Posts
SHUT UP AND PAY YOUR TAXES. STOP CHAMPIONING A CAUSE THAT YOU DON'T SUFFER FROM.
Oh yes, thank you Erik for enlightening me on something that I know something about, and you have no clue. Could it be that I am currently being "ENSLAVED" by taxes to pay for services that you and your family enjoy, but that you don't pay for. You are a HYPOCRITE, UNPATRIOTIC, AND A TRAITOR. Please tell me how to live better, when your way of life burdens me and the rest of Americans that pay for their country. Why don't you go and burn a flag, at least that is a protected form of protest versus burdening me with your illegal activities. Yes complain about the borders. Why? You are a legal resident that burdens Americans the same as an illegal alien does, according to your Minuteman propaganda.
I mean can it get any worse than a person screaming foul about something that he himself does?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
289 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 289 of 289ack - it is SO late. goodnight!
And we've hit 200 comments - wow!
I posted a question to her that has not been posted either. I will admit that many of you would have thought it as gushing also. I told her how I liked her blog for the homemaking tips, which I really do by the way, but would like her to explain how she thinks tearing apart another's religion is doing any good besides pushing them away. I also asked her to explain why she allowed a post by her husband that was so obviously offensive to so many parents of special needs children.
Well, MMM, why don't you read what I said for yourself?
May I give everyone else a tool for when engaging Bible fundamentalists? It's a defensive tool; it probably won't serve to sway them but it'll protect you from perhaps being swayed by them.
Allow me to introduce you to the word "bibliolatry". This error (and if performed knowingly, sin) is of taking the Bible and giving it the reverence due only to God. Just as idolatry is the sinful worship of idols and mariolatry is the sinful worship of Mary, bibliolatry is giving the Bible reverence it shouldn't be getting.
From Candy's blog:
http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html
I find this little web page particularly disturbing. In the opinion of the writers, the Bible is sufficient to itself. It requires no explanation. They are very insistent upon this.
Why, then, is there the story in Acts about the Ethiopian eunuch who is reading Isaiah, and who asks Philip to explain it to him? I'd ask them this question, but I doubt if they'd answer.
Another thing that would be laughable if it weren't so awful is the apparent position of the 1611 KJV as unerrant word of God. I suppose those of us who read Bibles in other languages are plain out of luck! What makes it even worse is the dependence on certain spellings as being inerrant. Note the complaint about how some KJVs render the seven-letter "Saviour" into the six-letter "Savior". I didn't realize Bible Christians were so dependent on numerology.
So next time you're told that what we believe can't be right because it's not in the Bible, remember the very incorrect understanding of the Bible from which they're working.
So I don't EVER say KJV is a bad Bible. Matter of fact, I told Candy that I kept a KJV New Testament and Psalms in my BDU pocket at all times during Army Basic Training and read it constantly for comfort and inspiration. I guess the idea that a CATHOLIC would make use of her precious KJV and not convert to her wacky view of Catholicism must have upset her horribly because she certainly never posted my comment. She is a bigot, pure and simple and if she wants someone who "won't back down", she's got it in this Doctor of Theology. Oh, it is ON!
Stephanie,
I'd be happy to - if you'd provide a link for me to read it.
Hz, there is no "edit comment" feature so I deleted and am posting again.
The link to Visits to Candyland is on the front page of this blog. My comment is, in situ, in the post where the owner says she's going away for the weekend. My above post is my comment in its entirety with some commentary. I didn't refer to Candy as a bigot on VTC because they are nice.
Okay, I don't go to that site. I've read your comment, thank you for sharing it with me.
Why not, afraid you might learn something that challenges bigotry?
Stephanie,
That was rude and unnecessary. I am not here to fight with you over who or what you believe in. I'm far from a bigot and I'm surely not afraid.
I'm absolutely rude and unnecessary. What's your point?
So you are. I was polite and kind to you. You responded with rudeness. I see no reason to continue discussions with you as, curiously enough, you are acting much the same as many of the readers here complain that Candy acts. I choose to be done with you and your attitude. Have a nice evening.
In a recent post by MMM she wrote,
"Mr. (who claims to have much first hand knowledge) makes them out to be neglectful. Yet, if that is so he would rather have a pipeline to info, so that we have something to "talk about" than to do the decent and right thing and protect children he BELIEVES to be in harms way. That is deplorable."
I'll explain this one as best I can, although the Candy lemmings won't agree, the insightful readers who come here and have followed her numerous rants and contradictory statements likely will.
The reason other family members and friends have not done more with CPS, is because WE KNOW HOW EXTREME Erik and Candy really are. It has been discussed that if Erik were backed into a corner and thought he might actually lose custody of his children, he'd rather pull a Jim Jones than let them fall into the hands of evildoers.(sp?) And Candy, being the perfect, "do what my husband says" type of mother would prepare the toxic kool-aid herself and serve it up. BTW, notice how she wouldn't even touch on the CPS bit in her post?
Sound like I'm exaggerating? Fine with me, but I do know the family and I trust their judgement on this one. Erik and Candy would defend their screwed-up beliefs to the bitter end.
