PDA

View Full Version : Economics Casey Anthony -- Single Mom of the Year!


The Mad Crapper
07-06-2011, 06:16 PM
Ann's latest masterpiece! :thumb:

How many months of man-hours did Florida police spend searching for little Caylee Anthony back in 2008, while her mother, Casey Anthony, knew exactly where the child's body was?

If you were the victim of a crime in Orlando, Fla., between July and December 2008, you should be enraged that the police couldn't prevent or investigate your crime because they were too busy looking for a missing child whose mother already knew the kid was dead.

It's a zero-sum game with police resources. Cops combing through the woods searching for a missing child are not going to be patrolling your street or arresting suspects.

From repeat domestic violence calls to Los Angeles car chases, hit-and-run drivers and the balloon-boy hoax, worthless louts consume vastly more law enforcement resources than the rest of us. Cops in any town will tell you all the domestic violence calls come from the exact same homes, over and over again.

As long as we're looking for new revenue streams, how about billing these white trash low-lifes for their massive consumption of police resources? The dregs of society need to be assessed a fee for their abuse of government services and thrown in debtors prison in the unlikely event that they can't pay.

As I described in my last book, "Guilty," the leading cause of all social pathologies is single motherhood. One way or another, Casey Anthony's refusal to give up Caylee for adoption was going to cost society -- and cost Caylee.

The statistics are so jaw-dropping that not giving up an illegitimate child for adoption ought to be considered child abuse.

Various studies have shown that children raised by a single mother comprise about 70 percent of juvenile murderers, delinquents, teenaged mothers, drug abusers, dropouts, suicides and runaways. Imagine an America with 70 percent fewer of these social disorders and you will see what liberals' destruction of marriage has wrought.

A 1990 study by the (liberal) Progressive Policy Institute showed that, after controlling for single motherhood, the difference in black and white crime rates disappeared.

Meanwhile, adopted kids, on average, turn out better than even biological kids raised in two-parent families.

Of course, there aren't a lot of studies of adopted children because they aren't constantly mugging us. They're too busy running Oracle (Larry Ellison), the District of Columbia (Anthony Williams), or fantastic political websites, like "Big Government" (Andrew Breitbart).

One four-year study by the Search Institute in Minnesota found that adopted teenagers had greater empathy, higher self-esteem and more close friends than non-adopted teenagers in public schools, and were also less likely to engage in high-risk behavior, such as stealing and excessive drinking. In all, they scored higher than the control group on 16 indicators of well-being.

They were as strongly attached to their parents as their non-adopted siblings. Indeed, contrary to Hollywood movies portraying adopted kids mystically driven to find their biological parents, the majority of adopted teenagers rarely thought about the fact that they were adopted. (Apple's Steve Jobs has shown little interest in his biological father and corrects people who refer to his "adoptive parents," saying, "They were my parents.")

We could wipe out chronic poverty in America tomorrow -- and the new iPad would be even more awesome, if such a thing were possible! -- if only women would get married before having children or give up their illegitimate kids for adoption.

And yet, between 1979 and 2003, we went from about 600,000 babies being born out of wedlock, with about a quarter of them put up for adoption, to 1.5 million illegitimate births with fewer than 1 percent of them (14,000) given up for adoption. That's why Angelina Jolie and Madonna are constantly having to break up tribal wars to adopt Third World children.

A 2008 study led by Georgia State University economist Benjamin Scafidi conservatively estimated that single mothers cost the U.S. taxpayer $112 billion every year -- in addition to asking the rest of us to keep an eye on their kids while they go clubbing.

We could have had two Iraq wars -- Obama could have "saved or created" half a million stimulus jobs -- at that price.

But in fact, Scafidi underestimated single mothers' burden to society by excluding additional costs of single mothers to poverty programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit.

That makes his estimates very low: Single mothers are six times more likely to be in poverty than married families. More than 80 percent of homeless families are single mothers.

Scafidi's study also did not consider the burden single mothers place on law enforcement because of their higher likelihood to neglect or kill their children.

Eighty-five percent of mothers who kill their children through neglect are single mothers.

