popsjumper 2 #26 June 2, 2012 Quote I thought this was a free country. We should not base policy on extreme cases like this, and as far as forced vasectomies, well.....so much for a free country.....welcome to Nazi Germany. Beat me to it. It's amazing how many people raise hell about constitutional rights and then want to make people live according to their particular wishes. (not directed at TK...) Holy hell (sorry, TK ) if some of you guys had your way we''d ALL be living in straight jackets and having no names...just numbers. Fuck the constitution and personal freedom. Make a king...YOU whiners be the king and you can dictate how everybody lives. Just let me know what country you take over so I can avoid it. So the guy might be an asshole. Deal with it. You live in America...or have you forgotten.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #27 June 2, 2012 QuoteI see no reference to race by anyone. I guess you didn't see TK's reference to the guy being black. QuoteAs far as we know, some of these women could very well be white, asian hispanic or some other racial mixture. Yes. Your point is?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #28 June 2, 2012 QuoteI'm not sure we were basing anything on his race. We're not. Nor is TK as you do understand. Unfortunately, others are apparently trying to make it a racial issue.... QuoteI'm pretty much assuming that intelligent, hard working women would run from this guy. One would hope so but evidently not. Crazy, isn't it? QuoteAnd I don't know that anyone is suggesting policy based on this guy. Well, IMO, when people want to have certain things done to people like this to prevent it from happening in the future, the only way to do that is by making new policy....that is, of course, unless they want to just blitz this one guy. QuoteIt seems to me we are mostly at a loss as to how to handle stuff like this without doing wrong by someone elsewhere. Who is being wronged elsewhere? You and me? It's one of the prices we pay for the freedoms that we have left. It's being handled according to current policy. It's just that we don't like it. So, we live with it, or we move elsewhere or we change policy....and remove one more personal freedom from everyone. QuoteYou seem to be spoiling for an argument. I read TK's statement as just that...an expression of his personal opinion. I don't see that expressing an opinion is spoiling for an argument....unless of course one wants to teach him something. The guy is a bozo. The women that had his kids are bozos. We're ALL bozos in our own way. To everyone: Is it SC policy for everyone to post only extreme stupid shit that happens around the world? Is it against SC policy to post pleasant events?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #29 June 2, 2012 Quote ...Hard to believe I know that racist people exist, especially here in Florida..... You don't know that. You're Canadian. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #30 June 2, 2012 >Is it against SC policy to post pleasant events? That's what Bonfire is for! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #31 June 2, 2012 Quote>Is it against SC policy to post pleasant events? That's what Bonfire is for! Sadly, some people have to be reminded of that occasionally. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #32 June 2, 2012 Quote>Is it against SC policy to post pleasant events? That's what Bonfire is for! Oh, *snap*!My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #33 June 2, 2012 Quotethe thing isn this story is no information on how the kids are actually doing. He's black so everyone jumps to the conclusion that there are 30 poor black kids on welfare roles. Yes. Considering that some of the kids get $1.49 in child support, it is a pretty safe assumption that the state is involved in obtaining that support. And considering the rather high percentage of kids on government assistance nowadays, simply playing the odds gives a good idea. Assuming welfare rolls for 30 kids with a dad who provides twenty bucks a year and state-involved enforcement is not assumption so much as inference. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #34 June 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteI see no reference to race by anyone. QuoteI guess you didn't see TK's reference to the guy being black. Right, he complained about race being introduced when he was actually the first one to do so in that post. QuoteAs far as we know, some of these women could very well be white, asian hispanic or some other racial mixture. Yes. Your point is? My point is that nobody mentioned race until he did. Would you say this guy was more likely an Obama supporter or a Romney supporter? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #35 June 2, 2012 QuoteMy point is that nobody mentioned race until he did. And I mentioned it because, as I said, once again, it was directly discussed with me, here in Florida, by a number of people sitting at a table at a congressional meeting with our Rep Rich Nugent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #36 June 2, 2012 Got it the first time. Just explaining it to someone who didn't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #37 June 2, 2012 I am growing more certain by the post that some people hereon intentionally misunderstand my posts. My question (probably rhetorical) is how we effect policies that dissuade this kind of behavior while protecting children. In this case, how do we withhold money from irresponsible people while not leaving the children behind? Yes, I presume there are state social programs being utilized here. I have no evidence of it other than 45 years of life in the South. But I'll put my next paycheck against yours and then investigate if you like.