SLDS, Polygamy, Texas, 416 Children?
- Thread starter amicus
- Start date
It's an election year... no one talks about Texas
AvoidingRealWork
What? Me?? Never!
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Posts
- 2,134
Obama and McCain are very close in the polls in Texas, actually. Probably a statistical blip, though...
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
The Dems gave the presidency to McCain. Hillary is a poster child for schizophrenia and Obama's campaign motto is: AMERICA'S CUCKOLD; he'll sit and whack off while al Quaida bangs Lady Liberty.
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
It's just those fun-loving Mormons.
Spring Break! Spring Break!
Spring Break! Spring Break!
Darkniciad
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Posts
- 7,946
If you want to hear about this here, you need to go back in time and somehow manipulate things so that Romney has clinched the Republican Nomination. There'd be at least 3 double digit length threads about it by now. 
Jenny_Jackson
Psycho Bitch
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Posts
- 10,872
Yeah, the hotest, nawtiest women I've ever known were mormons from Utah.
Katyusha
Kitten at Heart
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Posts
- 4,782
Learn what schizophrenia actually is before you use the term, otherwise you kill your credibility in any debate at all. Good god.
Belegon
Still Kicking Around
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2003
- Posts
- 17,033
Yeah, the hotest, nawtiest women I've ever known were mormons from Utah.
It's that "good catholic girl" *cough* imp*cough* and "preacher's daughter" Syndrome...
I dated a preacher's daughter in college... and she wanted to do things that I, perv that I am, wasn't comfortable with...
S-Des
Comfortably Numb
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2005
- Posts
- 6,944
Bleh...that's like saying black men are more well hung. It's nothing but urban legend. The wildest woman I ever dated had little relation to any religion. There may be some psychology behind women who have felt forced to be "good" so they secretly want to break out by being over the top wild, but there are plenty of prim women who remain Conservative and ones raised without much structure who go to the extremes.
D
DeeZire
Guest
Fantasy-killer.
Selena_Kitt
Disappearing
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
- Posts
- 12,336
Wow. This went off-topic, huh?
400 children in a coliseum, separated from their mothers, their families... based on a bogus phone call (the alleged child who called for "help" was never found...)
CPS coming in like some heroic savior... as if.
I know not many people will take this topic on, since child abuse and especially sexual abuse is sacrosanct in this culture, but this organization does much, much, MUCH more harm than they've ever done good, and getting them involved is going to do nothing but create 400 even MORE dysfunctional and traumatized children.
But hey... 400 kids x $10,000 to each foster parent and an equal amount to the state (thanks Clintons!) for each adoption...
CHA-CHING.
Even our social services are capitalistic. Aren't you proud, Ami?
400 children in a coliseum, separated from their mothers, their families... based on a bogus phone call (the alleged child who called for "help" was never found...)
CPS coming in like some heroic savior... as if.
I know not many people will take this topic on, since child abuse and especially sexual abuse is sacrosanct in this culture, but this organization does much, much, MUCH more harm than they've ever done good, and getting them involved is going to do nothing but create 400 even MORE dysfunctional and traumatized children.
But hey... 400 kids x $10,000 to each foster parent and an equal amount to the state (thanks Clintons!) for each adoption...
CHA-CHING.
Even our social services are capitalistic. Aren't you proud, Ami?
S-Des
Comfortably Numb
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2005
- Posts
- 6,944
This is a mess, and I don't know what's the "right" answer, but the news just reported that many of the kids don't know who their "mother" actually is because of the way they're raised. Kids as young as 12 being married off to 50 year-old men (who already have other wives)? I dislike the government and agree that what the kids are going through is tough, however the day we start leaving kids in abusive cults because we're afraid we might not be able to "fix" them right away . . . that will be a sad day.
Selena_Kitt
Disappearing
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
- Posts
- 12,336
I don't necessarily trust the news to tell the "truth" either, or not to give it to us slanted. There's a cultural bias, and they're going to express it.
Happily_Variant
Experienced
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2008
- Posts
- 59
*gulp*
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Wow. This went off-topic, huh?
400 children in a coliseum, separated from their mothers, their families... based on a bogus phone call (the alleged child who called for "help" was never found...)
CPS coming in like some heroic savior... as if.
I know not many people will take this topic on, since child abuse and especially sexual abuse is sacrosanct in this culture, but this organization does much, much, MUCH more harm than they've ever done good, and getting them involved is going to do nothing but create 400 even MORE dysfunctional and traumatized children.