One reason the family members monitor her blog is to try and gleen some small tidbit of what is REALLY going on with the kids. They were hopeful that the CPS incident last year with the oldest boy would initiate a change for the better for the kids. But Candy and Erik just lied to that agency, said and did what they were required to do to make them go away, and have resumed their "normal" behavior.
I'd also like to touch on the broken leg thing. She wrote in her defense,
"When my child broke his leg, it was in the evening. Under medical advice, we were instructed to wait until the morning, and see, after the swelling went down, if he still couldn't bear weight on his leg. He was given medication for the pain, but he never acted like it hurt much."
So she expects us to believe that UNDER MEDICAL ADVICE they were instructed to wait to treat a potentially broken bone, and the child didn't act like it hurt?! Why not just go to the emergency room right then? Oh, that's right, they require personal info. like a SSN.
Her well thought out response is still full of holes. I will believe what close family members, who have not lied to me and have no reason to do so, have said about this. They waited to get help because they were begging for readers suggestions on this. I myself saw a post where she asked if anyone knew how to set a break. If she hasn't deleted these posts and they were archived somewhere, it would be during the end of Jan or beginning of Feb. 2007.
No, MMM, you're not rude, but you are passive-aggressive. Cute little ladylike hit and run "You think the KJV is a bad Bible?" followed by "Oh, you didn't give me a link to your comment" when I just posted my comment, then "Oh, I don't read that blog" (VTC) when I said that Candy refuses to distinguish between this one and VTC because she's an anti-Catholic bigot. Well, if Candy doesn't distinguish between the blog out of bigotry, and you don't know the difference and are also a friend of Candy's, yes, I'm going to assume you're a bigot too. It's the kind of roundabout pseudo-niceness that I expect from too many females, which is why I have almost no female friends in my acquaintance.
Oh BS mmm, she has been less than truthful, and she has done it intentionally. She is still lying. She visits this site, there are too many obscure related topics that she covered to beleive she doesn't. ITU certification is not one handed out to individuals unless she is referring to some mundane piece of paper like employee of the month, or worlds greatest grandpa. Mensa we have covered but we will again. Her depiction of events is not how Mensa operates. I will go through this stuff further, but a note to all: We are having an impact, we are getting to her, and possibly we could make her change.
Oh BS mmm, she has been less than truthful, and she has done it intentionally. She is still lying. She visits this site, there are too many obscure related topics that she covered to beleive she doesn't. ITU certification is not one handed out to individuals unless she is referring to some mundane piece of paper like employee of the month, or worlds greatest grandpa. Mensa we have covered but we will again. Her depiction of events is not how Mensa operates. I will go through this stuff further, but a note to all: We are having an impact, we are getting to her, and possibly we could make her change.
All I want is for her to recant the anti-Catholic bigotry. The last angle I took was against the KJV-only thing since it's so critical to her argument. I can't say I don't care about the rest, but it's not what brought me to this particular dance.
And again, I've used the KJV. I've taken comfort from the KJV. I've posted this on Candy's site but again, since that ruins her little image of Catholics who are forbidden to read any Bible but especially the KJV, she wouldn't post it.
She wasn't real keen on my comment that the Catechism is not a substitute for the Bible and never meant to be, either.
That is the other issue with the three moms, she states that you should never call CPS lightly on anyone, and then criticizes Mr. for not calling CPS. circles, circles, circles
Stephanie,
You said:
"No, MMM, you're not rude, but you are passive-aggressive. Cute little ladylike hit and run "You think the KJV is a bad Bible?"
***What hit and run are you referring to? I would admit to being passive aggressive at times. We all deal with our frustrations in some form or fashion. However, I am not bitchy to people for no reason. When I asked you that I was curious. I didn't have any pre-conceived notions about what your response would entail. I am not KJV only. I think you made a false assumption that I am. I had seriously NEVER heard an argument against the KJV, I usually hear arguments FOR it... excuse me for thinking you might be a willing teacher. You catch far more flies with sugar than with vinegar.
You said:
" followed by "Oh, you didn't give me a link to your comment" when I just posted my comment"
***** I did not realize that was the entirety of your comment.
You said:
then "Oh, I don't read that blog" (VTC) when I said that Candy refuses to distinguish between this one and VTC because she's an anti-Catholic bigot.
**** What does that have to do with whether or not I read VTC or not? What does Candy have to do with my question to you about the KJV Bible???
You said:
Well, if Candy doesn't distinguish between the blog out of bigotry, and you don't know the difference and are also a friend of Candy's
yes, I'm going to assume you're a bigot too.
***** Than you are ignorant for making assumptions about me when you don't know me. How is it that you come to the conclusion that Candy and I are friends? If the fact that I read her blog makes me a friend of hers, than she has many really crappy friends here on this site.
You said:
" It's the kind of roundabout pseudo-niceness that I expect from too many females, which is why I have almost no female friends in my acquaintance.
***** I'm nice to everyone, at least for a time. If you KNEW anything about me you would know that. However, with the way you treated me, a perfect stranger, it doesn't surprise me at all.
Mr.,
I hope you can see where the comment I made was in response to a specific post you made. If you truly believe that these parents would kill their children, then I have nothing to add. That is an incredibly strong statement to make about someone, especially in a public forum. You've got me - I've got no further response to that.
