elessar123
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 204 (100%)
Anyone see last week's Family Guy, about the Tea Party?
Man who fathered 30 kids says he needs a break—on child support
- Thread starter GBAstar
- Start date
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='camoor']FWIW I didn't delete my post - I'm guessing that either someone reported it or a mod decided to delete it. I thought you were pulling our chain - that's why I posted the image (I thought you'd get a kick out of it)
I didn't realize you were serious.
So um yeah, dohdough's making perfect sense on this one. Are we done here?[/QUOTE]
How is stating marriage in no way aids in reducing child poverty correct?
If you can't look at just what nasum said about the mothers time now and chances at a good education and job are greatly reduced and draw the line that it is directly related to child poverty then I don't know what to tell you.
BTW I never denied that aiding reducing stopping poverty in no way aids in stopping reducing child poverty.
But is it now easier or harder for that single mom to get her CHILD or CHILDREN out of poverty? Would it be easier if there was a two parent household that started in poverty with children in poverty to get them out of it with two of them vs one? Two of course. Would it have been better to have been married first even without the education? I would say yes. Would that have stopped this epidemic on just this idiot of the topic of this thread maybe not but maybe so.
Are there people in poverty without children that would be helped by marriage maybe but is there denying that a child in a two parent household will have a better chance of getting out of poverty then a mom with six kids and no time and no other parent to help in everything.
Is it a cure-all? Hell no. Does it help? Certainly in many cases and it helps with child poverty. The world is all about child poverty and how they had no choice when brought into the world like these thirty kids. Some people choose actually choose to be in poverty (yes it is true) but now bringing a kid into that is just wrong. There is nothing wrong with family planning and two parents as the saying goes. Or teaching it preaching it. I know many families that started in poverty with children by mistake or poor planning or whatever but those with two parents and a family working together were able or had a better chance in most cases to make a life for themselves and more and most importantly those kids that didn't have a choice. I see nothing wrong with using the term child poverty when trying to reduce poverty and make people think about their actions/choices as in sex and child bearing. If someone isn't thinking about bringing a child into poverty and just going about their loose ways we are failing to make them understand that child poverty is real and ignoring it out of selfishness hurts CHILDREN.
I for one will continue to be about reducing and talking about child poverty and look at the results it has on the cycle and on poverty. Do you think those children will grow up to do the same thing and have the same attitude about child bearing... stats say yes most will.
Yep I said it "child poverty" and made it a focus.
I didn't realize you were serious.
So um yeah, dohdough's making perfect sense on this one. Are we done here?[/QUOTE]
How is stating marriage in no way aids in reducing child poverty correct?
If you can't look at just what nasum said about the mothers time now and chances at a good education and job are greatly reduced and draw the line that it is directly related to child poverty then I don't know what to tell you.
BTW I never denied that aiding reducing stopping poverty in no way aids in stopping reducing child poverty.
But is it now easier or harder for that single mom to get her CHILD or CHILDREN out of poverty? Would it be easier if there was a two parent household that started in poverty with children in poverty to get them out of it with two of them vs one? Two of course. Would it have been better to have been married first even without the education? I would say yes. Would that have stopped this epidemic on just this idiot of the topic of this thread maybe not but maybe so.
Are there people in poverty without children that would be helped by marriage maybe but is there denying that a child in a two parent household will have a better chance of getting out of poverty then a mom with six kids and no time and no other parent to help in everything.
Is it a cure-all? Hell no. Does it help? Certainly in many cases and it helps with child poverty. The world is all about child poverty and how they had no choice when brought into the world like these thirty kids. Some people choose actually choose to be in poverty (yes it is true) but now bringing a kid into that is just wrong. There is nothing wrong with family planning and two parents as the saying goes. Or teaching it preaching it. I know many families that started in poverty with children by mistake or poor planning or whatever but those with two parents and a family working together were able or had a better chance in most cases to make a life for themselves and more and most importantly those kids that didn't have a choice. I see nothing wrong with using the term child poverty when trying to reduce poverty and make people think about their actions/choices as in sex and child bearing. If someone isn't thinking about bringing a child into poverty and just going about their loose ways we are failing to make them understand that child poverty is real and ignoring it out of selfishness hurts CHILDREN.