The plague of single motherhood isn't an inevitable decay brought on by stupid choices of the underclass. Destroying the family is the active social policy of liberals. They enjoy experimenting with other people's lives and leaving the taxpayer with the bill.

The mainstream media and Hollywood studios are constantly issuing propaganda about the joys and triumphs of single mothers.

Thus, for example, the noted scientific periodical Us Weekly celebrated single motherhood with an article titled "The New Single Moms and How They Do It," which delusionally proclaimed that the "sisters are doing it for themselves."

No, they're not. They're "doing it" at an enormous and unasked-for cost to every man, woman and child in America. They're doing it at incalculable cost to the children themselves, such as helpless, innocent Caylee.

A 2007 New York Times op-ed column about three gold-diggers fighting for custody of Anna Nicole Smith's illegitimate daughter said: "Surely this change is a welcome corrective to the injustice of traditional marriage laws and family values that stigmatized 'bastards' for life."

Except one can't help noticing how many more illegitimate children there are -- and the accompanying child abuse, neglect, suicide, runaways and murders -- now that the stigma is gone.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44680

Brock
07-06-2011, 06:49 PM
agreed, more abortions plz

BucEyedPea
07-06-2011, 08:13 PM
Except one can't help noticing how many more illegitimate children there are -- and the accompanying child abuse, neglect, suicide, runaways and murders -- now that the stigma is gone.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44680

The reason the left attacks traditional marriage and attacks all kinds of alternative set-ups is because it leads to social breakdown. The family is the smallest governing unit in society. When that breaks down you can have more people dependent on the state, which keeps the statists in power and needed by society. This is cultural Marxism at it's finest.

dirk digler
07-06-2011, 08:18 PM
agreed, more abortions plz

LMAO

CoMoChief
07-06-2011, 08:32 PM
The reason the left attacks traditional marriage and attacks all kinds of alternative set-ups and because it leads to social breakdown. The family is the smallest governing unit in society. When that breaks down you can have more people dependent on the state, which keeps the statists in power and needed by society. This is cultural Marxism at it's finest.

Yup....this is pretty much the backbone of why American society has gone to shit in the last 60 yrs or so.

Think about it.

How many families back in the 50's etc sat at home and ate dinner together as a family? Compared to what it is now? Not saying this is a direct reason, but the idea is that families used to work as a unit more often back then. There is less communication now, even though we have the technology to improve communication ability. Instead of sitting down for dinner, it's more of mom/dad bringing home the brown bag diet on the way home because both parents are too busy/tired with work at the end of the day.

How many families generally had 1 person (generally the father) bringing in the income, while the mother stayed at home to raise the kids til they were older? Compared to what it is now?

What was the divorce rate back then compared to what it is now?

The traditional American family has gone to shit. Moral values are no more, there are more and more degenerate ****-tards out there. Not to mention Americans can't build/fix anything anymore. Look at this generation compared to the baby boomers. You know how many people I know (males) that can't even do their own oil changes, nope - they take it to walmart or jiffylube because they don't have time to do it, or don't care. This leads to them not knowing how to do manual labor/hard work, which builds character, and a good work ethic
*which i'm just using an oil change as an example - but this example could be used with a lot of things*

Americans don't have any skills anymore. The drive isn't there. The motivation is gone, other (even 3rd world) countries have better work ethics and educations.

There are a lot of reasons why America isn't the America it was 60 yrs ago. Govt has gotten too big for it's own good, and people have been getting more and more dependent on it.


And I'm only 27 and I can see this.

Predarat
07-06-2011, 08:44 PM
Yup....this is pretty much the backbone of why American society has gone to shit in the last 60 yrs or so.

Think about it.

How many families back in the 50's etc sat at home and ate dinner together as a family? Compared to what it is now? Not saying this is a direct reason, but the idea is that families used to work as a unit more often back then. There is less communication now, even though we have the technology to improve communication ability. Instead of sitting down for dinner, it's more of mom/dad bringing home the brown bag diet on the way home because both parents are too busy/tired with work at the end of the day.

How many families generally had 1 person (generally the father) bringing in the income, while the mother stayed at home to raise the kids til they were older? Compared to what it is now?

