Posts by Maximilian

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Children Who Get Spanked Have Lower IQs

    09/25/2009 8:01:37 AM PDT · 81 of 88
    Maximilian to CzarChasm
    as y’all probably already know, this is a steaming pile of unscientific BS. 1. 5 points out of 100 = 5%; never trust a study that doesn’t publish its error rate - which is probably +/- 10% in this case 2. did they control for heredity? Could it be possible that dumb children have dumb parents? 3. I was spanked as a child only when I did something dangerous or disrespectful (the same criteria we use on our children), and my IQ is way above average. Most likely because my parents were highly intelligent, and I was raised to think for myself. 4. dumb people will probably believe this pseudoscience - yet will continue to spank their children “at random” because it seems to work. 5. otherwise intelligent people with terminal groupthink infections (you know, “liberals”) will cite this study as proof of the barbarity of spanking, and will thus continue to let their children run amuck and never mature - guaranteeing more undisciplined liberals in the future... ...which is probably the real agenda of this “study” ;-)

    As you pointed out, every single poster on this thread has already figured out that this "study" is nothing but liberal propaganda.

    Murray Strauss is not really a "researcher." He is a campaigner to change the laws so that parents will be arrested for spanking their children, as is already happening in Europe. (Of course they're not having many kids over there and those nations are quickly dying out.)

    He's like PETA except focused on families instead of animals. Do you think that PETA is going to release a study that says that eating meat is good for you? That will happen before Murray Strauss will release an honest and unbiased study on the effects of spanking children.

    Every couple years he comes out with some similar B.S. study, all of which are similarly biased and based on pre-determined conclusions.

  • "The Legal Status of Women under Federal Law" (A Ruth Bader Ginsburg Mother's Day Forget Me Not)

    05/11/2009 10:11:00 PM PDT · 9 of 11
    Maximilian to neverdem
    Wait a second. All the people calling her a "nutjob" and "stark raving mad" are forgetting that this is the woman who was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and then confirmed by a Senate vote of 96 to 3. And this was after she forthrightly testified during confirmation hearings that she was adamantly pro-abortion. So if she's a "nutjob" and "stark raving mad," then she is a Republican nutjob and no more mad than our elected GOP senators.
  • Obama' Stimulus (Phyllis Schlafly nails it!)

    03/04/2009 12:25:41 PM PST · 46 of 46
    Maximilian to capydick
    The Republican's, who we all worked hard to put into office starting in 1996, are responsible for this, nobody else. They had the chance to transform the country and they blew it thru their own irresponsible spending, not standing up to the media and drinking the DC Kool-Aid.

    Thank you for injecting some sense into this discussion. What frightens me is the fact that Republicans still don't seem to get it. The new chairman of the RNC seems to want to be an Obama clone. Those pseudo conservatives who led us into this disaster seem to have learned nothing.

    I'd like to hear a giant "Mea Culpa" from the entire GOP establishment. If they refuse to admit where they went wrong, then how can we ever trust them to do better in the future?

    And if I don't trust them, is it likely that a Dem-leaning voter is going to do so? The GOP has absolutely no shot at ever coming back until they first realize where they went wrong and then correct their mistakes.

  • Inflation Hypothesis Doesn't Measure Up to New Data (growing body of evidence contradicts Big Bang)

    02/02/2009 12:06:17 PM PST · 288 of 498
    Maximilian to DallasMike
    Scientists have observed inflation since 1929. It's real and it's measurable. Scientists have observed the effects of dark matter and have measured it through observing sheer. The evidence for dark energy is overwhelming. There, I've proved to you that the very first sentence is a lie.

    Thanks for the interesting links. I enjoy reading real science, and layman's terms are fine for me. What I don't enjoy are mutual insults which provide no help in sorting out the conflicting claims.

    In the above instance, for example, I don't see a "lie," but rather conflicting claims. There is a distinction between the observations and the theories. In the first instance you mention, what is observed is the fact that all galaxies are receding away from us, and the further away they are, the faster they are receding. One theory to explain that observation is "inflation."

    The inflation theory was developed decades after the Hubbell observations in order to account for growing anomalies in the Big Bang theory. It seems to do a good job explaining some of these anomalies, but it can't be observed directly. For example, the theory posits an "inflaton," but the proposed candidate has not worked out.

    My point being that people can differ on the theories used to account for observational data without being "liars." The YEC author points to the glass of Big Bang theory being half empty, while you see it as half full. I've read articles by some other famous creationist writer who is a huge proponent of the Big Bang. Hopefully these 2 creationists can disagree about the Big Bang without hurling personal accusations at each other, and hopefully scientists who support aspects of the standard model can do the same.

  • SSPX leader: Jews are "a people of deicide" (2nd priest speaks out)

    02/02/2009 11:26:28 AM PST · 191 of 193
    Maximilian to annalex
    I think, the real tension today is with the democratic social system that tends to neo-paganism.

    Agreed.