Matthew,
That's right, somehow I'm full of it because I don't hate Candy. That's perfectly reasonable, for goodness sake! I don't hate anyone, I seriously can not think of ONE person that I hate. I very rarely publicly criticize anyone, other than our future President, Barack Obama. I'm not speaking in circles - that is such a generalization that you seem to use whenever someone doesn't agree with you. I take much effort to be clear, to explain myself and to see both sides of everything. If at the end of the day, I don't agree with you, I wouldn't refer to your thoughts and ideas as BS. It is just a matter of respect. I've said time and again that I understand the reasons that some people are here and I think this blog serves a purpose. It would be nice if you could treat me with the same decency that I treat you. If not, and you'd rather me just leave this blog than I will - all you must do is say so. You own this blog and if my contributions offend you so, then I will be on my way.
Matthew,
I meant to add this to my last post...
To further explain my previous comment: The act of trying to have someone's children taken from them should NEVER be handled lightly, especially by strangers. However, if someone who claims to be close to a situation and knows for a fact that serious neglect or abuse is taking place, then there is a moral obligation to protect a child. Mr. responded with why he has not acted on it in the past, something I don't believe he discussed in the comment I quoted, and I don't have anything further to add.
Idiots abound!
Check out this comment:
I am sitting here with my jaw on the floor. I thought your "haters" concentrated mainly on the Catholic thing...people are actually spreading rumors/slandering you because of THESE THINGS??? Amazing. These are the people zoned out in front of their computers four hours every day while their marriages, children, and homes spiral out of control around them.
It is pure and simple, sinful envy. They see someone who they wish they could be like and maybe their life isn't so fulfilling and it eats at them. Spreading their vitriol around the web becomes a hobby and an obsession. Years ago I had a different blog on homeschoolblogger and I had a few of these characters.
Just know you have a lot of admirers and "friends" in cyberspace who appreciate your ministry.
9:00...durn. My computer is in the baby's room and he goes down at 8:30- I'd sure like to join in a meez party someday!
Shannon | Homepage | 07.07.08 - 7:57 pm | #
What is really surprising is that Candy actually allowed this comment through:
Candy, so as not to bear false witness, I would really appreciate the chance to clarify an incorrect assumption made by several of your commentors. All those things you defended, were not attacked or discussed on the Catholic apologetic blogs. They are from a really bizarre, completely non-religious, pretty darn crazy blog that I can barely believe I wasted my time reading. The Catholic blogs stick to Bible/theology and the moderators are pretty consistent about removing any comments that get personal, and regularly announce that.
Please don't leave your audience thinking that Catholics are the ones gossiping about all that stuff.
Evelyn | 07.07.08 - 10:22 pm | #
Has her Catholic radar gone bad?
Oh yeah, I meant to add there, I am sooooo jealous of Candy, damnit!
Stephanie I am one of those fundamentalist you keep referring to in a derogatory way. Just as you do not want Candy to make sweeping accusations about catholics I would appreciate it if you did the same for fundamentalists. I have done my best to show her how the way she treats Catholics is wrong and would appreciate the same kind of respect.
MMM - trust me, I do not "obsess" over you like you would like to think. I find you comical, as do others. If you only knew! Anyway, just because you put yours in a pretty little package and I am blunt doesn't make us different. I am done responding to you or commenting on your comments that just go in circles. There are far more entertaining things going on than you now.
MMM, you said, in referrence to VTC:
Okay, I don't go to that site. I've read your comment, thank you for sharing it with me.
I have to ask why you would come here, but not there? Let's be honest: we're down right mean-spirited here. At VTC they are nothing but polite and kind-hearted.
I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just genuinely curious why you'd be okay with this site, but not VTC?
Kaira stated,
"Mr.,
I hope you can see where the comment I made was in response to a specific post you made. If you truly believe that these parents would kill their children, then I have nothing to add. That is an incredibly strong statement to make about someone, especially in a public forum. You've got me - I've got no further response to that."
How could you respond? You don't know Erik & Candy, and therefore can not comprehend the severity of their mental instability, although I feel it has been showcased, (just not 100%) by them many times in their postings. I made that statement because I'VE KNOWN THE FAMILY FOR OVER 40 YEARS and have been told by Erik's siblings and parents that they have had the discussion I referred to previously.
Stephanie - I like you. You say what you mean and you don't sugar coat it. How refreshing!
Mr. - I think you are completely right on this. I can totally see them going all "Waco" if they felt threatened. I so feel sorry for those kids.
Cajunchic: I think there is a vast difference between someone obsessing that you must use a KJV in order to understand God's word (as I said, what if you're reading in another language?) and being told over and over that you worship the Virgin Mary.
That being said, I do tend to be unkind to fundamentalists. You think I'm harsh here, you ought to see me come down on Catholic ones. Sacred Tradition can be a golden calf just as the Bible or Mary can be.
(DO you really believe what was in that article, because I've read other fundamentalists say it before. If not, I apologize and will apologize in VTC too.)