What was the divorce rate back then compared to what it is now?

The traditional American family has gone to shit. Moral values are no more, there are more and more degenerate ****-tards out there. Not to mention Americans can't build/fix anything anymore. Look at this generation compared to the baby boomers. You know how many people I know (males) that can't even do their own oil changes, nope - they take it to walmart or jiffylube because they don't have time to do it, or don't care. This leads to them not knowing how to do manual labor/hard work, which builds character, and a good work ethic
*which i'm just using an oil change as an example - but this example could be used with a lot of things*

Americans don't have any skills anymore. The drive isn't there. The motivation is gone, other (even 3rd world) countries have better work ethics and educations.

There are a lot of reasons why America isn't the America it was 60 yrs ago. Govt has gotten too big for it's own good, and people have been getting more and more dependent on it.


And I'm only 27 and I can see this.

While I was reading this, they announced what is coming up on the news. "Fast food with food stamps". That was damn ironic.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-06-2011, 10:28 PM
agreed, more abortions plz

Yes or we could just Nuke the entire planet, we wouldn't have to worry about a thing. :drool:

Brock
07-06-2011, 10:32 PM
Yes or we could just Nuke the entire planet, we wouldn't have to worry about a thing. :drool:

No, just get the breeding poor to quit doing that and we'd be fine.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-06-2011, 10:34 PM
No, just get the breeding poor to quit doing that and we'd be fine.

How do you propose to do this? Mandatory sterilization of those making less than 20k/yr?

Brock
07-06-2011, 10:45 PM
How do you propose to do this? Mandatory sterilization of those making less than 20k/yr?

You can't make it mandatory, but you could make it an attractive option for people needing money.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 05:09 AM
You can't make it mandatory, but you could make it an attractive option for people needing money.

They have the babies because they need the money. If you want to make it unattractive cut off welfare.

mlyonsd
07-07-2011, 08:20 AM
I saw a clip of ABC's Terry Moran interviewing juror #3. Wow. That juror was awesome. She proved jury trials can work for cases in death sentences.

She basically said that acquitted doesn't necessarily means not guilty and that they could not convict Casey because the prosecutor couldn't prove who killed the girl. And, that if it wasn't a death penalty case the verdict might have been different.

durtyrute
07-07-2011, 08:24 AM
What else was going on in the world while everyone was glued to this case.

oldandslow
07-07-2011, 08:31 AM
This is truly a weird day. I totally agree with a column that Ann Coulter wrote. I mean totally. I never thought that would happen.

ROYC75
07-07-2011, 08:32 AM
Yup....this is pretty much the backbone of why American society has gone to shit in the last 60 yrs or so.

Think about it.

How many families back in the 50's etc sat at home and ate dinner together as a family? Compared to what it is now? Not saying this is a direct reason, but the idea is that families used to work as a unit more often back then. There is less communication now, even though we have the technology to improve communication ability. Instead of sitting down for dinner, it's more of mom/dad bringing home the brown bag diet on the way home because both parents are too busy/tired with work at the end of the day.

How many families generally had 1 person (generally the father) bringing in the income, while the mother stayed at home to raise the kids til they were older? Compared to what it is now?

What was the divorce rate back then compared to what it is now?

The traditional American family has gone to shit. Moral values are no more, there are more and more degenerate ****-tards out there. Not to mention Americans can't build/fix anything anymore. Look at this generation compared to the baby boomers. You know how many people I know (males) that can't even do their own oil changes, nope - they take it to walmart or jiffylube because they don't have time to do it, or don't care. This leads to them not knowing how to do manual labor/hard work, which builds character, and a good work ethic
*which i'm just using an oil change as an example - but this example could be used with a lot of things*

Americans don't have any skills anymore. The drive isn't there. The motivation is gone, other (even 3rd world) countries have better work ethics and educations.

There are a lot of reasons why America isn't the America it was 60 yrs ago. Govt has gotten too big for it's own good, and people have been getting more and more dependent on it.


And I'm only 27 and I can see this.