  • SSPX leader: Jews are "a people of deicide" (2nd priest speaks out)

    01/30/2009 6:11:00 PM PST · 151 of 193
    Maximilian to annalex
    The anger is toward the Pharisees entrapping Jesus, rejecting Him and engineering His execution. Is there any sociopolitical advice in these?

    The object of the homilies by St. John Chrystostom was to respond to an immediate need at the very time he was preaching, to dissuade Christian Judaizers from participating in Jewish ceremonies. For him this was an issue that was totally au courant, just as it was some 1,500 years later for Pope Benedict XIV, and just as it is for us, apparently, based on the reaction to Bishop Williamson's remarks.

  • SSPX leader: Jews are "a people of deicide" (2nd priest speaks out)

    01/30/2009 6:04:05 PM PST · 149 of 193
    Maximilian to annalex
    That is not a dogmatic teaching,

    There are several different levels of dogma. Any encyclical from the pope is a definitive teaching.

    nor is it of patristic roots.

    Pope Benedict XIV himself pointed out the many sources from which he drew, many statements by popes and saints. As far as patristic goes (a much overused word), refer to the following post with the 8 sermons by St. John Chrysostom. As you pointed out there, the sorts of things he says are not unique to him by any means.

    He points out historical precedent, but it is not a de fide teaching for all times.

    My point is that this has been the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church over the course of many, many centuries. And of course, as you have pointed out, it began in the Gospels and in the lives of the Apostles.

    It cannot therefore be correct to say that such statements are "not orthodox."

  • SSPX leader: Jews are "a people of deicide" (2nd priest speaks out)

    01/30/2009 4:34:49 PM PST · 142 of 193
    Maximilian to annalex
    I read the fathers of the Church daily, and I do come across some strong language, but it is always confined to the historical conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees and the persecution of the Church immediately after that.

    Perhaps your reading hasn't extended to St. John Chrysostom. Here are texts of his 8 sermons against the Jews in which he said things like:

    But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs.

    (2) But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? "But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God".

    http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html
  • SSPX leader: Jews are "a people of deicide" (2nd priest speaks out)

    01/30/2009 4:20:36 PM PST · 140 of 193
    Maximilian to annalex
    Some of the conclusions toward the end cannot please a Jew, and they are unorthodox. It is not the position of the Church that the Jews and Christians should not mix, not have equal civil rights, or that Christianity and Judaism are in some kind of cosmic unending struggle.

    This is indeed the stated teaching of the Catholic Church. It has been repeated many times. Here for example is an encyclical by Pope Benedict XIV (the same pope who wrote an encyclical condemning usury):

    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14aquo.htm

    We adopt the same norm of action as did the Roman Pontiffs who were Our venerable predecessors. Alexander III forbade Christians under heavy penalties to accept permanent domestic service under Jews. "Let them not continually devote themselves to the service of Jews for a wage." He sets out the reason for this in the decretal Ad haec, de Judaeis. "Because Jewish ways do not harmonize in any way with ours and they could easily turn the minds of the simple to their own superstitions and faithlessness through continual intercourse and unceasing acquaintance." Innocent III, after saying that Jews were being received by Christians into their cities, warns that the method and condition of this reception should guard against their repaying the benefit with evildoing. "They on being admitted to our acquaintance in a spirit of mercy, repay us, the popular proverb says, as the mouse in the wallet, the snake in the lap and fire in the bosom usually repay their host." The same Pope stated that it was fitting for Jews to serve Christians rather than vice versa and added: "Let not the sons of the free woman be servants of the sons of the handmaid; but as servants rejected by their lord for whose death they evilly conspired, let them realize that the result of this deed is to make them servants of those whom Christ's death made free," as we read in his decretal Etsi Judaeos. Likewise in the decretal Cum sit nimis under the same heading de Judaeis, et Saracenis, he forbids the promotion of Jews to public office: "forbidding Jews to be promoted to public offices since in such circumstances they may be very dangerous to Christians." Innocent IV, also, in writing to St. Louis, King of France, who intended to drive the Jews beyond the boundaries of his kingdom, approves of this plan since the Jews gave very little heed to the regulations made by the Apostolic See in their regard: "Since We strive with all Our heart for the salvation of souls, We grant you full power by the authority of this letter to expel the Jews, particularly since We have learned that they do not obey the said statutes issued by this See against them"

    And to show that this was not a new or eccentric opinion, he quoted some of the many previous papal bulls that had said the same thing:

    It is enough to peruse decretals with the heading de Judaeis, et Saracenis; the constitutions of Our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs Nicholas IV, Paul IV, St. Pius V, Gregory XIII and Clement VIII are readily available in the Roman Bullarium. To understand these matters most clearly, Venerable Brothers, you do not even need to read those. You will recall the statutes and prescripts of the synods of your predecessors; they always entered in their constitutions every measure concerning the Jews which was sanctioned and ordained by the Roman Pontiffs. I read the fathers of the Church daily, and I do come across some strong language, but it is always confined to the historical conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees and the persecution of the Church immediately after that.
  • Inflation Hypothesis Doesn't Measure Up to New Data (growing body of evidence contradicts Big Bang)

    01/30/2009 4:07:22 PM PST · 174 of 498
    Maximilian to DallasMike
    Counting hands has nothing to with truth.

