On Sep 7, 6:42=A0pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sep 7, 5:04=A0pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 7:16 am, Kent Wills <compu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 22:11:06 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Usher
>
> > > <k_over_hb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > >On Sep 6, 11:02 pm, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > >> Or we could just send home the 90% of those Foster
> > > >> Kids who should never have been removed from
> > > >> their parents in the first place.
>
> > > >Yes, we must refuse to give them any more money. As long as
> > > >we do, they keep on with this nonsense, and the more kids they
> > > >take, the more money they'll get! It's ridiculous.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 You forgot to mention that more kids equals more expense.
> > > =A0 =A0 I speak form first hand experience when I state the stipend
f=
oster
> > > parents are given doesn't come close to coving the expense.
>
> > The foster parents aren't the problem; it's the child protection
> > bureaucracy.
>
> > Andrew Usher
DS> Obviously there are problem foster parents.
Often covered up, down played or minimized.
Spin, Public Relations.
Dan, your old buddy Kane/d'geezer/Don protested
once that they don't have PR reps.
Then I named Iowa's and pointed out his
designation in news articles.
DS > And the problem with the child
DS > protection industry
Is this the first time you've ever
referred to the "Child Protection INDUSTRY" Dan?
Parroting my terminology won't keep you from
getting kicked out of more Family Rights groups.
DS > is the people in it and their
DS > agenda, which isn't the best
DS > interest of the children but
DS > the growth and funding of their business.
Indeed a memorable quote from Dan Sullivan!
Did somebody put some Jalapeno in your
milk toast, Dan? Or are you just
a wolf donning sheeps clothing?
|