Bravo for understanding common sense. ( Now the Liberals will be a long here any moment to dispute this, Morals, who needs them, leave us alone. )

Saulbadguy
07-07-2011, 08:37 AM
Yup....this is pretty much the backbone of why American society has gone to shit in the last 60 yrs or so.

Think about it.

How many families back in the 50's etc sat at home and ate dinner together as a family? Compared to what it is now? Not saying this is a direct reason, but the idea is that families used to work as a unit more often back then. There is less communication now, even though we have the technology to improve communication ability. Instead of sitting down for dinner, it's more of mom/dad bringing home the brown bag diet on the way home because both parents are too busy/tired with work at the end of the day.

How many families generally had 1 person (generally the father) bringing in the income, while the mother stayed at home to raise the kids til they were older? Compared to what it is now?

What was the divorce rate back then compared to what it is now?

The traditional American family has gone to shit. Moral values are no more, there are more and more degenerate ****-tards out there. Not to mention Americans can't build/fix anything anymore. Look at this generation compared to the baby boomers. You know how many people I know (males) that can't even do their own oil changes, nope - they take it to walmart or jiffylube because they don't have time to do it, or don't care. This leads to them not knowing how to do manual labor/hard work, which builds character, and a good work ethic
*which i'm just using an oil change as an example - but this example could be used with a lot of things*

Americans don't have any skills anymore. The drive isn't there. The motivation is gone, other (even 3rd world) countries have better work ethics and educations.

There are a lot of reasons why America isn't the America it was 60 yrs ago. Govt has gotten too big for it's own good, and people have been getting more and more dependent on it.


And I'm only 27 and I can see this.

Dumbass.

Saul Good
07-07-2011, 08:50 AM
Part of the reason that society has declined compared to generations past is that we tend to give the previous generations much more credit than they are due.

That said, single motherhood is easily the largest blight on society today.

ROYC75
07-07-2011, 09:08 AM
Dumbass.

A Liberal ?

Brock
07-07-2011, 09:09 AM
A Liberal ?

Somone who's not blinded by foggy-eyed nostalgia?

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 09:19 AM
What else was going on in the world while everyone was glued to this case.

Be careful there were already some *gasp* conservatives saying we should lower the standard in such cases in order to get more convictions and use professional jurors. Let's empower the state with more govt workers or agents instead of having one of the last bastions against the state remain in existence. We should lose this because of the aberrational cases, or thought to be abberrationa,l because of media personalities such as Nancy Disgrace coloring the opinion of people who are not actually bearing the weight of the same decision. She was wrong on the Lacrosse case too as well as disseminated some false information.

As much as I think Casey was the most likely person to have, at least been responsible for Caylee's death even if an accident, the jurors were the ones who bore the weight such a decision carried and they maintained their integrity which, imo, was courageous of them in such a high profile emotionally driven case spearheaded by the likes of new class of media attorney's and judges.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 09:20 AM
Somone who's not blinded by foggy-eyed nostalgia?

Yeah, strong families is just foggy-eyed nostalgia not the bulwark of support that it once was.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 09:23 AM
I saw a clip of ABC's Terry Moran interviewing juror #3. Wow. That juror was awesome. She proved jury trials can work for cases in death sentences.

She basically said that acquitted doesn't necessarily means not guilty and that they could not convict Casey because the prosecutor couldn't prove who killed the girl. And, that if it wasn't a death penalty case the verdict might have been different.

Also, I have heard little on how the state failed to prove their case. ( not that they had what they needed to do it because I don't think they did). They had enough motive, imo, but they did not have enough to prove the rest.

Overreaching prosecutors are a blight on our system.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 09:25 AM
Part of the reason that society has declined compared to generations past is that we tend to give the previous generations much more credit than they are due.

That said, single motherhood is easily the largest blight on society today.

Let's include the men that create single mothers too. The no responsibility for their own issue, the cheaters, betrayers, liars and abusers. For every single mother there is a father somewhere. Takes two to make a child—bub!

Brock
07-07-2011, 09:28 AM
Yeah, strong families is just foggy-eyed nostalgia not the bulwark of support that it once was.

There are plenty of strong familes in this country today. The same amount there were before, probably. I live in the midst of a bunch of them. All this stupidity about "our morals, oh noez", is just people looking for a boogeyman to blame when it's the same problems we had before, just more of them.