    It is relevant in some cases, including this one, for the following reason: The main argument used in favor of evolution, both here on FR and in the wider society, goes like this, "EVERYONE believes in the theory of evolution, except for a few toothless, barefoot, hillbillies who are too stupid to understand it."

    The number of people who believe in evolution becomes a relevant issue in that case. And the fact is, most people do not. Despite decades of coercive propaganda, you have not been able to make your case to most Americans.

  • Police Help Drew Peterson's Girlfriend Move Out (5 Squad Cars Called to the Scene)

    01/30/2009 4:01:20 PM PST · 30 of 35
    Maximilian to Sudetenland
    She’ll just move on to some other abusive, demeaning relationship like as not.

    Looks like she already has -- from the article:

    Ernie Raines said his daughter has moved back into the apartment she had shared with her boyfriend of more than a year.
  • Inflation Hypothesis Doesn't Measure Up to New Data (growing body of evidence contradicts Big Bang)

    01/30/2009 3:56:42 PM PST · 170 of 498
    Maximilian to texmexis best
    Then take a look at the budding universe model. There are lots of others out there. The Big Bang is just a theory that may have outlived it usefulness.

    Exactly. The latest theory is that an infinite number of universes were created, and we happen to live in the one that allows life.

  • Inflation Hypothesis Doesn't Measure Up to New Data (growing body of evidence contradicts Big Bang)

    01/30/2009 3:18:12 PM PST · 148 of 498
    Maximilian to DallasMike
    The first sentence is a flat-out lie.

    Is it? Perhaps you can substantiate your calumnious assertion. Here is the footnote to the first sentence:

    1. See “An Open Letter to the Scientific Community” on cosmologystatement.org, in which hundreds of scientist express their agreement with the statement “The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples.”
  • The AP Model and Shannon Theory Show the Incompleteness of Darwin’s ToE

    01/30/2009 2:39:40 PM PST · 477 of 752
    Maximilian to CottShop
    Oh shut up! Just kidding!

    LOL!

    Although you're being humorous, that is what the dialog between the two "Climates of Thought" amounts to: each side telling the other "Oh shut up."

  • The AP Model and Shannon Theory Show the Incompleteness of Darwin’s ToE

    01/29/2009 4:48:22 PM PST · 427 of 752
    Maximilian to betty boop
    Of course, that always leaves me wondering: Why does he want to change the subject in the first place?

    I just read a very interesting essay on that topic, written around the Twenties or Thirties. The essay was called "Climates of Thought." I've forgotten the name of the author, but he made reference early in the essay to some thoughts of Bertrand Russell.

    The point of the essay is that devotees of the new scientific mindset are both ignorant of and hostile to all modes of intellectual reasoning. Science used to be proud to be known as "natural philosophy," but now they utterly abhor any connection between "science" and "philosophy."

    As your interlocutor pointed out in a recent comment, he rejects all thought that passes beyond the scope of "hypothesis, testing, new hypothesis, testing, new hypothesis, etc."

    One can recognize that his method has produced some significant results in the field of scientific discovery, while still pointing out the fact that this type of reductionist approach to the intellectual life is inherently dehumanizing.

    According to the author of this essay (who was a secular humanist), any possible dialog between St. Thomas Aquinas and a modern scientist was impossible because their respective modes of thinking were so utterly foreign to each other.

    One witnesses the author's thesis proven in action here on these evolution threads where the respective disciples of teleological thought and non-telelogical thought are virtually incapable of communication with each other.

  • The AP Model and Shannon Theory Show the Incompleteness of Darwin’s ToE

    01/29/2009 4:36:10 PM PST · 426 of 752
    Maximilian to betty boop

    Interesting article.

    I see that the argument used against you by the pro-Darwin commentors on this thread consists of, “If I was as stupid and ignorant as you are, I’d keep my mouth shut.”

    “We evolutionists, on the other hand, are all McArthur Genius award winners.” (I wonder how many of them have ever matured as far as having been on a date?)

    What I wanted to point out, however, is that this thread is well over 400 comments at the time I am writing. Isn’t it interesting that your article has generated so much response when it is, according to them, so ignorant, so stupid, so embarrassing to all of us REAL scientists that it brings a blush to our cheeks to see such inanities written in public?

    Perhaps somewhere around comment 800 or 1200 they will tire of insulting you and demonstrate how matter at the atomic level spontaneously begins to transmit and receive information prior to the existence of life forms.

    But what do I know, I’m just one of the barefoot hillbillies who stupidly continues to believe in God.

  • FLDS teen disputes mom's book

    01/29/2009 9:43:42 AM PST · 142 of 193
    Maximilian to brytlea
    Wow, after reading your screed the first thought that came to my mind is, do you know her personally, and if not, on what are you basing your opinion??