But hey... 400 kids x $10,000 to each foster parent and an equal amount to the state (thanks Clintons!) for each adoption...
CHA-CHING.
Even our social services are capitalistic. Aren't you proud, Ami?[/QUOTE]
~~~~
Geez SK, you are on a tear are you not? I smiled when you slapped sr71plt, that anal retentive prick deserves anything he earns...but, me? kind gentle tolerant amicus the great? chuckles...
Greedy state and federal functinaries are in no way comparable to free market philosophy wherein the creator of a product or service benefits from the efficasy of his product....the collective, state or federal pays no heed to the individual and confiscates the wealth i.e. profit, to further the corruption of the state....
There is a disconnect here somewhere between the anti war leftists, command economy freaks(social democrats) who seem perfectly willing to let millions of women and children suffer in the middle east under islamic totalitarian oppression and those who would turn their head away from the obvious forced marriages and oppression of women in the SDLS.
I think there is an underlying strain of belief, even among the Marxists here, that women should be utterly under the control of the male and an oppressive society...
nibble on them apples kid!
(luv ya enyway)
Ami the magnanimous...
Selena_Kitt
Disappearing
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
- Posts
- 12,336
Geez SK, you are on a tear are you not? I smiled when you slapped sr71plt, that anal retentive prick deserves anything he earns...but, me? kind gentle tolerant amicus the great? chuckles...
Greedy state and federal functinaries are in no way comparable to free market philosophy wherein the creator of a product or service benefits from the efficasy of his product....the collective, state or federal pays no heed to the individual and confiscates the wealth i.e. profit, to further the corruption of the state....
There is a disconnect here somewhere between the anti war leftists, command economy freaks(social democrats) who seem perfectly willing to let millions of women and children suffer in the middle east under islamic totalitarian oppression and those who would turn their head away from the obvious forced marriages and oppression of women in the SDLS.
I think there is an underlying strain of belief, even among the Marxists here, that women should be utterly under the control of the male and an oppressive society...
nibble on them apples kid!
(luv ya enyway
Ami the magnanimous...
I get cynical when I'm sick... mommies get no vacation or sick days and no one ever takes care of ME when I'm sick!
In my current mood, I'm inclined to agree with JBwhatshisname about the current state of our "free" market - what did he call it? Socialist ... something. I'm too tired to go look.
And you make a good point about Islamic culture... but of course, we Westerners have been famous for forcing "our ways" (because they MUST be "better" than theirs of course!) on others.
Who's to say what's really "right"?
Your moral compass has to be going crazy with that one, Ami.
*poke*
We women shouldn't even be able to vote let alone hold office, right?
So what's so wrong with women choosing to live as one of many wives in a closed community? And if they bring children into that... well, that's their choice, isn't it? And if they're girl-children, why not marry them off at twelve, they aren't good for much else besides breeding anyway... right?
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Big grins for the little lady...
On a quasi personal note and I think my writings reflect this, I simply adore women, I really do. I do so because they are diametrically opposed to my way of thinking, which I prefer to think is cold, objective, rational and logical, at least that is my goal, achieved or not.
I have been influenced by fluffy headed females all my life, in many ways, but never 'led' by them and everytime I relaxed a rational decision, the specious female choices for excitement usually got me into a bushel of trouble.
Standing aside and just observing, as I attempted to do on this forum long ago, in my gargantuan "The Feminine Mistake" thread, I reassert the following:
We are less than a hundred years into the grand experiment of women's emancipation, at least here in the US of A.
Although the complete body of evidence is not in yet, there is enough to sufficiently cause me to question the wisdom of women as equal partners in guiding the destiny of a people or a nation.
It seems a natural inclination of the female to protect her nest, to secure her existence and that of her offspring and this becomes the over-riding moral imperative of her existence.
Which translates to: Women are more than willing to exchange their freedom for a sense of security.
Alas, this woeful male, is not willing to do the same. My individual freedom is paramount to any other imperative and I will use any means to secure and guarantee my freedom.
You see, I think we have a natural conflict here. Between the male and female which translates to politics and economics.
Women vote to secure a 'big brother' protective, oppressive state politic. In economics, they vote for protectionist, isolationist policies, destructive of a free market and global trade.
This is a general statement of course, and as such, subject to criticism, as I always am. But read and think and I suggest you cannot dismiss my theorem with disdain.