ROYC75
07-07-2011, 09:28 AM
Somone who's not blinded by foggy-eyed nostalgia?

Yep, this new world order has a great impact on society. It's only going to get worst until the people wake up, it may be too late by then. Just keep on kicking that can down the road with a blind eye and a deaf ear.:thumb:

Jaric
07-07-2011, 09:29 AM
Let's include at the men that create single mothers too. The no responsibility for their own issue, the cheaters, betrayers, liars and abusers. For every single mother there is a father somewhere. Takes two to make a childóbub!

This. Men are just as at fault as the mothers are.

ROYC75
07-07-2011, 09:38 AM
Let's include the men that create single mothers too. The no responsibility for their own issue, the cheaters, betrayers, liars and abusers. For every single mother there is a father somewhere. Takes two to make a childóbub!

Been on board that train for many years.:thumb:

ROYC75
07-07-2011, 09:42 AM
There are plenty of strong familes in this country today. The same amount there were before, probably. I live in the midst of a bunch of them. All this stupidity about "our morals, oh noez", is just people looking for a boogeyman to blame when it's the same problems we had before, just more of them.


The bolder part is what you are missing, you say it but refuse to understand why it's happening, more. Sure there are more people, but doing the same thing, not educating them, letting them live any way they wish without consequences is a problem.

Brock
07-07-2011, 09:52 AM
The bolder part is what you are missing, you say it but refuse to understand why it's happening, more. Sure there are more people, but doing the same thing, not educating them, letting them live any way they wish without consequences is a problem.

We have the same problems we've always had, and more of them, because WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE, Roy. It's a pretty simple equation.

patteeu
07-07-2011, 09:57 AM
Nope, it's primarily the women. The percentage of out-of-wedlock births due to rape is pretty small. Girls need to be their own last line of defense and learn to say no. For their own sake as well as that of the prospective child and society as a whole.

ROYC75
07-07-2011, 10:00 AM
We have the same problems we've always had, and more of them, because WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE, Roy. It's a pretty simple equation.

WOW, I just said we have more people and you just confirmed it, again. But yet you do not know how to fix it.:doh!:

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 10:00 AM
There are plenty of strong familes in this country today. The same amount there were before, probably.
Nope! In fact the nuclear family is a downgrade from the former extended family—a bigger community of support.

I live in the midst of a bunch of them. All this stupidity about "our morals, oh noez", is just people looking for a boogeyman to blame when it's the same problems we had before, just more of them.

I thought anecdotal observations were invalid on this board. Anyhow, I don't care what you live amongst. I have enough of them near me too. However, the statistics on single-motherhood and being the nation with the highest divorce rates do not show this is the case anymore. We may have more families and that is part of it but there's more than that going on. It's easier to break up with No Fault Divorce or get aid from the state. We're also the drug capital of the world and the porn capital. I think porn is related to the Casey Anthony case but that stuff was kept under seal.

BTW did any of these families buy cars with cash for clunkers? Any collecting unemployment?

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 10:03 AM
Nope, it's primarily the women. The percentage of out-of-wedlock births due to rape is pretty small. Girls need to be their own last line of defense and learn to say no. For their own sake as well as that of the prospective child and society as a whole.

Both men and women are responsible. The women has more to lose so she needs to be firmer true. But it does not absolve the men. Good grief patteeu for someone as liberal as you on social issues you sound Medieval here.

I know why though. 'Cause you're an ITALIAN male!

VAChief
07-07-2011, 10:06 AM
Nope, it's primarily the women. The percentage of out-of-wedlock births due to rape is pretty small. Girls need to be their own last line of defense and learn to say no. For their own sake as well as that of the prospective child and society as a whole.

Girls are certainly culpable for their actions, but the boys get off way too easy. The deed that creates the responsibility requires consent from both. They should be held equally accountable.

Thig Lyfe
07-07-2011, 10:10 AM
Wait, Andrew Breitbart is a positive example of a grown-up adopted child? Now that I know he was adopted, I kinda want to shut down every orphanage and foster home in the country just to make sure that shit doesn't happen again.

