heard that sort of description before around here...
And now of course they've taken the begging virtual, to GoFundMe.
But if they were doing the same thing in an urban setting - eg - panhandling on a city street corner, threatening to shoot those who did not give up their own hard earned belongings, the RWs would call them lazy bums.
But of course none of you clowns appear to be neither reasonable nor rational people in the first place. Just trolls.
While I cannot help but question the specifics of the people in the story, the threats and so forth. I mean if he's threatening people with guns to "steal" water, that's not right obviously. So don't get me wrong in the following.
When I look at the grander scope, I have to say that I do have some concerns about the seeming universally acceptance that we [our government] should be taking children from parents things like for not having running water, or not having a "floor"... Or perhaps more precisely, this concept of "we know better than you how you should live your life" as a whole.
I have a cabin down south that doesn't have running water or electricity, my husband and his buddies have stayed there up to a week during the hunting season. We also winter-proof our north cabin every winter and have stayed there without running water for up to a week for a random snow machining jaunt (why de-winterize for a week only to re-winterize again decision.) It wasn't /that/ bit a deal - hell my boys thought it was hilarious to piss off the deck and "draw" in the snow (and I have to admit the regular blue ball jokes /were/ amusing heh). Now I personally wouldn't want to live that way all the time because I'm spoiled by my modern conveniences, but I never /once/ considered it "unsafe" and certainly do not think it was "child abuse."
Our main house is on an auxiliary power line and the thing breaks a lot (no power to the well pump) The last time it was down for 11 days, it really /wasn't/ that hard to deal with. We heated and cooked with the woodstove, melted and boiled snow for baths and food, etc. I don't think anyone we were "unhealthy" there either. In fact the biggest problem we had was constantly moving milk inside and out so it stayed cold, but didn't freeze. Not to mention, denied our internet connection, TV shows, and computers, my eldest son and I had some really great in depth conversations sitting around the stove before bed; one of which happened to be about "how people used to live." I suppose prior to that I'd never thought about it too much, but this story has brought it back to mind...
Homesteading from Federal land was available in Alaska until 1986... (That's where you get a plot of land and you go live on it, no electricity, no water, no septic/sewage, nothing but the work you put into building your own home there, usually in the middle of nowhere...) As the financially well off did not qualify for them, I have to presume people were out in the wilds building their own homes without "modern" utilities up into the late 80s here; and I'd dare say at least /most/ of them probably are just fine today - though admittedly considering we loose at least 3 tourists to the wilds every year, some might have perished. I can't be sure they had kids with, but you never know, it was a way to bring in immigrants and offer the poor a home as I understand it.
I have found no evidence to support any idea that homesteading was considered a "bad" way to live anywhere. Homesteading was mostly eliminated because the Federal Government basically wanted more parkland in the west, instead of giving it to people, they turned it into parks; and perhaps it could be argued it was because we didn't need as many immigrants, but certainly nothing anywhere says it was ended for "safety concerns." Plus the fact that Alaska, one of the harshest environments in the country, was given an extra 10 years of Fed land homesteading leads me to presume it wasn't considered "dangerous" to any ones safety. In addition you can /still/ buy "homestead" lots through open bids today (I think they limit use to "recreational cabins" though, and its on an open bid basis so I am sure the well to do win them and just pay people to make it happen.)
So I guess my concern, or maybe question is, have things really changed so much that living as this countries founders did, as homesteader's in Alaska did just 30 years ago, now considered somehow "unsafe," and even considered child abuse? While all of us might be "dependent" on modern convenience, who are we to "dictate" that /no one/ should be allowed to live like that, even if they /want/ to?
While I can agree that modern conveniences have certainly /increased/ peoples health, I do not feel that a truthful argument can be made that there is such a major health concern for going without those conveniences the government needs to get involved and put a stop to it...
THey arne't be neglected, they are well fed and happy, look at the pcis of the family.That's hardly a defense for allowing other kids to be neglected.
While I cannot help but question the specifics of the people in the story, the threats and so forth. I mean if he's threatening people with guns to "steal" water, that's not right obviously. So don't get me wrong in the following.
When I look at the grander scope, I have to say that I do have some concerns about the seeming universally acceptance that we [our government] should be taking children from parents things like for not having running water, or not having a "floor"... Or perhaps more precisely, this concept of "we know better than you how you should live your life" as a whole.
I have a cabin down south that doesn't have running water or electricity, my husband and his buddies have stayed there up to a week during the hunting season. We also winter-proof our north cabin every winter and have stayed there without running water for up to a week for a random snow machining jaunt (why de-winterize for a week only to re-winterize again decision.) It wasn't /that/ bit a deal - hell my boys thought it was hilarious to piss off the deck and "draw" in the snow (and I have to admit the regular blue ball jokes /were/ amusing heh). Now I personally wouldn't want to live that way all the time because I'm spoiled by my modern conveniences, but I never /once/ considered it "unsafe" and certainly do not think it was "child abuse."