Amicus
...On a quasi personal note and I think my writings reflect this, I simply adore women, I really do. I do so because they are diametrically opposed to my way of thinking, which I prefer to think is cold, objective, rational and logical, at least that is my goal, achieved or not.
I have been influenced by fluffy headed females all my life, in many ways, but never 'led' by them and everytime I relaxed a rational decision, the specious female choices for excitement usually got me into a bushel of trouble.
Standing aside and just observing, as I attempted to do on this forum long ago, in my gargantuan "The Feminine Mistake" thread, I reassert the following:
We are less than a hundred years into the grand experiment of women's emancipation, at least here in the US of A.
Although the complete body of evidence is not in yet, there is enough to sufficiently cause me to question the wisdom of women as equal partners in guiding the destiny of a people or a nation.
It seems a natural inclination of the female to protect her nest, to secure her existence and that of her offspring and this becomes the over-riding moral imperative of her existence.
Which translates to: Women are more than willing to exchange their freedom for a sense of security.
Alas, this woeful male, is not willing to do the same. My individual freedom is paramount to any other imperative and I will use any means to secure and guarantee my freedom.
You see, I think we have a natural conflict here. Between the male and female which translates to politics and economics.
Women vote to secure a 'big brother' protective, oppressive state politic. In economics, they vote for protectionist, isolationist policies, destructive of a free market and global trade.
This is a general statement of course, and as such, subject to criticism, as I always am. But read and think and I suggest you cannot dismiss my theorem with disdain.
Amicus
Selena_Kitt
Disappearing
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
- Posts
- 12,336
Big grins for the little lady
On a quasi personal note and I think my writings reflect this, I simply adore women, I really do. I do so because they are diametrically opposed to my way of thinking, which I prefer to think is cold, objective, rational and logical, at least that is my goal, achieved or not.
I have been influenced by fluffy headed females all my life, in many ways, but never 'led' by them and everytime I relaxed a rational decision, the specious female choices for excitement usually got me into a bushel of trouble.
Standing aside and just observing, as I attempted to do on this forum long ago, in my gargantuan "The Feminine Mistake" thread, I reassert the following:
We are less than a hundred years into the grand experiment of women's emancipation, at least here in the US of A.
Although the complete body of evidence is not in yet, there is enough to sufficiently cause me to question the wisdom of women as equal partners in guiding the destiny of a people or a nation.
It seems a natural inclination of the female to protect her nest, to secure her existence and that of her offspring and this becomes the over-riding moral imperative of her existence.
Which translates to: Women are more than willing to exchange their freedom for a sense of security.
Alas, this woeful male, is not willing to do the same. My individual freedom is paramount to any other imperative and I will use any means to secure and guarantee my freedom.
You see, I think we have a natural conflict here. Between the male and female which translates to politics and economics.
Women vote to secure a 'big brother' protective, oppressive state politic. In economics, they vote for protectionist, isolationist policies, destructive of a free market and global trade.
This is a general statement of course, and as such, subject to criticism, as I always am. But read and think and I suggest you cannot dismiss my theorem with disdain.
Amicus
Oh I don't dismiss it... there's some validity and truth in your perspective. I've always told you so...
and keep in mind, you're talking to a woman who votes intuitively... not rationally or logically... not even by feeling.
I must be your worst nightmare. *grin*
Just remember, men and women compliment one another beautifully... and they do so, not just in bed, but in the world, too. I think that could translate into economics and politics. I don't know that it current DOES... but I think it COULD.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Thank you Selena...and I pretty much agree...
I have been watching a seven part television series, "John Adams", the first vice President of the United States and the second President.
His wife, (a female), Abigail, I think, was surely instrumental in his persona and no doubt influential in just the way you suggest; as a compliment to his very stern character.
It is part and parcel of an overall philosophy that indicates 'conflict' is essential, both in nature, evolution and male/female interactions.
Complimentary of course, as each strives to overcome and influence the other, the opposite polar opinion.
What I detect is a continuing and ongoing effort by those who seek amelioration between the opposites, is that both are losing their natural tendencies and striving for a middle ground.
This, I think, if anything, will destroy the natural relationship of the sexes.
smiles...thas my story and I'm stickin' to it!
ami
I have been watching a seven part television series, "John Adams", the first vice President of the United States and the second President.