    On the posted ARTICLE! I notice that, like yourself, none of the supporters of government violence against families bothered to read the actual article. Whose that Freeper whose tagline is "Proudly posting without reading the article since 1998"?

    Carolyn Jessop's own daughter is writing a book about what it was like living with this single mother who felt she had a mission to incite another Waco in Texas, but who was incapable of caring for her own children. If you had read the posted article you would have known that.

  • FLDS teen disputes mom's book

    01/29/2009 9:39:26 AM PST · 141 of 193
    Maximilian to brytlea
    Do YOU defend the practices of the FLDS?

    Typical liberal inability to comprehend the topic combined with personal ad hominem attacks. You can read for yourself the concerns I posted about people like yourself justifying the government invasion of homes to take hundreds of children away from their families because of their religious beliefs.

    Especially with the new administration, is it really that hard to imagine the same scenario that happened in Texas happening all across the country? I can foresee the day not far away when parents who teach their children that sodomy is a crime against God will be called "abusers" and have their children taken away from them and given to homosexual foster parents.

    It's already starting:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1130066/They-say-old-care-grandchildren-Social-workers-hand-siblings-gay-men-adoption.html#

  • FLDS teen disputes mom's book

    01/29/2009 12:05:44 AM PST · 137 of 193
    Maximilian to brytlea
    Then why do you defend them? I am honestly scratching my head.

    Why do you defend the state coming into homes and taking away more than 400 children? I am honestly tearing my hair out when I think that so-called "conservatives" think it's A-okay to send tanks into someone's homes and take nearly 500 children off into "foster homes."

    This is what it was always about. Today's news item confirms that the state found some whack-job single mother to be the spokesperson for creating enough hysteria to kidnap hundreds and hundreds of children.

    Those could be my children next -- or yours. And you support it. That's what has me scratching my head.

  • FLDS teen disputes mom's book

    01/28/2009 11:59:02 PM PST · 136 of 193
    Maximilian to pandoraou812
    I just remembered what the FLDS call it! Bleeding the Beast! Any thoughts about that? I resent it & so do many people.

    That has been proven to be a complete hoax. You resent something that doesn't exist.

    Facts don't fit claims of FLDS welfare fraud http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2159063/posts

  • FLDS teen disputes mom's book

    01/28/2009 11:55:00 PM PST · 135 of 193
    Maximilian to Saundra Duffy

    Okay. Now the real story comes out.

    Carolyn Jessop is a typical single mom — completely incapable of running her own life, busily destroying the lives and the souls of her children — who feels a compulsion to vent her rage against all those who told her what she was doing was wrong.

    The woman who started this whole mess, the woman who went around Texas and elsewhere trying to fan the flames of hysteria, the woman who single-handedly tried to ignite another Waco, the woman who was egging on the deluded Obama delegate who made the hoax call the Texas police, that woman could not even get her own children out of bed and to school in the morning. She dumped all the radioactive fallout from her own bad decisions on her teenage daughter. She is a complete failure as a person, but she’s going to start a crusade.

    Doesn’t this sound exactly like every other evil feminist member of NOW and NARAL? She has failed as a wife and a mother, she has crushed the life out of her children, but she will justify herself in her own eyes by circulating petitions to save the baby seals? Is there anyone who hasn’t met women just like this?

    What boggles my mind is how can there be people who call themselves “conservatives” who fall for this kind of propaganda. I guess it comes from watching television.

  • Jewish US Soldier Brutally Assaulted By Anti-Semite Soldiers

    10/08/2008 12:02:53 PM PDT · 183 of 277
    Maximilian to tjd1454
    I have to say... Your arrogance seeps through. Why not admit that you are motivated by antisemitism? Hatred of Jews? The same logic has been used throughout history to justify pograms and other brutal oppressions of the Jewish people.

    This thread was started when an article was posted that simply regurgitated accusations made by a Jewish organization established to attach the US military. Then when an FR poster says that he's not going to believe these accusations without evidence, especially when his personal experience demonstrates that every Jew he knows is a left-winger who supports Obama, he is called an anti-Semite on FR? If there is anyplace where we should be free to defend our soldiers from left-wing anti-military propaganda, it should be here at FR.

    This Mikey Weinstein who runs the organization that publicized these accusations, who do you think he's voting for -- John McCain or Obama? I would bet my house it's Obama.

  • Jewish US Soldier Brutally Assaulted By Anti-Semite Soldiers

    10/08/2008 11:56:13 AM PDT · 180 of 277
    Maximilian to Yehuda
    Unless he’s Jewish?

    You miss the point. The poster was saying that he won't join the lynch mob against our military that's being organized by the Jews in the article. They are the ones getting a lynch mob whipped into hysteria. Some of us prefer to see evidence and the rule of law before we make ourselves judge, jury and executioner of our soldiers in uniform.

    All the information in this article is supplied by a Jewish organization established to attack the military.

  • Jewish US Soldier Brutally Assaulted By Anti-Semite Soldiers

    10/08/2008 11:52:45 AM PDT · 178 of 277
    Maximilian to Yehuda
    Then you know jinos who worship Marx, not God. - they were born Jewish but don’t likely follow much or any of Judaism.