Our main house is on an auxiliary power line and the thing breaks a lot (no power to the well pump) The last time it was down for 11 days, it really /wasn't/ that hard to deal with. We heated and cooked with the woodstove, melted and boiled snow for baths and food, etc. I don't think anyone we were "unhealthy" there either. In fact the biggest problem we had was constantly moving milk inside and out so it stayed cold, but didn't freeze. Not to mention, denied our internet connection, TV shows, and computers, my eldest son and I had some really great in depth conversations sitting around the stove before bed; one of which happened to be about "how people used to live." I suppose prior to that I'd never thought about it too much, but this story has brought it back to mind...
Homesteading from Federal land was available in the us until like 1976, and in Alaska until 1986... (That's where you get a plot of land and you go live on it, no electricity, no water, no septic/sewage, nothing but the work you put into building your own home there, usually in the middle of nowhere...) As the financially well off did not qualify for them, I have to presume people were out in the wilds building their own homes without "modern" utilities up into the mid 80s here; and I'd dare say at least /most/ of them probably are just fine today - though admittedly considering we loose at least 3 tourists to the wilds every year, some might have perished. I can't be sure they had kids with, but you never know, it was a way to bring in immigrants and offer the poor a home as I understand it.
I have found no evidence to support any idea that homesteading was considered a "bad" way to live anywhere. Homesteading was mostly eliminated because the Federal Government basically wanted more parkland in the west, instead of giving it to people, they turned it into parks; and perhaps it could be argued it was because we didn't need as many immigrants, but certainly nothing anywhere says it was ended for "safety concerns." Plus the fact that Alaska, one of the harshest environments in the country, was given an extra 10 years of Fed land homesteading leads me to presume it wasn't considered "dangerous" to any ones safety. In addition you can /still/ buy "homestead" lots through open bids today (I think they limit use to "recreational cabins" though, and its on an open bid basis so I am sure the well to do win them and just pay people to make it happen.)
So I guess my concern, or maybe question is, have things really changed so much that living as this countries founders did, as homesteader's in Alaska did just 30 years ago, now considered somehow "unsafe," and even considered child abuse? While all of us might be "dependent" on modern convenience, who are we to "dictate" that /no one/ should be allowed to live like that, even if they /want/ to?
While I can agree that modern conveniences have certainly /increased/ peoples health, I do not feel that a truthful argument can be made that there is such a major health concern for going without those conveniences the government needs to get involved and put a stop to it...
HereWeGoAgain
Isn't it funny that the libbies here were demanding that I apologize for making a false thread, but after they are exposed as slanderers they don't even show much as show a sign of apology. Demon crazed.
You should the horrible things they said about me when I made a thread that documented how I lost over 2/3 of my income because of Obamacare. They are DEMONIC
Obamacare just ruined my life US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Is it any wonder that they worship Satan?
Thats exactly why I feel no sympathy for min wage slackers.
I went through hell growing up yet I managed to retire at 46 without a college education. Yet they want me to give up what I gave my blood sweat and tears for?
They're going to have to kill me for it. And thats no bullshit!
There's nothing wrong with a 'cabin' as you described, nor having kids visit it. There's nothing wrong about homesteading situations that mimicked living in the 1800's either. The problem comes as your opening states, is if the family isn't providing the necessary 'warmth, food, water, etc.', without resulting to force upon someone else.
If one is living full time without plumbing, it makes sense to build an outhouse or some other way to keep the house free of urine and feces, no? Even in the 'olden days' chamber pots were used for those unable to leave the home, unless there were servants to remove the wastes in an expeditious manner.
Most people living 'off the grid' are providing for heat, water, etc., in alternative methods, not just not having them.
How Living Off the Grid Works - HowStuffWorks
There's nothing wrong with a 'cabin' as you described, nor having kids visit it. There's nothing wrong about homesteading situations that mimicked living in the 1800's either. The problem comes as your opening states, is if the family isn't providing the necessary 'warmth, food, water, etc.', without resulting to force upon someone else.
If one is living full time without plumbing, it makes sense to build an outhouse or some other way to keep the house free of urine and feces, no? Even in the 'olden days' chamber pots were used for those unable to leave the home, unless there were servants to remove the wastes in an expeditious manner.
Most people living 'off the grid' are providing for heat, water, etc., in alternative methods, not just not having them.