I for one will continue to be about reducing and talking about child poverty and look at the results it has on the cycle and on poverty. Do you think those children will grow up to do the same thing and have the same attitude about child bearing... stats say yes most will.
Yep I said it "child poverty" and made it a focus.
Last edited:
[quote name='camoor']FWIW I didn't delete my post - I'm guessing that either someone reported it or a mod decided to delete it. I thought you were pulling our chain - that's why I posted the image (I thought you'd get a kick out of it)
I didn't realize you were serious.
So um yeah, dohdough's making perfect sense on this one. Are we done here?[/QUOTE]
Don't sell yourself short. You made a whole heck of a lot of sense when you pointed out that it's plain crazy talk to believe that someone would just be fine with the government taking more and more money out of their paycheck...
I didn't realize you were serious.
So um yeah, dohdough's making perfect sense on this one. Are we done here?[/QUOTE]
Don't sell yourself short. You made a whole heck of a lot of sense when you pointed out that it's plain crazy talk to believe that someone would just be fine with the government taking more and more money out of their paycheck...
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='Sarang01']I was referring to you fly-specing Dohdough.[/QUOTE] Okay my bad...I am going to delete it now.
[quote name='Pliskin101']Oh give me a break you never quote anything in whole you are like cnn, fox or NBC. You cut it up and leave out parts all the time. A bit of the pot calling the kettle black wouldn't you say?[/QUOTE]
Actually no. If I do happen to leave something out, I don't let the edit change the context. In regards to your posts that I quote, I'm not going to go back and edit in changes you made hours later.
[quote name='elessar123']Anyone see last week's Family Guy, about the Tea Party?[/QUOTE]
Just watched it. Hilarious, but I'm guessing your referring to the end when Peter says he only cares about what people think about him on message boards?
[quote name='Sarang01']I was referring to you fly-specing Dohdough.[/QUOTE]
How did I miss this?
[quote name='Pliskin101']Okay my bad...I am going to delete it now.[/QUOTE]
This is interesting because you admit fault and apologize to someone to whom the comments were not directed toward, yet you continue your derision to the person that the comments were directed toward.
Actually no. If I do happen to leave something out, I don't let the edit change the context. In regards to your posts that I quote, I'm not going to go back and edit in changes you made hours later.
Nah...I'm going to keep it up. If you're going to delete a post anyways, maybe you should think about not posting to begin with.
[quote name='elessar123']Anyone see last week's Family Guy, about the Tea Party?[/QUOTE]
Just watched it. Hilarious, but I'm guessing your referring to the end when Peter says he only cares about what people think about him on message boards?
[quote name='Sarang01']I was referring to you fly-specing Dohdough.[/QUOTE]
How did I miss this?
[quote name='Pliskin101']Okay my bad...I am going to delete it now.[/QUOTE]
This is interesting because you admit fault and apologize to someone to whom the comments were not directed toward, yet you continue your derision to the person that the comments were directed toward.
elessar123
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 204 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']Just watched it. Hilarious, but I'm guessing your referring to the end when Peter says he only cares about what people think about him on message boards?[/QUOTE]
No, there was a post talking about taxing the rich less, and taking away the benefits of the poor (in jest, I think). The post, along with half the thread, was probably deleted.
Edit: Nope, camoor's post, and it's still there.
No, there was a post talking about taxing the rich less, and taking away the benefits of the poor (in jest, I think). The post, along with half the thread, was probably deleted.
Edit: Nope, camoor's post, and it's still there.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='dohdough']Actually no.
[/QUOTE]
Don't whine and cry to me for doing it when you are the one who is the king of "it". Get it you pot me kettle?
[quote name='dohdough']
I'm going to keep it up. [/QUOTE]
Then keep it up.
See what I did there?
You are so full of it that is all you do. It seems you are incapable of quoting a post in whole even if it is two sentences. I have a theory on that though I think it has to do with you possibly being ADD and your inability to comprehend anything past a few words at a time. Keep breaking it up into those little bite size chunks and leaving out parts. In the future for learning and practice purposes try quoting a whole post sometimes and responding that way. You might also be pleasantly surprised that MOST people will still understand what parts of the post you are addressing as you reply in whole to all of them and it as a whole.
Have fun.
[/QUOTE]
Don't whine and cry to me for doing it when you are the one who is the king of "it". Get it you pot me kettle?
[quote name='dohdough']
I'm going to keep it up. [/QUOTE]
Then keep it up.