HonestChieffan
07-07-2011, 10:25 AM
How do you propose to do this? Mandatory sterilization of those making less than 20k/yr?



stop rewarding breeding with child credits on taxes?

Saulbadguy
07-07-2011, 10:26 AM
But yet you do not know how to fix it.:doh!:

More abortions.

Brock
07-07-2011, 10:27 AM
WOW, I just said we have more people and you just confirmed it, again. But yet you do not know how to fix it.:doh!:

Sure I do. Stop rewarding people for having children.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 10:40 AM
More abortions.

Killing fields. Just like Mao.

ROYC75
07-07-2011, 11:18 AM
More abortions.

That was lame.

ROYC75
07-07-2011, 11:19 AM
Sure I do. Stop rewarding people for having children.

That's a start, but it goes much deeper than that.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-07-2011, 11:28 AM
That was lame.

The answer is more Jesus, and it starts with every single soul here taking responsibility for their own actions. This concept is foreign in our government and influences the people in this country who adopt the mantra if it feels good do it.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-07-2011, 11:34 AM
This is truly a weird day. I totally agree with a column that Ann Coulter wrote. I mean totally. I never thought that would happen.

She also stated that Radiation is good for you, certainly it can be said a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

vailpass
07-07-2011, 11:38 AM
They have the babies because they need the money. If you want to make it unattractive cut off welfare.

That would certainly solve a big part of it. Probably not all, but a good percentage.

vailpass
07-07-2011, 11:39 AM
Dumbass.

You disagree that a strong family structure is important?

vailpass
07-07-2011, 11:40 AM
Let's include the men that create single mothers too. The no responsibility for their own issue, the cheaters, betrayers, liars and abusers. For every single mother there is a father somewhere. Takes two to make a childóbub!

Absolutely.

Brock
07-07-2011, 11:41 AM
That's a start, but it goes much deeper than that.

No, not really.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 12:21 PM
As I described in my last book, "Guilty," the leading cause of all social pathologies is single motherhood. One way or another, Casey Anthony's refusal to give up Caylee for adoption was going to cost society -- and cost Caylee.

Except Ann is wrong about this as a fact. Casey did want to give Caylee up for adoption when she was pregnant. It was Cindy Anthony, her mother, who would not hear of it.

The statistics are so jaw-dropping that not giving up an illegitimate child for adoption ought to be considered child abuse.

I find this draconian. This would be making law for social engineering, despite what her stats show later. I couldn't get behind this. There are better ways.

There are single mothers, who even get help from their families, that do not commit abuse. We have two of them in my extended family. One in my family, whose husband abandoned her and one by a friend. All grew up unabused and fine.


Meanwhile, adopted kids, on average, turn out better than even biological kids raised in two-parent families.

I'd like to see who conducted studies on this. Besides, that what is "better" carries subjectivity.

I say kids today are latch-key, because no one is home enough because chasing the buck and materialism are more important. This sounds much like a single parent situation—no one home enough because they have to work. Perhaps, more single mothers cheat, prostitute themselves, or resort to some crime to make ends meet. I wonder if the adopted children she cites, are raised in families where children are more valued and important because the parent wants a child bad enough that they will use adoption after failing to have their own or just because they value and enjoy children more?

I am a single mother for nearly half my daughter's upbringing. Teacher's and adults adore her. She is popular in the community and looked up to by other teens. I notice Ann has no children of her own too.

ROYC75
07-07-2011, 12:28 PM
No, not really.

IMHO, This is part of the problem, turning a blind eye and a deaf ear is the same as kicking the can down the road for somebody else to handle it later.

Brock
07-07-2011, 12:35 PM
IMHO, This is part of the problem, turning a blind eye and a deaf ear is the same as kicking the can down the road for somebody else to handle it later.

Well, we're never going to go back to a time when mom stayed home with the kids and dad went to work every day. So what do you suggest?

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 12:36 PM
IMHO, This is part of the problem, turning a blind eye and a deaf ear is the same as kicking the can down the road for somebody else to handle it later.