His wife, (a female
), Abigail, I think, was surely instrumental in his persona and no doubt influential in just the way you suggest; as a compliment to his very stern character.It is part and parcel of an overall philosophy that indicates 'conflict' is essential, both in nature, evolution and male/female interactions.
Complimentary of course, as each strives to overcome and influence the other, the opposite polar opinion.
What I detect is a continuing and ongoing effort by those who seek amelioration between the opposites, is that both are losing their natural tendencies and striving for a middle ground.
This, I think, if anything, will destroy the natural relationship of the sexes.
smiles...thas my story and I'm stickin' to it!
ami
Selena_Kitt
Disappearing
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
- Posts
- 12,336
But perhaps it will morph into something else? That's my hope... that the "middle ground" you're speaking of (and I agree, there is a dissolving and blurring going on, many have spoken and written about it) is actually a necessary step toward the next phase in human development... that the feminine and masculine will come back, by choice this time, instead of by dependency and control (as it is now in Islamic countries, and as we once were, as a culture...)
I have faith in the masculine and feminine... they're not dead, I promise you.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
I have read science fiction all my life, as a boy, cleaning out the entire sci fi shelf at about age twelve. I also dabble in futuristic themes from time to time.
Having read and thus aware of, hundreds of different scenarios concerning the issue of male/female relationships in the future, I am still at a loss to trust myself to an accurate prediction of what may come to pass.
I suspect the answer lies in the definition, if one accepts it, of eternal conflict between the genders.
Many of the science fiction novels predict a matriarchal future, you know, with women in total control and males being subjects who are dominated and restrained.
I, for one, would fight that to the death....grins....
The most rational scenario I see, based on current conditions and past history, is that the current crop of collectivists and feminists will be successful in changing the near future.
They will impose a new form of totalitarian rule by the elite; destroy the wealthy, control the environment and empower women with all the social programs they desire.
As collectivism, total oppression, total control, has never worked before, I can safely posit that this newest attempt will fail also.
It may take a complete collapse of world economy and the starvation of billions with technology lost and a return to a pastoral existence, sans automobiles and computers and such, but then, the road to progress and innovation will begin all over again.
Thas my best shot...smiles...for what it's worth.
ami
Having read and thus aware of, hundreds of different scenarios concerning the issue of male/female relationships in the future, I am still at a loss to trust myself to an accurate prediction of what may come to pass.
I suspect the answer lies in the definition, if one accepts it, of eternal conflict between the genders.
Many of the science fiction novels predict a matriarchal future, you know, with women in total control and males being subjects who are dominated and restrained.
I, for one, would fight that to the death....grins....
The most rational scenario I see, based on current conditions and past history, is that the current crop of collectivists and feminists will be successful in changing the near future.
They will impose a new form of totalitarian rule by the elite; destroy the wealthy, control the environment and empower women with all the social programs they desire.
As collectivism, total oppression, total control, has never worked before, I can safely posit that this newest attempt will fail also.
It may take a complete collapse of world economy and the starvation of billions with technology lost and a return to a pastoral existence, sans automobiles and computers and such, but then, the road to progress and innovation will begin all over again.
Thas my best shot...smiles...for what it's worth.
ami
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
This SLDS story is becoming more bizarre by the moment!
Four Hundred Sixteen minor children removed from not just their homes, but their mothers' also?
Promises made and broken to keep mothers and children together?
The original complaint, a girl named, 'Sarah', they say, remains undiscovered and rumors of a hoax abound?
What the hell is going on here?
An effort to avoid a 'Jim Jones' type mass suicide? An overt attack against a religious group/cult?
Over zealous Child's Protection Agency"
Who signed the order to send gun toting gestapho with automatic weapons and armored weapons carriers to the compound in the first place?
I have been trying to imagine 416 minor children in the clutches of the State and I get nauseous at the concept.
What is really going on?
a disturbed Amicus....
Four Hundred Sixteen minor children removed from not just their homes, but their mothers' also?
Promises made and broken to keep mothers and children together?
The original complaint, a girl named, 'Sarah', they say, remains undiscovered and rumors of a hoax abound?
What the hell is going on here?
An effort to avoid a 'Jim Jones' type mass suicide? An overt attack against a religious group/cult?
Over zealous Child's Protection Agency"
Who signed the order to send gun toting gestapho with automatic weapons and armored weapons carriers to the compound in the first place?
I have been trying to imagine 416 minor children in the clutches of the State and I get nauseous at the concept.
What is really going on?
a disturbed Amicus....
Similar threads