See what I did there?
You are so full of it that is all you do. It seems you are incapable of quoting a post in whole even if it is two sentences. I have a theory on that though I think it has to do with you possibly being ADD and your inability to comprehend anything past a few words at a time. Keep breaking it up into those little bite size chunks and leaving out parts. In the future for learning and practice purposes try quoting a whole post sometimes and responding that way. You might also be pleasantly surprised that MOST people will still understand what parts of the post you are addressing as you reply in whole to all of them and it as a whole.
Have fun.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='elessar123']No, there was a post talking about taxing the rich less, and taking away the benefits of the poor (in jest, I think). The post, along with half the thread, was probably deleted.
Edit: Nope, camoor's post, and it's still there.[/QUOTE]
I don't watch FG so I'm not tracking with your point - but I meant what I said.
Edit: Nope, camoor's post, and it's still there.[/QUOTE]
I don't watch FG so I'm not tracking with your point - but I meant what I said.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Don't sell yourself short. You made a whole heck of a lot of sense when you pointed out that it's plain crazy talk to believe that someone would just be fine with the government taking more and more money out of their paycheck...[/QUOTE]
Yeah, everyone should pay their fair share and no more - glad we can agree
Yeah, everyone should pay their fair share and no more - glad we can agree
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Pliskin101']How is stating marriage in no way aids in reducing child poverty correct?
If you can't look at just what nasum said about the mothers time now and chances at a good education and job are greatly reduced and draw the line that it is directly related to child poverty then I don't know what to tell you.
BTW I never denied that aiding reducing stopping poverty in no way aids in stopping reducing child poverty.
But is it now easier or harder for that single mom to get her CHILD or CHILDREN out of poverty? Would it be easier if there was a two parent household that started in poverty with children in poverty to get them out of it with two of them vs one? Two of course. Would it have been better to have been married first even without the education? I would say yes. Would that have stopped this epidemic on just this idiot of the topic of this thread maybe not but maybe so.
Are there people in poverty without children that would be helped by marriage maybe but is there denying that a child in a two parent household will have a better chance of getting out of poverty then a mom with six kids and no time and no other parent to help in everything.
Is it a cure-all? Hell no. Does it help? Certainly in many cases and it helps with child poverty. The world is all about child poverty and how they had no choice when brought into the world like these thirty kids. Some people choose actually choose to be in poverty (yes it is true) but now bringing a kid into that is just wrong. There is nothing wrong with family planning and two parents as the saying goes. Or teaching it preaching it. I know many families that started in poverty with children by mistake or poor planning or whatever but those with two parents and a family working together were able or had a better chance in most cases to make a life for themselves and more and most importantly those kids that didn't have a choice. I see nothing wrong with using the term child poverty when trying to reduce poverty and make people think about their actions/choices as in sex and child bearing. If someone isn't thinking about bringing a child into poverty and just going about their loose ways we are failing to make them understand that child poverty is real and ignoring it out of selfishness hurts CHILDREN.
I for one will continue to be about reducing and talking about child poverty and look at the results it has on the cycle and on poverty. Do you think those children will grow up to do the same thing and have the same attitude about child bearing... stats say yes most will.
Yep I said it "child poverty" and made it a focus.[/QUOTE]
Now you're starting to make more sense.
I'm not sure why you're so angry at dohdough, it seems that you're in the same ballpark it's just that he's making a slightly more sophisticated point.
If you can't look at just what nasum said about the mothers time now and chances at a good education and job are greatly reduced and draw the line that it is directly related to child poverty then I don't know what to tell you.
BTW I never denied that aiding reducing stopping poverty in no way aids in stopping reducing child poverty.
But is it now easier or harder for that single mom to get her CHILD or CHILDREN out of poverty? Would it be easier if there was a two parent household that started in poverty with children in poverty to get them out of it with two of them vs one? Two of course. Would it have been better to have been married first even without the education? I would say yes. Would that have stopped this epidemic on just this idiot of the topic of this thread maybe not but maybe so.
Are there people in poverty without children that would be helped by marriage maybe but is there denying that a child in a two parent household will have a better chance of getting out of poverty then a mom with six kids and no time and no other parent to help in everything.