I agree, it comes down to values. One is due to becoming too materialistic without a balance of other values.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 12:37 PM
Well, we're never going to go back to a time when mom stayed home with the kids and dad went to work every day. So what do you suggest?

That's what I did when I was married. That was in the 90's and part of the 200o's. All it takes is a decision to commit to having less and putting children first who need their own parents around that don't fight instead of institutional childrearing and unethical behavior by parents.

Look, things come and go. Once our economy collapses and people aren't as wealthy you'll probably see families band together to survive. They're going to have to. Already, the divorce rate dropped during the economic crisis. Divorce is expensive and keeping two abodes is too.

Brock
07-07-2011, 12:38 PM
That's what I did when I was married.

You're a tiny, tiny minority.

patteeu
07-07-2011, 12:41 PM
I am a single mother for nearly half my daughter's upbringing. Teacher's and adults adore her. She is popular in the community and looked up to by other teens. I notice Ann has no children of her own too.

Most single mothers think they're doing a bang up job. Just think how much better off your daughter would have been if you hadn't run her dad off. :Poke: j/k

vailpass
07-07-2011, 12:45 PM
Well, we're never going to go back to a time when mom stayed home with the kids and dad went to work every day. So what do you suggest?

That is exactly what we do in my family, and in 90% of the people we know. It is also true of the families in our children's school.
Want to erroneously generalize on anything else?

mikey23545
07-07-2011, 12:47 PM
Let's include the men that create single mothers too. The no responsibility for their own issue, the cheaters, betrayers, liars and abusers. For every single mother there is a father somewhere. Takes two to make a childóbub!

Women need to quit being retarded. You're a good example.

If you know that <i>you're</i> the one who will end up pregnant, and the retard laying down with you could just vanish from your life the very next day, then it doesn't matter how many it takes to make a baby - only one of you is going to end up pregnant.

Protect yourself if you're the one that stands to lose everything in the deal. Counting on someone else to be responsible is a fool's game.

patteeu
07-07-2011, 12:49 PM
Girls are certainly culpable for their actions, but the boys get off way too easy. The deed that creates the responsibility requires consent from both. They should be held equally accountable.

This kind of dilution of blame encourages single motherhood. It's an easy excuse for the girl to blame that deadbeat guy who pretended to love her and then knocked her up and hit the road. The girl has to take primary responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancy and the fact is that she has nearly total responsibility for making the decision to keep the child rather than put it up for adoption which is more often than not the better choice for the kid, IMO. The guys aren't blameless of course, but the girl has to know that she's the last line of defense... the final decider.

mikey23545
07-07-2011, 12:50 PM
I notice Ann has no children of her own too.

Don't hate her for having common sense.

Brock
07-07-2011, 12:53 PM
That is exactly what we do in my family, and in 90% of the people we know. It is also true of the families in our children's school.
Want to erroneously generalize on anything else?

Well, congratulations for being part of the 25 percent of families who do it that way. Most people don't, and never will. So it's really not a generalization, you see, it's a citation of facts.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 12:55 PM
Men need to quit being assholes. I'm a good example.

If you know that <i>you're</i> the one who will end up pregnant, and the retard laying down with you could just vanish from your life the very next day, then it doesn't matter how many it takes to make a baby - only one of you is going to end up pregnant.

Protect yourself if you're the one that stands to lose everything in the deal. Counting on someone else to be responsible is a fool's game.
FYP

If you notice I did say, they had more to lose so they had to be firmer. But it still takes two to make that baby and that man is still the father.
And I do protect myself since I didn't have a child out of wedlock but ya' know not all birth control is 100% foolproof.

Donger
07-07-2011, 12:55 PM
That is exactly what we do in my family, and in 90% of the people we know. It is also true of the families in our children's school.
Want to erroneously generalize on anything else?

Same here.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 12:58 PM
Don't hate her for having common sense.
Where did I say I hated her? Don't forget you're the hater.

Someone who has no children, is no expert on children was my point. And she was inaccurate of Casey not wanting to give the child up for adoption. Cindy wound up losing the child anyway.

ROYC75
07-07-2011, 12:59 PM
Well, we're never going to go back to a time when mom stayed home with the kids and dad went to work every day. So what do you suggest?