I have not read that article. The most accurate version of the Bible is the Hebrew Greek Bible but since I do not understand either of those languages I have to go with the most accurate English version. I believe the 1611 KJV is the most accurate English version of the bible as I have found whole verses left out of other versions (I am not worried about spellings). I also acknowledge though that the Douay Bible is the exact same as the KJV bible except for the apocrypha.
In the case of people who speak other languages I think something is better than nothing. If it came between my having another version of the bible or nothing at all, I too would read that version because it is commanded that I meditate on God's word daily.
Cajunchic: Go to the link for "Visits to Candyland" and scroll down (it's not far) to the post "FYI Kids". It's in the comments; I think calling a wee essay like it is an "article" is exaggerating.
It links to another article posted by Candy on why she's KJV only. The article is full of historical errors which of course she doesn't care about as long as they say she is right. I then link to an article that disputes KJV only (it is not a Catholic article either).
This anti-KJV only article does mention missing passages in the NIV as being a serious problem. I have a military NIV for when I'm off doing Army things and just keep in mind what it is. At least it's not the Good News (shudders).
As I said, if the anti-KJV article presents a ridiculous position that your fellow believers don't believe (just as we don't believe salvation comes from Mary or any of the ridiculous things in Jack Chick comix) I will apologize here, in VTC, and my own blog. I am willing to be wrong.
Unlike Candy.
Hi Amanda,
Good question, I just don't have anything to gain from VTC - or at least I'm not currently seeking answers to the Catholic doctrine. I understand the Catholic faith pretty well, I grew up in it and such, and eventually found it is not for me. What you or anyone else chooses to believe isn't really my business. I believe, more than anything, salvation is a heart issue. I am careful, to the best of my abilities, not to judge anyone's soul. That site (VTC) just doesn't interest me. I have been there - it is how I found this site. I haven't been back since. I don't even know the web address.
It isn't like I really have a great deal to gain from this site either, and some of you are a little snarky but this is interesting to me. Even though this site is dedicated to Candy, in a way, that isn't how I see it. I think it is far more - to me it is a unique gathering of people with strong opinions and sometimes good debate. I've made some nice acquaintances through this blog as well. There have been interesting perspectives shared here, of which I have learned from some and at times I ignore others. I find this site to be quite entertaining overall. To be honest, I don't actually come here with Candy in mind, she just happens to be a topic of much discussion. I hope that makes sense. I could do without the mean-spiritedness but I understand that some of you have had personal experiences with Candy that have hurt you. A common reaction to that is to lash out and though I don't agree 100% with some of the reactions, I do understand. I tend to find the comments from females to be of more value than those of the men who likely would find her blog unappealing even if they believed her to be honest. It is hard to understand how men who have had no connection to Candy at any time can relate to the connection she has had with some of the SAHMs. I get that they think she is "crazy" but imo it seems as they are more critical without personal experience. I don't know if I'm making much sense - I have literally not slept since Sunday night. Anyhow, some people here have interesting perspectives, some people here are intelligent and pleasant and with the good I take the bad. There are clearly mean-spirited bloggers here who never seem to offer anything of substance, other than nasty comments. I don't think much of that approach but so it is... I enjoy valuable debate when it is focused and well supported. I could certainly do without the attacks on other bloggers here. It bothered me to see you and cajunchic attacked for your parenting choices yesterday. That sort of thing is really bothersome to me, but oddly enough, it doesn't bother me near as much when it happens to me. When it happens to me I find it more annoying than anything but it doesn't hurt my feelings. It bothers me more, on a personal level, to see people tear into strangers without good reason.
Okay, I'm rambling - I am SO tired. If I have not explained myself well or if you have any other questions, just ask :)
I have read Candy's reasons for being KJV only and I will say that there are some things about it that I do not agree with. I have also read many anti KJV onlyism sites and know what they say. However my husband and I did our own research and found due to the missing verses in not only the NIV but many other versions. The unauthorized KJV also has items missing which is why we only use the 1611. I am not going to aruge this with you as it is pointless since neither of us are going to change our minds due to our own research.
MR
If you fully believe, those children are enduing abuse.... and you do nothing about it, you are as guilty as you claim they are.
Cajunchic: All I want to know is if what I said was based on falsehood so that if so, I can apologize for it! I don't like it when Candy says crap about my religion based on very old falsehoods that we've all heard before. If I am doing the same thing about your religious choice I need to know so I can make reparations.
cajunchic--
Since you use the 1611 KJV, then I assume that you are reading the version with the deuterocanon. Interesting development, that.
Hey Little Candy Lemming...I mean Ginger,
"MR
If you fully believe, those children are enduing abuse.... and you do nothing about it, you are as guilty as you claim they are."
I already addressed this earlier. Try to pay attention here.
Mr. - Ginger has to wait for MMM to post, so that Ginger can then comment with, "MMM, I agree with you!" It usually goes like that.
brushetta...Good one!! LMAO
I'll leave a pre-emptive apology.
If you have researched the 1611 KJV and know that it's right for you and derive spiritual food from it and don't think that anybody is denied salvation because they don't use it, I apologize for tarring you with the heavy brush I used previously.
I do not mean to imply that just because you've chosen the Authorized KJV that you have made any faith decisions other than having chosen the Authorized KJV. It does not automatically imply that there are any groups against which you are prejudiced or that you're running around judging people.