Is it a cure-all? Hell no. Does it help? Certainly in many cases and it helps with child poverty. The world is all about child poverty and how they had no choice when brought into the world like these thirty kids. Some people choose actually choose to be in poverty (yes it is true) but now bringing a kid into that is just wrong. There is nothing wrong with family planning and two parents as the saying goes. Or teaching it preaching it. I know many families that started in poverty with children by mistake or poor planning or whatever but those with two parents and a family working together were able or had a better chance in most cases to make a life for themselves and more and most importantly those kids that didn't have a choice. I see nothing wrong with using the term child poverty when trying to reduce poverty and make people think about their actions/choices as in sex and child bearing. If someone isn't thinking about bringing a child into poverty and just going about their loose ways we are failing to make them understand that child poverty is real and ignoring it out of selfishness hurts CHILDREN.
I for one will continue to be about reducing and talking about child poverty and look at the results it has on the cycle and on poverty. Do you think those children will grow up to do the same thing and have the same attitude about child bearing... stats say yes most will.
Yep I said it "child poverty" and made it a focus.[/QUOTE]
Now you're starting to make more sense.
I'm not sure why you're so angry at dohdough, it seems that you're in the same ballpark it's just that he's making a slightly more sophisticated point.
[quote name='Pliskin101']Don't whine and cry to me for doing it when you are the one who is the king of "it". Get it you pot me kettle?[/QUOTE]
I don't get it. Spell it out for me.
I don't get it. Spell it out for me.
Yup, you omitted about 90% of my post.
Yeah...deconstructing someone's argument in an organized manner is such a terrible thing to do. It's just as bad as omitting 90% of someone's post.
I...
...will.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='dohdough']
I...
...will.[/QUOTE]
LOL For some odd reason it reminds of William Shatner's acting.
I...
...will.[/QUOTE]
LOL For some odd reason it reminds of William Shatner's acting.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']I don't think you'll get much disagreement on that.[/QUOTE]
Duh
Duh
I
Indigo_Streetlight
Guest
I like to know what kind of women thought it was a good idea to make babies with this guy after kid number 20 comes along. I mean, if you're going to hunt for child-support you could at least pick a father who's financially solvent.
[quote name='dohdough']Actually no. If I do happen to leave something out, I don't let the edit change the context. In regards to your posts that I quote, I'm not going to go back and edit in changes you made hours later.
Nah...I'm going to keep it up. If you're going to delete a post anyways, maybe you should think about not posting to begin with.
Just watched it. Hilarious, but I'm guessing your referring to the end when Peter says he only cares about what people think about him on message boards?
How did I miss this?
This is interesting because you admit fault and apologize to someone to whom the comments were not directed toward, yet you continue your derision to the person that the comments were directed toward.[/QUOTE]
Read this, it's about that episode of FG.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/05/14/Family-Guy-Tea-Party
Bitter much?
Nah...I'm going to keep it up. If you're going to delete a post anyways, maybe you should think about not posting to begin with.
Just watched it. Hilarious, but I'm guessing your referring to the end when Peter says he only cares about what people think about him on message boards?
How did I miss this?
This is interesting because you admit fault and apologize to someone to whom the comments were not directed toward, yet you continue your derision to the person that the comments were directed toward.[/QUOTE]
Read this, it's about that episode of FG.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/05/14/Family-Guy-Tea-Party
Bitter much?[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']I like to know what kind of women thought it was a good idea to make babies with this guy after kid number 20 comes along. I mean, if you're going to hunt for child-support you could at least pick a father who's financially solvent.[/QUOTE]
Who says they were hunting for child support rather than just got knocked up by a player? I can't imagine this guy was forthcoming about all the kids he had and what a loser he was when out picking up chicks....
Who says they were hunting for child support rather than just got knocked up by a player? I can't imagine this guy was forthcoming about all the kids he had and what a loser he was when out picking up chicks....
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
I find it interesting that he had no problems signing a media disclaimer but none of the women wanted to be identified.
I think he's proud of this, bragging even.
I think he's proud of this, bragging even.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='camoor']Now you're starting to make more sense.
I'm not sure why you're so angry at dohdough, it seems that you're in the same ballpark it's just that he's making a slightly more sophisticated point.[/QUOTE]
sophisticated?
"The thesis that marriage will reduce childhood poverty is so mind-numbingly stupid and shallow that I can't imagine anyone not being embarrassed by saying it, muchless promoting it"
That is what he said.
