Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh that's right. They isn't a "silver bullet" for the werewolf problem. I take it you meant "magic bullet."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus
Put them in a state home like I said.
So that's the magic bullet solution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus
Putting them in a state home is better than letting them starve with an indigent mother.
You don't get it. In the case of a child starving, the child would most likely be taken away anyway. But it isn't going to get to that. Do you really think that anyone is just going to pull the plug on welfare completely? That's why there needs to be reform.
Putting a bunch of kids who feel like they were stolen from their parents into state homes isn't going to solve the problem. If anything, it would just make new problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus
In your proposed solution.
Saying that we need to reform welfare is misandry? Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus
Ironically I said nothing misogynist; telling women to keep their legs closed isn't misogynist.
Yes, it is because you didn't say anything about men keeping it in their pants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus
Your proposal was misandrist. You want to (a) force men to pay child support, and (b) have the government pay for women to have children. Now you're trying to pretend there's nothing wrong with that?
Where the heck did I say this? If anything my post said that men AND women have to be responsible for the children they make rather than relying on our current welfare system.
If you read the article about those fathers, between stints in jail they probably don't have high paying jobs.
And to think a judge ordered one father to pay over $300/month for 1 kid..what about the other 20 ?
And then when they did garnish his check and doled out the money for the kids, the mother received $1.49.
ROFL...$1.49 a month is not going to cut it. These women would still be on social welfare even if the fathers paid.
$1.49/month in child support. Why the homeless in CA will get $75 from the local government per week to feed their dog.
Oh that's right. They isn't a "silver bullet" for the werewolf problem. I take it you meant "magic bullet."
No , i meant silver bullet.
sil·ver bul·let
Noun:
A bullet made of silver, used in fiction as a supposedly magical method of killing werewolves. A simple and seemingly magical solution to a complicated problem.
etymology:
silver bullet
"very effective, almost magical remedy," 1808. The belief in the magical power of silver weapons to conquer foes goes back at least to ancient Greece (e.g. Delphic Oracle's advice to Philip of Macedon).
Quote:
So that's the magic bullet solution?
no, it's the silver bullet solution.
Quote:
You don't get it. In the case of a child starving, the child would most likely be taken away anyway. But it isn't going to get to that. Do you really think that anyone is just going to pull the plug on welfare completely? That's why there needs to be reform.
No, you don't get it. I said that we should eliminate these government payments to mothers; so obviously I'm speaking of the hypothetical situation where no welfare is available. Hence, the starving.
Quote:
Putting a bunch of kids who feel like they were stolen from their parents into state homes isn't going to solve the problem. If anything, it would just make new problems.
It will do both - it will solve old problems and create new problems.
Quote:
Saying that we need to reform welfare is misandry? Really?
No, trying to put the burden of this on men and not women is misandry.
And no, you don't have to repeat it: I know you said both genders should be held responsible, but the fact is that your proposal doesn't meet those standards. You give lip service to the idea but you have stated no proposal where both genders are held equally accountable.
Quote:
Yes, it is because you didn't say anything about men keeping it in their pants.
That has no bearing on whether the statement about women keeping their legs closed is misogynist or not.
Just because something may have upset you doesn't make it misogynist.
Quote:
Where the heck did I say this? If anything my post said that men AND women have to be responsible for the children they make rather than relying on our current welfare system.
I addressed this twice already, I'm tired of repeating myself.
Last edited by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus; 06-15-2012 at 02:40 PM..
Castration should have been done at least 60 kids ago.
The thing about deadbeat dads is that they can never beat the DNA findings. My niece was a prosecutor of that kind of dads in Cleveland several years ago and she always said I have prosecuted 2000 of them and never lost a case at which point her boy friend always said, "Thanks to DNA".
There's a culture crisis in the black community. That's all that needs to be said.
"Culture crisis in the black community"? How quickly you go there, eh? Note to AeroGuyDC - there are lots of polygamist families - all white, red-cheeked, blonde & blue-eyed, for the most part. One father, many, many wives and lots and lots and lots and lots of children.
Here's a newsflash for ya dude, they're on WELFARE. They exist with government assistance - and they're danged proud of fleecing taxpayers.
Castration should have been done at least 60 kids ago.
The thing about deadbeat dads is that they can never beat the DNA findings. My niece was a prosecutor of that kind of dads in Cleveland several years ago and she always said I have prosecuted 2000 of them and never lost a case at which point her boy friend always said, "Thanks to DNA".
When it comes to dead beat dads I sit on the fence and its a case by case.
I think the system creates a lot of dead beat dads. When they say they won't take more than 50% of your income but do. How is the dad to live? He can get another job right? Then the ex takes him back to court and they increase the support.
The system torqs and twists the rules at will.
In my case PA law says go by the last years tax returns unless its after 1 july.
In my case they refused to use the current earnings and used the prvious years. Big difference in income because over time was ended due to change in the business.
I was paying 1409.00 a month leaving me 989.00.
In this case however I see 3 scumbags that should be castrated using a bread knife.
There are few simple solutions on things like this.
I am assuming that everyone believes that the children themselves shouldn't be blamed for this. A child cannot help the fact that he or she is born of a crappy mom or dad.
So we have to find away to provide the child because we don't want them to starve and die.
There are two options either provide for the child to live with their parent(s) or facilitate the child living in a shelter or foster home. Incidentally we tried the orphanage thing in the past and it didn't work out so well.
As for the dead beat dad issue I was in an area that prosecuted these guys. Honestly, it probably costs the state more money to keep these losers locked up. So that state ends up paying not only for this guy's children but pays for the guy's shelter and food.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