    The unfortunate reality is that description fits nearly all the Jews living in the US. Many studies have demonstrated that the majority of Jews in the US have no religious faith other than socialism.

  • Jewish US Soldier Brutally Assaulted By Anti-Semite Soldiers

    10/08/2008 11:50:56 AM PDT · 177 of 277
    Maximilian to wireplay
    There is a series of scenes, I think it is in The Young Lions, where Montgomery Clift is beaten non-stop because he is a Jew. An officer takes great offence at what is taking place and says that enlisted are not to be disciplined by enlisted.

    This demonstrates that the story as written is Jewish anti-military propaganda the plot of which has been used and re-used already in the past.

  • McCain leads big in South

    08/22/2008 12:36:17 PM PDT · 63 of 67
    Maximilian to ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
    The election is still close.

    True. But the point is that the MSM have already crowned Obama as our next king. I just saw a story about children in the White House, with a huge picture of Obama and his family on top, and a smaller photo of McCain somewhere down in the article as an afterthought.

    The election is still close, but I believe McCain would win if the vote were held today. Obama is still within striking distance. But I believe he's going to fall further and further behind.

  • The Pain Game - A military response to Russia's aggression?

    08/16/2008 1:28:57 PM PDT · 15 of 45
    Maximilian to Tramonto
    Look at what the insurgency did to us. If Kerry won in 2004, the IRG would have won.

    What did they do -- blow up a few bombs? Militarily the "insurgency" compared to the US Military was never more than a flea compared to an elephant. President Bush had the political will to demonstrate that fact, but it was always the objective reality, no matter who won the 2004 election.

    The same is true in Georgia, only more so. Unlike the US in Iraq, Russia is fighting on their own doorstep. The "insurgents" in this case are pro-Russian. The Ossetians want to be part of Russia, not Georgia.

    So you want to send weapons to Georgia so that they can fight the Russian military and the native population of Ossetians? And why is this something other than madness?

  • The Pain Game - A military response to Russia's aggression?

    08/16/2008 12:46:22 PM PDT · 13 of 45
    Maximilian to SeafoodGumbo

    What alternate universe is this guy living in?

    In the real world, the Russians took only minutes to smash the Georgian military and send them fleeing. Now he wants Georgia to try again?

    That’s like telling the Iraqi Republican Guard that they’d be able to defeat the US military the second time around as long as they have a few SAMs available.

    Not going to happen in this reality, perhaps there are some alternate realities available to this writer through the powerful drugs he’s taking.

  • Those Angry Traditionalists (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)

    08/16/2008 12:22:30 PM PDT · 60 of 60
    Maximilian to AnAmericanMother
    Who is Mark Shea, and why is he so mad at traditional Catholics?

    Take a look at the links at the site of the original article:

    Crisis Magazine

    Shut down operations after publishing several articles viciously attacking traditional Catholics. Now they are "internet only" because they can't get enough subscribers to pay for printed copies.

    "The Morley Institute"

    Discredited foundation.

    "Deal Hudson"

    Discredited head of discredited foundation. Wants to preach to Catholics about voting for Republicans, but has trouble keeping his hands off his under-age students.

    "Why I am a Catholic Libertarian" by Thomas Woods

    Answer: Because I reject the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum and other Catholic teachings which prove they are incompatible.

    "Why I am a Catholic Democrat" by Mark Strickerz

    Never heard of this guy before, but the title tells you all you need to know.

  • Senator: Polygamous sects are 'form of organized crime'

    07/25/2008 9:27:49 AM PDT · 84 of 207
    Maximilian to Lurker
    the ATF raided the the Koresh home in Waco to 'protect the children'. Are they your heroes, too?

    We might tend to forget that after they burned all those men, women and children to death, the government prosecuted those who survived the inferno. They had to, in order to justify their actions. They could never admit that their military assault on peaceful citizens was a mistake.

    We can be thankful that this time no mass murder took place. But the government still feels the same obligation to justify their assault tank by finding some way to prosecute some of the people they intended to destroy.

  • Anderson [S.C.] man chases gay son from home

    07/19/2008 8:53:46 AM PDT · 76 of 92
    Maximilian to mngran2

    Wow. The comments posted here make me want to just about give up all hope and despair for America. This article is gay propaganda pure and simple. Yet nearly every single comment by supposed “conservatives” here on FR immediately buys into the homo party line. If this is where “conservatives” are at — and we know what the liberals would say about an article like this — then there is no one left to defend decency in America.

  • Pat Buchanan Appears on Neo-Nazi Radio Show

    07/10/2008 11:56:59 AM PDT · 49 of 55
    Maximilian to chessplayer

    Why is FreeRepublic being mis-used as a forum to broadcast leftist propaganda slander against conservatives? Please take it to moveon.org or some such place. There should be no room here for false allegations of “Nazis” — the knee-jerk response left-wingers have to every conservative.

  • Temetum Per Occasionem -Americans need nor, no, do not apply.