You really need to get some wisdom, intelligence and experience under your belt if that to you is "sophisticated". To use dohdough's words it "is so mind-numbingly stupid and shallow ". That is okay I get it.... you were made to delete your post or it was deleted for you...your deep insight and childish post "you are stupid" is so sophisticated that DD's mind-numblingly statement can only seem brilliant compared to such insight by you. Nice parting shot if only it had some weight behind it. As you put it..... are we done here?
I'm not sure why you're so angry at dohdough, it seems that you're in the same ballpark it's just that he's making a slightly more sophisticated point.[/QUOTE]
sophisticated?
"The thesis that marriage will reduce childhood poverty is so mind-numbingly stupid and shallow that I can't imagine anyone not being embarrassed by saying it, muchless promoting it"
That is what he said.
You really need to get some wisdom, intelligence and experience under your belt if that to you is "sophisticated". To use dohdough's words it "is so mind-numbingly stupid and shallow ". That is okay I get it.... you were made to delete your post or it was deleted for you...your deep insight and childish post "you are stupid" is so sophisticated that DD's mind-numblingly statement can only seem brilliant compared to such insight by you. Nice parting shot if only it had some weight behind it. As you put it..... are we done here?
Last edited:
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Pliskin101']sophisticated?
"The thesis that marriage will reduce childhood poverty is so mind-numbingly stupid and shallow that I can't imagine anyone not being embarrassed by saying it, muchless promoting it"
That is what he said.
You really need to get some wisdom, intelligence and experience under your belt if that to you is "sophisticated". To use dohdough's words it "is so mind-numbingly stupid and shallow ". That is okay I get it.... you were made to delete your post or it was deleted for you...your deep insight and childish post "you are stupid" is so sophisticated that DD's mind-numblingly statement can only seem brilliant compared to such insight by you. Nice parting shot if only it had some weight behind it. As you put it..... are we done here?[/QUOTE]
It was deleted by a mod, someone reported it.
What can I say, I thought you were trolling.
PS I think it's a dick move to try and turn the thread into a discussion on how stupid you are, especially when you are getting comments that affirm your stupidity deleted. So I am done here. Let me just make it clear for the record that I initially thought it was an act but now I do think you are stupid.
"The thesis that marriage will reduce childhood poverty is so mind-numbingly stupid and shallow that I can't imagine anyone not being embarrassed by saying it, muchless promoting it"
That is what he said.
You really need to get some wisdom, intelligence and experience under your belt if that to you is "sophisticated". To use dohdough's words it "is so mind-numbingly stupid and shallow ". That is okay I get it.... you were made to delete your post or it was deleted for you...your deep insight and childish post "you are stupid" is so sophisticated that DD's mind-numblingly statement can only seem brilliant compared to such insight by you. Nice parting shot if only it had some weight behind it. As you put it..... are we done here?[/QUOTE]
It was deleted by a mod, someone reported it.
What can I say, I thought you were trolling.
PS I think it's a dick move to try and turn the thread into a discussion on how stupid you are, especially when you are getting comments that affirm your stupidity deleted. So I am done here. Let me just make it clear for the record that I initially thought it was an act but now I do think you are stupid.
Last edited by a moderator:
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='camoor']It was deleted by a mod, someone reported it.
What can I say, I thought you were trolling.
PS I think it's a dick move to try and turn the thread into a discussion on how stupid you are, especially when you are getting comments that affirm your stupidity deleted. So I am done here. Let me just make it clear for the record that I initially thought it was an act but now I do think you are stupid.[/QUOTE]
Now that was sophisticated.
LOOK I think DD said BLACK hurry jump on board if you don't you may not be black.
What can I say, I thought you were trolling.
PS I think it's a dick move to try and turn the thread into a discussion on how stupid you are, especially when you are getting comments that affirm your stupidity deleted. So I am done here. Let me just make it clear for the record that I initially thought it was an act but now I do think you are stupid.[/QUOTE]
Now that was sophisticated.