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #38 June 4, 2012 QuoteMy question (probably rhetorical) is how we effect policies that dissuade this kind of behavior while protecting children. As always no program is going to have a 100% succes rate. But, IMHO, education and employment are the main answers to prevent this type of behaviour. I highly doubt that the majority of educated women, who have a normal level of self worth, would find themselves in these positions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #39 June 4, 2012 Agreed. And I'm not saying our social policies should regulate individual behaior. I am, afterall, a Libertarian. It just seems that our financial support should end at some point of egregious conduct. For all I know, it has in these cases, but since the children are spread over multiple women, I doubt it. I don't think there is a solution in today's society. I just find it frustrating that we have created a society where this conduct is tolerated. When taking care of your neighbor is a local community issue, these things are easily corrected. When the federal government becomes a nanny, there's just no reasonable way. I've always maintained that government is the least efficient means of doing anything. It must therefore be restricted to those things that absolutely cannot be done at a lower level. Taking care of those down on their luck is a local issue. Only the locals know if this person is truly in need and deserving.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #40 June 4, 2012 QuoteAgreed. And I'm not saying our social policies should regulate individual behaior. I am, afterall, a Libertarian. It just seems that our financial support should end at some point of egregious conduct. For all I know, it has in these cases, but since the children are spread over multiple women, I doubt it. I think that worrying about punishment takes away energy from designing a solution. I also think that "punishment" by taking away support will only hurt the offspring, which only increases the risk of repeated behaviour by the next generation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #41 June 4, 2012 QuoteI am growing more certain by the post that some people hereon intentionally misunderstand my posts. People are on heroin? What the hell are you talking about?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #42 June 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteI am growing more certain by the post that some people hereon intentionally misunderstand my posts. People are on heroin? What the hell are you talking about?? You had me questioning myself. Had to look it up to make sure I was grammatically correct. here·on (hîr-n, -ôn) adv. On this; hereupon. In this case, "On this website". Hereupon. I chose it over herein, because I ordinarily think of herein as referencing the document or post that I am authoring. Do you prefer herein?I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #43 June 4, 2012 QuoteDo you prefer herein? No, I never touch the hard stuff. I generally prefer an IPA or a Belgian. Occasionally Scotch, preferably single-malt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #44 June 4, 2012 Quote Who is being wronged elsewhere? You and me? the children, and the various women, are being harmed by a irresponsible breeder without the finances to support his actions. This is very different from that family with 20+ kids (Dugans?). Maybe the state could pay for billboards with his face on it - "do not have sex with this man - he's a deadbeat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #45 June 4, 2012 Maybe the state could do a better job educating its population, specially those in the lower ranks of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #46 June 4, 2012 Quote and the various women, Aren't they willing participants with this guy?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #47 June 4, 2012 QuoteQuote and the various women, Aren't they willing participants with this guy? I point both you and SD to post #15 in this thread. Nonetheless, women are still harmed when the other half of a conception doesn't contribute financially. Each is 50% responsible for this situation. But when the man runs off, she bears not only the extra 50% of the financial costs, but the health, career, and financial costs of pregnancy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #48 June 4, 2012 QuoteNonetheless, women are still harmed when the other half of a conception doesn't contribute financially. Each is 50% responsible for this situation. But when the man runs off, she bears not only the extra 50% of the financial costs, but the health, career, and financial costs of pregnancy. Should have thought of that before she decided to let the guy fuck her. I don't have any sympathy for the women in this case. I do for the children. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #49 June 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteNonetheless, women are still harmed when the other half of a conception doesn't contribute financially. Each is 50% responsible for this situation. But when the man runs off, she bears not only the extra 50% of the financial costs, but the health, career, and financial costs of pregnancy. Should have thought of that before she decided to let the guy fuck her. I don't have any sympathy for the women in this case. I do for the children. whoa - the GOP has possessed SkyDekker.... her bad decision does not relieve him of his legal obligations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #50 June 4, 2012 QuoteGot it the first time. Just explaining it to someone who didn't. Wrong.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