I am only talking about the views expressed in that article I referenced which I understand is an extreme position not embraced by many KJV only Christians.
Not all 1611 versions have the deuterocanon in them because just like now there was more than one religion in the 1600s.
Cajunchic, the Authorized Version was never intended for use outside the Anglican Church. The Apocrypha was included in the very first 1611 (Martin Luther's Bible excluded it) and some subsequent versions include it as well. The Apocrypha was never included because there was "more than one religion"; dissenters clung to the Geneva Bible and Catholics to the Douay-Rheims.
Why would I think that if you do not read the KJV then you are not saved? That is the most asinine thing I have heard and is what is called legalism. The only key to salvation is Christ. I did not realize that was what you were asking me.
There were versions of the KJV before 1611 though that did not include the apocraphya. However those are not available now so I have to go with the closest to accurate version I can find. Like I said even the KJV has faults because the original bible was Hebrew Greek and everything loses something in translation.
Cajunchic: Yes, that was the question I was getting at! We are now on the same page. I wanted to know if you thought KJV is essential to salvation (Candy apparently does) and you don't. Okay. We're cool.
No, there were no versions of KJV before 1611. It was first published in 1611, that's why they call it that. :) There were English language Bibles before the KJV, the Tyndale and Geneva being the most prominent, but the KJV made its debut in 1611--with the Apocrypha right there in it. The Apocrypha was gone from the KJV by 1769. Wikipedia actually has a decent article on it, with references, and I can open up my Oxford Companion to the Bible if you like. However if your personal Bible has a preface with the history of the KJV in it (it probably does) it will tell you teh same thing.
I spent two years at McGill University studying Christian history. I know what I'm talking about.
I apologize. I have a habit of using the term KJV but I am just meaning a general original bible in the English language. Like I mentioned if I could use the original translation I would but since I can not I go with the oldest and most accurate I can get my hands on. I do not agree with the inclusion of the apocrypha so I go with the version where it is not included. However I do not think that someone who does use the Douay is unsaved. As long as their faith and salvation relies on Christ then we are all going to the same place. There are saved Catholics and unsaved Catholics just as there are saved Baptist and unsaved Baptists.
Some of us actually have do not spend all day on this blog.
Mr,
you are just like them then. You are afraid of Candy. So,you think it is ok for these children to endure abuse. That is incredible. I read what you wrote and it does not make any sense. You think these children are abused but will not do anything for them. Nothing at all to help them. You and your family sit at the computer and watch her blog, laugh at her while you think she abuses her children. I say laugh as that is basically what you are doing, when you do nothing to help these children you claim to be abused. I am actually starting to think you are making this up for the most part to feed hungry brushetta.
I personally do not think they are abused, you are just spouting off nonsense.
The omitted books are not apocrypha. They are books the church used for the first millenia and a half, and removed by those with no authority to do so.
So the so-called apocrypha are not added to some Bibles, but the deuterocanon (the proper name for the OT books in question) has been removed from some.
The preferred translation in English for North American Catholics is the New American Bible, though others may be validly used. I myself prefer the Jerusalem or RSV/Navarre commentary for personal study.
There were versions of the KJV before 1611 though that did not include the apocraphya.
You are mistaken. The King James Bible was not published before 1611 (the translation wasn't finished until about 1610), and when it was published it contained the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal texts.
There were other bibles in English which were published before 1611, but they were not the KJV.
Some of us actually have do not spend all day on this blog.
sorry typing fast,
Some of us, do not actually have time to spend all day on this blog.
"Why would I think that if you do not read the KJV then you are not saved? That is the most asinine thing I have heard and is what is called legalism. The only key to salvation is Christ. I did not realize that was what you were asking me."
Amen cajunchic
Cajunchic: I don't use the Douay-Rheims. It's a translation of a translation (English translation of Jerome's Latin Vulgate) and the only people who still use it are some very weird traditionalist Catholics who often are not even in communion with the Church. I use a New American Bible which is direct from the Hebrew and Greek. I do read Greek as well, though badly since I've been out of school a long time.
You don't need the Apocrypha if you really don't want it, but you should be aware that in the first century of Christianity people were using them as instruction. The First Letter of Clement, written around 96 AD, is from a Christian leader writing to a church, and he quotes the apocryphal books such as Wisdom very extensively. I was reading Clement's letter last night when I couldn't sleep.
so in other words Mel Gibson is sitting somewhere right now reading the Douay with a Nazi emblem on his shirt? lol
Ginger - what I belive Mr. was saying that if Erik felt like his family was going to be taken away by the Government (CPS, etc.) that we would have a mini Waco on our hands and Candy would be right there supporting and helping him. Like...it would be a more dangerous situation than what the kids already live in.
When I hear people assuming that these parents would KILL THEIR CHILDREN just because some unnamed insider says he heard from family that they would for sure do that... Do you people realize how terrible you sound? It is disturbing that you would make such outrageous assumptions about ANYONE you don't know personally.
Apparently CPS visited their home before and remarkably Candy and Erik didn't start killing their children! When CPS enters a home, they can remove children immediately. In most cases, they come armed with a search warrant and orders to do just that. To turn this blog focus from whether or not Candy lied about ITU certification and the Inventors Hall of Fame, into the accusation that they would MURDER their children is sickening. Have you no conscience?