LOOK I think DD said BLACK hurry jump on board if you don't you may not be black.
are you sure they are having sex or maybe the babies are falling into water and then multiplying
i love when a women knows of a man with 3 or 4 other children with different women who does not pay support and goes
That is that bitches problem and that stupid bitch dont deserve any of my mans money.
but then she gets knocked up and doesnt get any support and starts to bitch that she isnt getting any cash
i love when a women knows of a man with 3 or 4 other children with different women who does not pay support and goes
That is that bitches problem and that stupid bitch dont deserve any of my mans money.
but then she gets knocked up and doesnt get any support and starts to bitch that she isnt getting any cash
[quote name='slidecage']are you sure they are having sex or maybe the babies are falling into water and then multiplying
i love when a women knows of a man with 3 or 4 other children with different women who does not pay support and goes
That is that bitches problem and that stupid bitch dont deserve any of my mans money.
but then she gets knocked up and doesnt get any support and starts to bitch that she isnt getting any cash[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately I'm aware of several examples of exactly what you're talking about. Sad indeed.
The main problem of the unwillingness to pay welfare for kids that are born into poverty, be it a divided house or a standard family, comes from a more elitist, self-centric, view prevalent in our society. I'll never forget a girl that went to my high school that was so unsympathetic, so ruthless in distributing any regard for human plight, it scared me. Every sob story, no matter how tragic in circumstance, through no fault of the afflicted persons' fault, was either dismissed as poor judgment or stupidity, or just 'tough luck'. Wrenching even a penny from these people is asking for all out war, an immediate rape-whistle of infringement of their rights, since they made all the rights choices, and, subtlely, (sometimes not so for special assholes) view themselves the positive product being burdened by taxing for others' poor fortunes. The people that genuinely need help are immediately replaced by the images of this doucher who abuse the system, since EVERY needy
er out there is clearly just trying to mooch and bring everyone down. This isn't confined just to the right or the Tea Party, I think we as a society have scoffed more and more at ideas of a community at least trying to maintain its lower classes. Oh, those silly Canadians with their universal health care, yuck yuck yuck! Repeal Obama Care! Remember how we used to worry about communism! LOL, what a joke, a society like that could never work! The enduring effects of capitalism....
i love when a women knows of a man with 3 or 4 other children with different women who does not pay support and goes
That is that bitches problem and that stupid bitch dont deserve any of my mans money.
but then she gets knocked up and doesnt get any support and starts to bitch that she isnt getting any cash[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately I'm aware of several examples of exactly what you're talking about. Sad indeed.
The main problem of the unwillingness to pay welfare for kids that are born into poverty, be it a divided house or a standard family, comes from a more elitist, self-centric, view prevalent in our society. I'll never forget a girl that went to my high school that was so unsympathetic, so ruthless in distributing any regard for human plight, it scared me. Every sob story, no matter how tragic in circumstance, through no fault of the afflicted persons' fault, was either dismissed as poor judgment or stupidity, or just 'tough luck'. Wrenching even a penny from these people is asking for all out war, an immediate rape-whistle of infringement of their rights, since they made all the rights choices, and, subtlely, (sometimes not so for special assholes) view themselves the positive product being burdened by taxing for others' poor fortunes. The people that genuinely need help are immediately replaced by the images of this doucher who abuse the system, since EVERY needy
er out there is clearly just trying to mooch and bring everyone down. This isn't confined just to the right or the Tea Party, I think we as a society have scoffed more and more at ideas of a community at least trying to maintain its lower classes. Oh, those silly Canadians with their universal health care, yuck yuck yuck! Repeal Obama Care! Remember how we used to worry about communism! LOL, what a joke, a society like that could never work! The enduring effects of capitalism....
ced
CAGiversary!
Can't help but envision the hick family tree from the opening of Idiocracy hearing about this guy.
Honestly I'm surprised they couldn't pin anything against him other than taking child support out of his meager paychecks. Seriously the man can "only" provide $1.50 a month to a mother of his kid and that isn't some sort of negligence? Not much sympathy for any of the women either. Seeing as he's not in jail, all these babies were almost guaranteed to be the result of consensual sex, so either they're confident in raising the children without his financial support or they are equally as socially irresponsible as he is.
Honestly I'm surprised they couldn't pin anything against him other than taking child support out of his meager paychecks. Seriously the man can "only" provide $1.50 a month to a mother of his kid and that isn't some sort of negligence? Not much sympathy for any of the women either. Seeing as he's not in jail, all these babies were almost guaranteed to be the result of consensual sex, so either they're confident in raising the children without his financial support or they are equally as socially irresponsible as he is.
bread's done