    06/09/2008 3:48:31 PM PDT · 7 of 15
    Maximilian to informavoracious
    I’ll take an orthodox foreign born priest over a homegrown like Pflakel any day.

    They may be coming here for the money. There should be a rule in place that no candidate for the priesthood can transfer from a less econonomically developed country to a richer country. That would sort out the wheat from the chaff.

    And, I doubt anyone is leaving the RCC because there is a “lack of priests.”

    Catholics have been "voting with their feet" by leaving the Catholic Church in droves over the past 40 years. It has not slowed down. And it is likely to accelerate over the coming decades as more and more priests are replaced with female "pastoral administrators." The average Catholic parish will more and more resemble the average Episcopal parish, not only in theology, but also in the number in attendance in the pews.

  • Watchdog criticizes FLDS hearings

    05/27/2008 6:54:16 PM PDT · 153 of 229
    Maximilian to lady lawyer
    Her hair wasn’t clipped, but she couldn’t have been more butch. She was raging, using all the buzzwords that CPS has been using to try to convert the practice of a religion into the “imminent danger of physical harm” that Texas law requires.

    The Nancy Grace show is beneath contempt. It makes Jerry Springer look like Shakespeare.

    But that guardian ad litem you saw must have been an exception. I agree with your depiction of the CPS females, but I have seen several female lawyers representing the children, and I was very pleasantly surprised. They were really fighting on behalf of these children, and so far they're doing it pro bono. Hundreds of lawyers from all across Texas volunteered to represent the interests of these children when the court intended to railroad them all into CPS custody with just a couple lawyers putatively representing all 460 children.

    Some of these women are fighting to preserve the rule of law, and fighting to protect defenseless children at the mercy of the state. The volunteer g.a.l. attorneys are not the villains here. They may turn out to be the heroes (or heroines).

  • Case goes to highest court

    05/25/2008 8:24:34 PM PDT · 101 of 108
    Maximilian to patton

    The post I was replying to said that he was shocked to read of Judge Walther’s behavior, and I was agreeing that I was also. A quick search didn’t turn up the article(s) that dealt with the hearing occurring on Friday just after the appellate court decision was released. I guess the poster didn’t put “FLDS” in the keywords, or else I just didn’t find it.

    But the point was that according to my recollection, she was dismissive of the appellate court decision during the hearing she was conducting on Friday. Perhaps it was simply a case that she had a microphone in front of her while she was venting, and maybe she will issue a ruling in the next couple days that responds to the appellate court order to vacate her previous ruling.

  • Case goes to highest court

    05/25/2008 7:03:31 PM PDT · 99 of 108
    Maximilian to patton
    Can you expand on this for us, Max?

    When an appellate court tells the lower court to "Jump," the only question they ask is "How high?"

    I've reviewed countless thousands of legal cases that have been appealed, and I've never seen this kind of lack of deference to the higher court. Of course, I usually don't read all the transcripts of oral proceedings, and I'm sure that very different things are said behind closed doors. But at this point in the proceedings, Judge Walther's only question in her mind should be "How fast can I issue a new ruling that completely reverses my first ruling?"

    I recall one case where a judge who is now on a state supreme court issued a decision at the county trial court level that was reversed by the appellate court. He issued a new order -- that was the opposite of his previous order -- so fast that his new order was time stamped before the appellate court decision was officially time stamped. He then had to issue a second new order the next day because his revised order had to be subsequent to the appeals court decision.

  • Case goes to highest court

    05/25/2008 5:58:42 PM PDT · 97 of 108
    Maximilian to ex 98C MI Dude
    Instead of taking the warning shot across her bow as a message to straighten up, she decided to defy the higher court. Overruling objections because she didn't like her next superior courts ruling? She will be lucky to keep her judgeship.

    Excellent point. I was thinking the same thing. I review thousands of court opinions for a living, and I was shocked at the unprecedented lack of deference that Walther showed to the Appellate Court opinion. When an appeals court rules, "Rome has spoken, the case is closed." Of course an even higher court can agree to review the case. But in the meantime, and in the vast majority of cases for all time, the lower court must show absolute obedience to the appellate court decision whether it likes it or not.

    She most assuredly will not be remaining on this case.

    Let's hope your prediction proves correct.

    A lot of allegation, not much hard evidence. Until we see that, many FReepers are engaged in passing salacious gossip.

    Exactly. Behavior that is shameful in anyone who dares to call himself or herself a Christian.

    I find this to be akin to finding banned and members who have “opused” from FR to be the only believable ones, vice active members.

    Perfect comparison. Any group would look like monsters if one took the word of expelled members as Gospel truth.

    It is the sin of rash judgment to condemn one party without have listened to both sides. It doesn't matter that you might be proved right in the future. It's still rash judgment, and a very severe sin, and guessing right doesn't change that.

    Hardly worthy of the premier site dedicated to a Free Republic.