Cajunchic: You have pinned down the Mel Gibson situation better than the folks at the Catholic League, that's for darn sure!
Also a very funny image. Did you know he said his wife might be going to hell because she's episcopalian? And she stays with the weirdo!
I read that before and wondered why he was not trying to save her if he felt this way and truly cared for her.
I don't think everyone is saying that Kiara.
You are WRONG about CPS. In most cases, they DO NOT take the kids out immediately. They come and interview and in some cases, and only the most severe, actually take the children out. That is why so many children end up daying and then you hear on the news how CPS had been out there on several ocassions. I believe "Barbie" touched on this before and her description was correct.
Yes, Brushetta, CPS's mission is to always reunite families. They offer many things to parents to HELP them. The kids my sister fostered were only taken out after they were left alone.. with an oven on for heat. Many times we were reminded we were to FOSTER the children.. prepare for them to go back. It was only AFTER the parents signed away legal custody of the children we knew we had a chance to keep them! Even between them signing and my sister filing and going thru the "process" we were told if ANY family member steps forward for them that the state will seek to place them with family FIRST. Sad. One did. The ONLY reason she was not given the children was because she too had had a child taken away from her by CPS!! Amazing!
I happen to have case study after case study of how often this does not happen. I've got hundreds of pages of documents and other media to the contrary. In SOME cases it does work this way, but rarely. Anyone remember the mess with the FLDS? What about the Children in Cages story? If you want to know the rest of the story - I'd suggest you do some real research. CPS gets paid bonus money for each child they remove and additional bonus money if they adopt those children out. One of my good friends works for the family court system, I am quite familiar with how it works, behind closed doors.
Whatever Kiara - here is a news flash for you. I worked for CPS for 10 years and you are WRONG, but please...continue telling us all how you know more. FLDS??? Puhleese. Those crazies were raping under age women and pregnancy is the clue to that puzzle. I am talking about individual homes.
Let me guess - did you get your hundreds of pages of documents from Candy's site?!
Kiara,
I don't have to research anything. I lived it, along with my entire family! I know what I saw and I know how it felt. I also know the state does NOT pay for anything if family takes a child. That is why it is pushed to reunite them with ANY family member. If a foster family takes them in then the state helps provide care. This is how it worked in MY case. I don't care to research other cases becuase it will not change the outcome of ours. My sister made many attempts to bring the children for visitation with the parents at the CPS office. They never showed up. She made many attempts to show up for court. They never showed up. She spent many nights crying and praying for these children. The CASA worker (who was a NUN, by the way) told us these children did not need to go back and was advocating they not be returned. Still the state pushed to offere the parents classes on parenting, offered the mother help in leaving her abusive husband. Notta. The social worker told us she had been to this families house on numerous occasions. She found the family jumped from house to house with family members and they followed them because someone always made a call about the kids. They were malnourished, no health care, fending for themselves. They were abused in every way you can think of. They were only taken when they were left in harms way. They were left alone with the stove on at 6 months, 2 yrs and 3 yrs. The house was a total disaster. Roaches, rats and trash everywhere. Lice-filled heads to match! This was an extreme case and they were taken away.
You may have pages and pages of documents.. but hunny, I saw it first-hand! And it was not pretty.
To add to my FLDS comment, they were all returned too under guidelines. Just like they do other families. Return them and try to teach them to not rape, beat, lock in closets, etc. Seriously, YOU need to do the research.
Rachel - you clearly know what CPS is about, as do I and "Barbie" and many others. Your accounting of it is perfect. I am sorry your family had to go through it. The CPS system definitely needs a MAJOR overhaul.
Brushetta,
I believe you would work for CPS. That really explains so much! To answer your question, no, I have never read a post on candy's blog about CPS. I hear she has had them but I've never read them. I have extensive research on the topic. By the way, all those pregnant teens that we heard about in the beginning - NOPE... wasn't true. They returned the children because the judge declared that they HAD TO because they had NO LEGAL BASIS for what they did. They could prove no abuse. I don't really care if you believe me. It is all about the evidence and we shall just move on from here with differing opinions... again.
Butler - please, get your facts straight. There were some teens pregnant and gave birth while in custody. I know why they were sent back. Again, it is very difficult to take a child away from a parent, even when the abuse is blatant.
Kiara - you may want to stick to finding your material for the big apron swap and not confuse yourself with how the CPS system really works.
It was very sad and seemed to take forever. While part of us WANTED the parents to shape up.. the other part knew it was not in them. My sister was able to adopt the youngest. It's a long story and it's the children who suffer. The birth mother went on to have more kids. She lives in a world all her own as she recently ran into my sister and went on and on about how she was gonna get all her kids back and they were building a home and she was gonna BABYSIT in her house for xtra cash LOL Clearly deranged!!!
It was very eye-opening to go thru it and I feel we need to be a voice for the children. yes, overhaul would be nice.
