EnderWiggin Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Who REALLY shouldn't get any money are the banks and bankers who want bailout $$$. Very sly. I'm sure no one even noticed what you did there. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 obama harvests the embryos of the rich and implants them in the poor this is what happens palin/jindal '12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 http://gonintendo.com/?p=72695 She obviously has enough to buy a Wii... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Is there not already a birth limit after which the mother receives no Federal money? If not, I would strongly support that after two/three children, a parent should no longer be eligible to receive Federal monetary support. Seconded. Very sly. I'm sure no one even noticed what you did there. I agree with Tysyacha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted February 14, 2009 Author Share Posted February 14, 2009 Can anyone confirm that there indeed is a limit to receiving federal aid after a set number of children? I know they do in China, but I don't know if they have a regulation like that in the US. Some have commented on it, but I don't know if a regulation is in place, or people would like to have one set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 14 kids... You could grow a soccer team with 3 subs. Im all for it. There are already alot of people with appropriate qualifications and positions in govt and social services to discuss this. Whatever a pack of internet bozos say (this includes myself), is utterly irrelevant. I'll go back to my uber soccer team fantasy, and what Q said mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 OH NOES she's getting death threats, somehow I can't make myself feel sorry for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 I'm not. LF is a no-boob zone, tyvm. Mercifully, in this case. I'll go back to my uber soccer team fantasy, and what Q said Fetishist, ahoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 OH NOES she's getting death threats, somehow I can't make myself feel sorry for her Youd know all about death threats Mr Rushdie Regardless of the circumstances, anyone who would threaten the death of a mother and pregnant woman(and her foetuses within) has some serious issues, which they should take up with their local preacher, imam, head monk or psychotherapist. The amount of money this woman would be getting to help care for children is infinitessemal compared to the amount of money being spent daily in Iraq, doing naught much else than risking the lives of US troops and Iraqi civilians. mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 She is a professional leech, you know. It's rather obvious that she did this in order to maximize the amount of government money she's receiving. That does tend to piss people off. Well, people who actually work and pay taxes in order to support grifting lowlifes like her, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Regardless of the circumstances, anyone who would threaten the death of a mother and pregnant woman(and her foetuses within) has some serious issues, which they should take up with their local preacher, imam, head monk or psychotherapist. I'm not about to justify threatening her life, despite how much her presence on the news has begun to annoy me (Thankfully the BBC has their priorities straight and doesn't mention her much). I'm sitting fully in the camp that says all the kids need to be taken away from her due to issues of competence and mental health. Kids often end up screwed up enough when the parents pops out several one at a time. At least in that case the kids are able to raise each other, not ideal but it's worked before. Knowing what a flighty bitch she is doesn't give me much confidence that the ones she already had are capable of helping bring up a single child, let alone eight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ctrl Alt Del Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 ^ Ah, the acid and WTF humour of Cyanide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 14 kids... You could grow a soccer team with 3 subs. Im all for it. 2 full water polo teams. That would be great There are already alot of people with appropriate qualifications and positions in govt and social services to discuss this. Whatever a pack of internet bozos say (this includes myself), is utterly irrelevant. Oh you're right. Actually, this entire forum should be closed for that very reason. And Kavar's should be closed because none of us is in the President's cabinet. I mean, we can't have an opinion on something, right? That would be crazy. The amount of money this woman would be getting to help care for children is infinitessemal compared to the amount of money being spent daily in Iraq, doing naught much else than risking the lives of US troops and Iraqi civilians. Your personal agenda (while I don't disagree) is quite offtopic, as this analogy is irrelevant to the situation. How the government spends the public's tax dollars really doesn't have any bearing on the immorality or morality of this woman who is collecting disability. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 ...How the government spends the public's tax dollars really doesn't have any bearing on the immorality or morality of this woman who is collecting disability.... Reading the post topic, and other posters reponses, this is a bimodal discussion. We are not *just* talking about her foolish decisons, but its effects on taxpayers, which the dept of the govt collects and doles out according to set criteria. I dont have a personal agenda to get troops put of Iraq, because I am not in a position to action it I am just comparing "relative amounts of taxpayers money being spent that makes people upset". Nothing personal there at all, purely mathematical a) this entire forum should be closed for that very reason. b) And Kavar's should be closed because none of us is in the President's cabinet. a) nah, that cannot be right at all. The huge majority of discussions outside of the "Secular vs Spiritiual Fight Club" area(s) at LFN are actually related to gaming, movies, modding, tech, books, fanfics... which is what the network was founded on, and does best. If Aristotle and co opened the old network in the late 90s and made the forum about jesus and abortions, would we *really* be here now?? No sir, that has come about due to the agenda of others who came along later, God/Buddha/Shiva/Nietzsche bless their souls b) Im glad we finally agree on something Would you go to work, spend time on something you know will never come to fruition. No. Then why do it in your free time? But hey, if they like to do that, it's up to them I guess speaking of breastfeeding, I wonder if a human females breast milk producing capacity increases in correlation to the amount of babies she's having ? I am curious, purely from a biological knowledge point of view of course, nothin suss... Rclick>saveas>measures mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted February 15, 2009 Author Share Posted February 15, 2009 She is a professional leech, you know. It's rather obvious that she did this in order to maximize the amount of government money she's receiving. That does tend to piss people off. Well, people who actually work and pay taxes in order to support grifting lowlifes like her, that is. I'd agree she's a professional leech, but children are expensive all ways around. Any government money she receives is minimal compared to the price of raising just one child on that alone. She's just not concerned with others' sacrifices and is convinced that everything will be provided for her. She assumes she'll go back and get a master's degree to pay for the kids... meaning that she'll have to add several thousand dollars and two years out of her life in order to earn $59,000 a year - cost of living for herself and 14 children - repaying debts in excess of $100,000 - interest on capital for her debts + food stamp provisions + other government subsidies + donations. I don't see many donations though. Without that, the whole equation falls apart. She must have failed basic math when she was a child. How could she POSSIBLY have a degree in something and not figure this out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 speaking of breastfeeding, I wonder if a human females breast milk producing capacity increases in correlation to the amount of babies she's having ? I am curious, purely from a biological knowledge point of view of course, nothin suss... It's a positive feedback loop after birth rather than before--the more you breastfeed, the more you tend to produce, but there's a practical limit. She'll never be able to feed all 8 herself. Some women can feed twins and even triplets with no problem, but 8 is too many from purely a time standpoint, much less milk production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Reading the post topic, and other posters reponses, this is a bimodal discussion. We are not *just* talking about her foolish decisons, but its effects on taxpayers, which the dept of the govt collects and doles out according to set criteria. I dont have a personal agenda to get troops put of Iraq, because I am not in a position to action it I am just comparing "relative amounts of taxpayers money being spent that makes people upset". Nothing personal there at all, purely mathematical Specious argument. We're talking about her decision and whether or not she should receive taxpayer funds for her 'foolish nature.' So it's not really "purely mathematical" because it's fallacious to draw that comparison. a) nah, that cannot be right at all. The huge majority of discussions outside of the "Secular vs Spiritiual Fight Club" area(s) at LFN are actually related to gaming, movies, modding, tech, books, fanfics... which is what the network was founded on, and does best. If Aristotle and co opened the old network in the late 90s and made the forum about jesus and abortions, would we *really* be here now?? No sir, that has come about due to the agenda of others who came along later, God/Buddha/Shiva/Nietzsche bless their souls Have you ever heard of sarcasm? I was pointing out the error in your previous logic that us "internet bozos" didn't have any need to discuss the topic. b) Im glad we finally agree on something Would you go to work, spend time on something you know will never come to fruition. No. Then why do it in your free time? But hey, if they like to do that, it's up to them I guess And now you want the opposite. You can't have it both ways. And, on top of that, you're wrong. Just because we're not in a position to cause direct change doesn't mean we shouldn't be revising our positions and trying to convince others and even just talking to others about what we think and what they think. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martmeister Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Her alleged church got on the news stating that she wasn't a member nor had they heard of her before. I don't blame the reverend for calling her out and turning her down. One's foolishness shouldn't be the penalty for everybody else. ...but somehow, years from now, she'll be a "victim" going on about how she's working three jobs raising 14 children alone. Let's go ahead and ingrain this in our heads now: she did this to herself. I disagree with her "wanting to have a big family" reasoning. Perhaps I'd be more okay with this IF she had tried for years (and failing) to have a baby so invitro or multiple eggs were the only options. Hell, maybe if she just liked to lay on her back and pop out tax deductions, I mean infants...IF she were married, had a supportive family, or wealthy. But her older children are still little, she's single, and most importantly not financially-capable of raising FOURTEEN kids. Put them up for adoption already! I find in slightly ironic that Angelina Jolie is horrified at their close resemblance. There you go: there's her first adoption candidate. If Angelina Jolie can adopt 3rd world babies, she can get some American-born ones, too. ...But it's not Angelina's responsibility to adopt every child. Given Octo-Mom's idiotic decision to pop out so many babies, I'd be surprised if anyone wants to adopt them for fear of the child growing up to be an equal moron. Oh, the octupulets' responsibility is the parents'. If they can't take care of them, tough s**t! btw, taxpayer money should NOT be used to raise her children. If the gov insists that we do squander our money, perhaps a Universal Soldier program should be implemented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 I find in slightly ironic that Angelina Jolie is horrified at their close resemblance. Um... WTF? Aside from the oversized lips and the dark hair, I see no resemblance whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted February 15, 2009 Author Share Posted February 15, 2009 I just saw an article that her publisher had resigned. S/he received so many threats and complaints in the mail that they weren't interested anymore. I am glad to know that a great enough majority of Americans are not interested and even angry at this woman. I either hope that she never is discussed in the media again, or periodically is mentioned to let everyone know she is suffering the consequences of her actions... just no more of her or her eight little brats! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I may not agree with what she's done, but threats against her and her babies' lives are just beyond cruel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 While I think she shouldn't even be pregnant right now, isn't 6 kids already enough? It is still wrong for people to threaten to kill her. That being said I still find this to be funny... Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 is it wrong to send her death threats that are post-dated for after she gives birth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Guys, she already gave birth.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.