    After watching the coverage on television, I will be ashamed to call myself a conservative ever again. "Nancy Grace" on Fox News -- supposedly the conservative network -- represented the very worst of vicious rumor mongering. Unsubstantiated charges mixed with outright lies were tossed about willy-nilly. There was not even the least pretence of objectivety or even reason. It was sheer hysteria given some veneer of respectability by being on television. And a veneer of conservatism by being on Fox News.

    Famous liberal Larry King, in contrast, on famously liberal CNN, was the soul of reason and objectivity. There was no shouting, there were no unsubtantiated allegations, there were no outrageous slanders. People spoke reasonably and everyone was allowed to state their side without being derided, cut off or shouted down.

    I only get to watch television when I'm at a hotel like now, and I must say that everything the liberals say about Fox News is totally true. It's a disgrace to conservatives to be associated with such gutter journalism.

  • Texas Polygamy Case Based on a Lie

    05/23/2008 1:31:56 PM PDT · 78 of 417
    Maximilian to WayneS
    A 4 point offense and loss of your first born son

    That's not entirely a joke. The prisons are filled with thousands of men who were arrested for driving violations like DUI and driving under suspension. How many of those incarcerations result in permanent family separations?

  • Court: Texas had no right to take polygamists' kids 3 minutes ago

    05/22/2008 5:35:34 PM PDT · 663 of 1,331
    Maximilian to CharlesWayneCT
    The pro-CPS folks were rude and condescending, but I saw NO evidence they would match your description.

    It goes beyond rude and condescending. For example, just a few posts above, a pro-CPS person told another FR member "why don't you go join NAMBLA?" Similar ad hominem attacks of a truly contemptible nature have been par for the course among the gang who seem to have made it their full-time job to defend the government seizure of 465 children.

    They are good people who really do care for the children, who simply don’t see the harm in what the CPS did.

    Anyone who doesn't recognize the fundamental necessity for the rule of law and the protection of constitutional rights is a dangerous liberal in my book. Of course all dangerous liberals say "it's for the children." That only makes them more dangerous.

    But your attempt to be charitable is appreciated, nonetheless, as an example we could all do to imitate.

  • Court: Texas had no right to take polygamists' kids 3 minutes ago

    05/22/2008 3:08:42 PM PDT · 460 of 1,331
    Maximilian to Paleo Conservative
    Wives and children are stripped from men out of favor with the "prophet" and given to the other men in the cult.

    Based on lurid sensational books, NOT on evidence presented in court in Texas.

    Children don't know which adults are actually their parents. That isn't child abuse?

    No evidence of such a situation has been presented. In the meantime, haven't you heard the joke about "what is the most confusing day in an inner city neighborhood"?

    Also, children are transported across international boundaries without their parents or the permission of their parents in violation of Canadian law, and that isn't child abuse?

    There is absolutely no evidence that any child taken by the Texas CPS was ever taken illegally across international borders. That was never even one of the baseless allegations.

    We don't even have the DNA results back yet to document which children have which parents.

    Since when do you need a DNA test to prove you are your child's parent? I have never taken a DNA test. Have you? Thank God the state has never denied that I am my children's father. But why should I have to prove anything?

    According to scientific studies, if every parent in the country took a DNA test to prove paternity, there would be a large percentage of men who would be very surprised to learn the truth -- and not just in the communities that are already famous for uniform lack of knowledge of paternity.

    I reviewed a case last year in the PA Appellate Court in which a woman had 5 different men take a DNA test, but none of them turned out to be the biological father. Then the court ordered 1 of the men to pay child support anyway.

  • Court: Texas had no right to take polygamists' kids 3 minutes ago

    05/22/2008 2:55:15 PM PDT · 426 of 1,331
    Maximilian to diogenes ghost
    Their vile replies to anyone who questioned ANYTHING CPS did was among the worst displays I've ever seen here. It quickly became easier to just ignore the FLDS threads than to put up with their abuse.

    You hit the nail on the head. "Vile" is not too strong a word. There is a thread still active, based on a story in which many of the false claims of the Texas CPS were debunked, in which the usual suspects are making the most vile and disgusting accusations against anyone who dares to question the right of the all-powerful government to take away your children.

    I have been sickened to witness this behavior by supposed "conservatives," and as you say, it has been easier to stay away than to deal with this kind of lynch mob mentality.

  • Court: Texas had no right to take polygamists' kids 3 minutes ago

    05/22/2008 2:43:41 PM PDT · 399 of 1,331
    Maximilian to atruelady
    You with the stupidity award for the most ridiculous comparison of all... Sad to be you.

    Thanks for the award. Do I get a trophy?

    But if this is the way that "a true lady" from Texas treats other people, then I shudder for the future of our society. Apparently in your haste to post dozens of messages supporting the unlimited power of the state to violate parents' rights, you've forgotten that "a true lady" treats others with respect and consideration.

  • Court: Texas had no right to take polygamists' kids 3 minutes ago

    05/22/2008 2:39:39 PM PDT · 388 of 1,331
    Maximilian to untrained skeptic
    It says the CPS improperly treated the ranch as a single household, and that the abuse was limited to girls in a certain age bracket.