New post to Candy from me:
"So, someone like me who has a doctorate in Church theology can prove you wrong on those side-by-side examples. That means nothing to you. You'll just ignore that. You have no love for Roman Catholics, and I seriously doubt you've ever attended a Mass, much less "talked to many nuns and monks". Here's a clue: I've been Catholic all my 42 years and even I've never met a monk. Why? Because they don't leave their monasteries.
You remind me of nothing so much as those Wiccans who want to be victims, so they make up this story about "The Burning Times" and 6 million women executed in Europe in the Middle Ages.
And of course this won't be posted and you won't engage me in debate because you, madame, are afraid of the truth. You're a slave to a lie. Now, who's the father of lies? I'd think about that very, very hard if I were you.
I call you COWARD."
I get a bit harsh again, I admit it, but if Cajunchic and I can play nice because we have come to a meeting of the minds, she could too if she decided to just open up a freaking history book!
Brushetta,
FOCUS ELSEWHERE... remember, there are so many more interesting things going on right now...
Which according to you probably means accusing a stranger of being willing to help murder her children based on what someone heard from someone else. Yeah, you are surely CPS material. It is easier to understand a man saying something like this, because they don't have a mother's heart... but to hear a woman accuse a woman of such... you do not have a mother's heart. If you did, you'd find such an accusation disgusting.
It is hard to comment on others because you dominate on here and many others have said that.
Mr. said, all that. I think I said, that I could see them doing that just based on the things I have read outside of this blog. Unlike you, I don't try and twist everything they say into something pollyanna.
You better watch out Brushetta. I think you may have an "asshole" thrown out at you soon. She likes to do that and then act all Christian. She isn't worth the words you type.
Concerned,
Nope, not what I'd toss her way at all. For some reason do you think the fact that I am a Christian would make me any less human or prone to have emotions? I don't profess to be perfect and I say and do many things wrong. I don't hide who I am or attempt to act like something I'm not... I'm just thankful I've been saved by grace through faith.
That's right, somehow I'm full of it because I don't hate Candy. That's perfectly reasonable, for goodness sake! I don't hate anyone, I seriously can not think of ONE person that I hate"
Okay once again I think this is where you get yourself into issues with people here. I have never stated that I am upset because you don't hate Candy; as a matter of fact I have never held anything against you other than the comments you have posted. I don't call you out or call you names for liking Candy. I truly could care less about this, but this is flat out twisting my words to make them conform to whatever reality you are living. Now I have treated you with the up most respect, and once again you did not retort the argument but fell upon your passive aggressive nature of saying wow is me, you don't respect me, and if you want me to leave so be it. I am not authoritarian by any stretch of the imagination. You could post nude picture of Bee Arthur and you would not be asked to leave nor banned from this site. The problem is that you are not having a logical discussion. You are making a point, that point is refuted and then you turn around and cry foul when they respond. That is the issue I have. If calling you out by saying it is BS is a travesty, I promise I would be a wholehearted shock to you in real life. I wouldn't read too much into the BS stuff, because I will address Ginger next and you will be able to see the difference between disagreeing and being mean.
To my dearest Ginger, here are my teeth:
Listen you totally come off as some ditto head that is just standing behind someone saying, "yeah what she said." It gets a tad bit tiring, but that really is out of looking and feeling embarrassed for you. I don't mind watching someone make a fool of themselves repeatedly, and I usually try and encourage it, but at some point you can't laugh at a cripple.
Some of us have not the blog to stay all day: Yes believe it or not the jumbled up jargon that used makes more sense that what you said after correcting it. I don't have time to spend all day on this blog, I have a job. So there I believe that answers that, but I don't think it is incumbent upon all of us to give you the cliff notes to what we have been saying. Either take the time to peruse the older comments or get ready to be ignored. How self-centered is someone to think that it is my responsibility to keep you informed and up to date as far as this blog. That may work in your world but it will not work in mine. That is an incredibly childish thing to request, use as an excuse, and to fall back on as a reason to why you have a difficulty reading (I guess).
You are truly adding nothing here what so ever. You are either cheerleading for someone or you are typing gibberish. That is about it. Your arguments are non-sequitors, are based upon assumptions, and fall upon some misguided rule that you create that we are revolving around you. That is just not the case.
What a straw man you build up to argue you make to Mr. about turning them into CPS. You make a statement that you don't believe in. You don't believe Candy abuses her children, but then again you don't know Candy either. So to explain that Mr. is just as bad as Candy or afraid of the big bad Brauers is ridiculous, but then again look at the source.
Stephanie,
I have a Douay-Rheims. It is still a validly accepted English translation of the Scriptures. I generally use the RSV for "everyday" reading, but find the Douay-Rheims very useful for research/in depth study.
It is found online at many, many mainstream Catholic sites. It predates the KJV, as well.
Just because the NAB is used in American liturgies doesn't mean you should marginalize other translations as being used by
I believe my Douay Rheims is the reprinted version from the 18th century, but I'm not sure. It's packed right now so I can't check.
BTW, I know some monks. They DO leave their monastery, if the occasion warrants it! (However, most of my interactions were at their abbey. They were not cloistered.)
Sorry, left off part of my comment. I meant to say,
"other translations as being used by crazies, weirdos, or, as someone else said (and you agreed with), Nazis.
Oh Mattie, I adore you.