How Living Off the Grid Works - HowStuffWorks
Well as I said I was speaking "in general" not specifically /that/ family, though who's to say they /don't/ have an outhouse somewhere on their (what was it?) 37 acres that just doesn't happen to be in the pictures they post on facebook, and who's to say they are not planning to put in a well when they have the money to drill it, hell who's to say they /aren't/ drilling one? Either way, they /were/ providing water, how is getting it from the neighbor any different then welfare really?
Admittedly they have a problem now cause apparently the neighbor doesn't want to give them any anymore - and yea threatening to get a gun over it is a problem - but the point is they /were/ providing food and water... warmth... why would you say "warmth" instead of "shelter?" They /have/ a shelter... That aside though, warmth is relative honestly, I wear shorts outside when it's 40 degrees and that's fine for me, these folks are down in Kentucky. We're talking 30's at night in December and March and days/nights in Jan and Feb. It's not December, January, February, or March though, so it looks like its "warm" to me. I kind of got the feeling what you actually meant by "warmth" is "must have enclosed building" to which I slightly disagree is a "necessity" so important that the government would need to get involved and "stop."
While I cannot help but question the specifics of the people in the story, the threats and so forth. I mean if he's threatening people with guns to "steal" water, that's not right obviously. So don't get me wrong in the following.
While I cannot help but question the specifics of the people in the story, the threats and so forth. I mean if he's threatening people with guns to "steal" water, that's not right obviously. So don't get me wrong in the following.
It's an obvious lie and MSM smear to make Daddy Gov look good. There are no arrests or convictions or evidence (other than the neighbor's hearsay) suggesting that.
Every USMB libbie who quotes their beloved new sources propagating this lie must be held to the same standard they held me during this thread, and be forced to produce direct evidence of the claim.
\The problem comes as your opening states, is if the family isn't providing the necessary 'warmth, food, water, etc.', without resulting to force upon someone else.
\The problem comes as your opening states, is if the family isn't providing the necessary 'warmth, food, water, etc.', without resulting to force upon someone else.
Link us direct evidence or gtfo, the same standard I was held to at the start of this thread.
Stop slandering. Notice that Pogo "agreed" with your post, because you're helping them slander this family without any proof.
Actually we're talking quite a bit colder in the winter. The neighbor in the TV story described them sleeping in their van at "thirty below zero" which is a stretch, but thirty below freezing is not. We get that here in Carolina. I'm not that far away from them.
Kentucky isn't exactly "deep south". Where they are is basically east of Cincinnati.
That isn't the deal here though. I live without some of those conveniences too but the story isn't about homesteading, home schooling (an angle which seems now to have been abandoned) or some noble "living off the grid". That's all spin that these con artists tried to put on it. The sheriff that went out there actually said the ideas of "off the grid" and homeschooling were "kinda cool".
From what we can gather the story's about kids living in shit (literal shit, not figurative), broken glass, and without shelter, in dangerous conditions (a hatchet accident and burning from starting a fire with gasoline have been reported) by a family with a long history of abuse and arrests for it -- as well as mooching/begging/stealing from neighbors and now this gun threat.
Seems to me the local government is acting not to "protect" the Shady Bunch, but to protect their neighbors (and their kids) FROM them.
So let's return to the word "Community," in Line 5.
If she is saying that children belong to the "Community," as in society, then it contradicts her own premise that government should have sovereignty, because society and government are separate entities.
Therefore, in order for her own thesis to make sense, the word Community must imply government, which solidifies the logical foundation of her argument. To say that she actually meant "society" would only serve to turn her speech into an incoherent mess, as the speech would be plagued with an illogical union of phrases.
Thus, we finally conclude that her "solution" is to transfer the sovereignty and absolute responsibility over children from the parents and families to the government. This doesn't mean that the Government is going to rush in and take your kids, it simply means that legally, the government is the final authority over your children.
Today, the government can only claim sovereignty over your children if you do something that warrants the removal of your sovereignty (custody), such as abusing your children. Only then may the government become involved, and via due process, the government must prove its case against you.
Her solution is to make government sovereign right from the start, and thus allow them to remove custody of your children for any and no reason, because the custody was already theirs to begin with.
Now, how does she plan to implement this solution? We need only look at Line 4:
"So part of it is that we have to BREAK through our kind-of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families;"
This implies the following:
1) They must convince parents that the government knows better, because the government has "experts" in raising, teaching and nuturing your children. If they can convince us of this idea, then we will Consent to transfer sovereignty of our children over to government, without any resistance.
2) For parents who will not agree to this, then the sovereign relationship between mother and child must be BROKEN, by convincing the child to Consent to the transfer of Sovereignty from the parents to the Public Education (Government) system. This would be accomplished by teaching them these ideas while they are young and then fooling them into signing some sort of devious contract that would complete the transfer of sovereignty.