    There was no evidence presented of any abuse of any of the children. The Appeals Court pointed out that even potential hypothetical abuse alleged by the CPS would have applied only to girls in a certain age bracket. No abuse has been proven, and none of families who filed the appeal even had children who could have fallen into the category of the hypothetical allegations.

  • Court: Texas had no right to take polygamists' kids 3 minutes ago

    05/22/2008 2:14:56 PM PDT · 342 of 1,331
    Maximilian to WayneS
    I do not know why I thought it was in the northwest somewhere.

    The McMartin case in LA mentioned by the other Freeper was one of the biggest and most famous. But you are correct that there was a similar very big daycare witchhunt case in either Oregon or Washington. There was also a very big one prosecuted by Janet Reno in Miami, and one in Boston as well.

    I was living in Boston at the time some years later when it became clear that the whole story of magically disappearing rooms was entirely fabricated and planted by CPS workers. Amazingly, although they released the 2 women from jail, they refused to release the son of the daycare owner, even though it was admitted by the government that the entire case had been bogus from the get-go.

  • Court: Texas had no right to take polygamists' kids 3 minutes ago

    05/22/2008 1:59:39 PM PDT · 319 of 1,331
    Maximilian to WayneS
    Fewer than 100 years ago, in many parts of this country, it was COMMON for 14 year old girls to be married.

    The other day I was watching the Oscar-winning movie "Tender Mercies," one of the gentlest and most Christian movies ever made in Hollywood (because it was financed by Robert Duvall and Horton Foote -- not by a Hollywood studio). The movie takes place in the middle of Texas. The mother says to her son, "I was 16 when I married your Daddy, and 17 when I had you, and 18 when I became a widow" (during Vietnam).

    Here I thought I was watching a touching story of love and redemption, but according to the lynch mob here at FR, it turns out the movie was really about a child-rape cult.

  • Court: Texas had no right to take polygamists' kids 3 minutes ago

    05/22/2008 1:48:30 PM PDT · 311 of 1,331
    Maximilian to webheart
    They SAY that, but here we have an actual village, and they say, "Wait a minute. We didn't really mean 'village.'"

    This is a brilliant insight. "Village" is in reality a euphemism for 1984 Big Brother monolithic all-powerful government armed to the teeth and holding absolute power over defenseless citizens. This is what they say we need "to raise a child."

  • DID I REALLY LEAVE THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH?

    05/12/2008 9:23:44 AM PDT · 92 of 145
    Maximilian to Gamecock

    As a Catholic, I disagree completely with the conclusions reached by the author of this article.

    At the same time, however, I applaud him for pursuing the correct approach: investigate the early Church fathers and find out how much Catholicism and Protestantism agree with them. This investigation if pursued diligently and faithfully will lead him ultimately to the truth.

    The author says, “I’ve been studying for 5 years.” He needs about 50 more years, before he is ready to publish his conclusions. In the meantime, every protestant should follow his example and read the fathers of the Church. By reading St. Anthony, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, etc., they will find the truth.

  • FLDS doctor denies abuse at YFZ Ranch (YFZ/fLDS Daily Thread - 5/1/08)

    05/01/2008 10:50:08 AM PDT · 167 of 240
    Maximilian to MizSterious
    If what this article says is correct, this is, um, a bit over what would be normally expected.

    Wrong, do the math. If 1% of all children break a bone each year, then 18% of all the children would have broken a bone, on average. If it's only 10%, then that is only half the average.

    Among my children, the rate is closer to 80%. I find it hard to imagine growing up without breaking a bone somewhere along the way. But then again, my children don't spend all day in the house playing video games. Any kids who climb trees will eventually fall and break something.

  • Gold futures dive as dollar strengthens, crude oil retreats

    04/29/2008 3:49:13 PM PDT · 25 of 28
    Maximilian to CGTRWK
    I’ve seen a lot more Wall Streeters getting rich and rust belters getting poor than the caption on your cartoon would suggest.

    I believe the point was that whenever your economy resembles a lottery, there will be some few individuals who grow wealthy, while the general society descends further and further into poverty. The "poverty" and "wealth" of the cartoon caption refer to societies, not to individuals who profit from rampant speculation.

  • They’re Coming For Your Kids!

    04/28/2008 1:34:27 PM PDT · 114 of 114
    Maximilian to Saundra Duffy
    Is this FreeRepublic.com? Must have been hyjacked by the left. It takes a village. The nanny state knows what’s best for your children. They can come in with tanks and guns and take your children away, all based on a false accusation. Like I said, the Constitution has been used for toilet paper.

    Exactly what I've been wondering. I'm astounded at the support here on FR for the fascist government tactics.

    On the other hand, perhaps it's not fair to impugn all of FR. It seems like on every FLDS thread there is a small core of government apologists who immediately jump in and accuse everyone who defends our constitutional rights as child rapists. This scares away ordinary posters.

    I wonder what the real percentages are of those who support taking hundreds of children away from their mothers based on a single hoax phone call?