Maybe Brushetta is so cynical BECAUSE she worked in CPS for ten years.
Maybe seeing firsthand the harm done at the hands of loving, well, meaning parents --just trying to apply some discipline would open one's eyes to the frightening possibilities.
We all came and we all stayed at this site long before the conversations turned to other parenting issues. You can't cry foul, just because you're starting to feel a little dirty.
Barbie - you hit the nail on the head. I have been hardened by the CPS system. We try and try to help, but the State rules just don't let you. Thank you for recognizing it.
Milehimama, a friend of mine already corrected me elsewhere about the monks because she knows some. My bad.
Sorry I offended you about the Douay-Rheims. Yes, it does predate the KJV and it's one of the reasons they put the KJV out.
Unfortunately, it is almost certainly the version Mel Gibson (who I despise and am glad he's not really Catholic) uses. Not that everyone who uses the D-R is a sedevacantist but all sedevacantists use the D-R...if they use a Bible at al.
Evidentially Mr. does not believe the children are being done any harm. Mr. Have you contacted Candy and Erik and offered any help? Mr claims the children are abused. Am I right on that? He wants honesty from Candy on her blog, yet, he won't own up to who he really is on this blog. He is afraid that he will loose his pipeline of information which feeds this blog. The lot of you back him up. Which I expected. The commenter that supposedly was a CPS worker, backs up his abuse. So what is it Mr, is Candy and her husband abusing these children or not? Who are you really?
Ginger,
This isn't "MR."'s blog. He doesn't feed it. He participates. He is questioned relentlessly about and even ridiculed for it by the other commentors.
Questioned to determine the validity of his claims.
Ridiculed for many reasons.
The commentor, Brushetta, didn't "back up" his claim of abuse. She just said it sounded plausible.
BIG difference. HUGE.
"Back up" infers something completely differently than "hey that sounds possible to me..."
(intrinsic knowledge vs. educated guess)
And as we've already established on this blog, the definition and line between abuse and discipline can be gray depending on whose manual you are reading.
CPS laws can vary from state to state, am I correct Brushetta?
Kaira wrote,
"When I hear people assuming that these parents would KILL THEIR CHILDREN just because some unnamed insider says he heard from family that they would for sure do that..."
I had written,
"It has been discussed that if Erik were backed into a corner and thought he might actually lose custody of his children, he'd rather pull a Jim Jones than let them fall into the hands of evildoers.(sp?) And Candy, being the perfect, "do what my husband says" type of mother would prepare the toxic kool-aid herself and serve it up."
How does the phrase,
"IF Erik were backed into a corner and thought HE MIGHT actually lose custody of his children, HE'D RATHER pull a Jim Jones..."
translate to,
"When I hear people assuming that these parents would KILL THEIR CHILDREN...they would for sure do that..."
Please read my posts more carefully in the future so as to avoid making such drastic leaping conclusions afterwards.
Ginger,
Since I have no intention of posting what you want to read, mainly "I LOVE CANDY AND SHE IS A SUPER SPECIAL CHRISTIAN WITHOUT FAULT, I will ignore all your attempts at communication. I felt it would be rude to just ignore without explanation. BYE!
Oh Ginger, do you have that head cover on too tight? I think so! You are obviously losing oxygen to your brain. I NEVER backed up what Mr. said. I simply stated that I could see a Waco situation if the Government got involved. I don't recall saying, those people are going to kill their kids because I am backing up Mr. I don't think he said, THEY WOULD kill them either. Seriously, precious, stick to what you know best....apron swaps.
Again, you are walking around the bush there Mr. You did not answer my questions.....
"Dallas police are investigating the death of an 8-month-old girl whose father told police she stopped breathing while napping in their Oak Cliff apartment.
The 22-year-old man, who was also watching a 1-year-old girl at the time, called 911 about noon Tuesday, Senior Cpl. Janice Crowther said.
He said he had placed Raphaella Meche in her playpen and later noticed she wasn't breathing.
When paramedics arrived at the Chesterfield Drive apartment, they found the girl nonresponsive and took her to Methodist Charlton Medical Center, where she was pronounced dead.
A preliminary autopsy report revealed no suspicious injury to the child, Lt. C.L. Williams said today.
“We still have questions, and we are waiting for the toxicology reports to come back,” Lt. Williams said. “Right now there is nothing that leads us to think there has been a criminal act.”
Police declined to identify the mother and father of the baby, because no one has been arrested.
However, the parents have a history with state Child Protective Services authorities and were undergoing drug treatment and drug testing, CPS spokeswoman Marissa Gonzales said. The parents began drug treatment after Raphaella was born because she and her mother tested positive for methamphetamine, the spokewoman said.
Police questioned both the father and mother, who, coincidentally, was released from jail Tuesday. The mother had served time for minor charges that probably were traffic violations, Cpl. Crowther said
CPS officials placed the 1-year-old girl who was also in the apartment in a foster home. She did not have any injuries, police said."
SAD IT TOOK A DEATH TO FINALLY REMOVE THE CHILD THAT IS STILL ALIVE. AGAIN, CPS TRIES TO KEEP THE FAMILIES TOGETHER, RIGHT OR WRONG.
Post a Comment