No, we do not have to have stay at home Moms of old, but, we can do other things. It's Simple really, it all starts with you, me , anybody, and most of all, everybody. If everybody got on board and done things the same way in our lives, there would be more peace in the USA. There will be some things that need to be worked on, the sick and the mentally challenged, etc.

But Full Scale Accountability of your daily lives, how you act, what you are teaching your kids. Changing the way we live our lives will all help in the long run.

Education In Our Children, sure we are a free people but that doesn't mean we can live anyway we wish and let others bare the consequences of your failure. Teaching them how to live their lives within their means.

Moral support for fellow man, woman, child instead of hate filled mantra. Get back to treating people like we want ourselves to be treated.

Charity, believe it or not, he who helps a fellow man in need will get blessings in return.

God, Yes, many will flip out, but that's OK. Turning this country back into a Godly country will help. I'm not saying people have to be extreme, go wacko about it but anchoring yourself into God is the first and most important step! When that happens, everything else will fall in line.

Donger
07-07-2011, 01:00 PM
That's what I did when I was married. That was in the 90's and part of the 200o's. All it takes is a decision to commit to having less and putting children first who need their own parents around that don't fight instead of institutional childrearing and unethical behavior by parents.

Look, things come and go. Once our economy collapses and people aren't as wealthy you'll probably see families band together to survive. They're going to have to. Already, the divorce rate dropped during the economic crisis. Divorce is expensive and keeping two abodes is too.

Your husband left you? Why?

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 01:01 PM
Your husband left you? Why?

Do you conjecture much? How do you know if I didn't leave him or it was mutual? Where have you been. I stated bits here and there. Go find it.v LMAO

ROYC75
07-07-2011, 01:02 PM
Women need to quit being retarded. You're a good example.

If you know that <i>you're</i> the one who will end up pregnant, and the retard laying down with you could just vanish from your life the very next day, then it doesn't matter how many it takes to make a baby - only one of you is going to end up pregnant.

Protect yourself if you're the one that stands to lose everything in the deal. Counting on someone else to be responsible is a fool's game.

You are being foolish, is responsibility a one way street? I'll give you a hint, it's not, it's mutually shared.

Donger
07-07-2011, 01:02 PM
Do you conjecture much? How do you know if I didn't leave him or it was mutual? Where have you been. I stated bits here and there. Go find it.v LMAO

Meh. I can guess.

ROYC75
07-07-2011, 01:03 PM
Well, congratulations for being part of the 25 percent of families who do it that way. Most people don't, and never will. So it's really not a generalization, you see, it's a citation of facts.

Brock, there is really isn't a good excuse for the whole country to not be this way, like the 25% you claim is.

Brock
07-07-2011, 01:04 PM
Brock, there is really isn't a good excuse for the whole country to not be this way, like the 25% you claim is.

Yes there is. It's called freedom to live your life how you want to.

headsnap
07-07-2011, 01:05 PM
That is exactly what we do in my family, and in 90% of the people we know. It is also true of the families in our children's school.


here too!



hmmm...

patteeu
07-07-2011, 01:06 PM
Your husband left you? Why?

Maybe he was a neocon.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 01:06 PM
You're a tiny, tiny minority.

Yes, I know. Luckily, I can work from home but it still interferes with work. The thing is it paid off. I did use some day-care very part time because there was literally no one for her to play with. But when I had some projects where I had to work full time for several weeks, I would have to use day care full-time and she would be out of control.

The kids who were there full-time were more out-of-control too. I always got compliments from day-care providers about my child. I think it's because I spent more time with her. I never brought her in as early as 6-7 AM and then picked her up at 6 PM. I brought her in at 9 or 9:30AM and came around 3 or 4 PM a few days a week. I hate to break to most parents but interview those little children, they hate being in day-care from what I found. Sorry but those providers are not going to give them the same love you have for them and they know it.

At least, after work, choose a half hour at a minimum for that child to have his own time with you. Let them choose what to do. Make it all theirs. Listen to them. It makes a huge difference.

ROYC75
07-07-2011, 01:07 PM
Yes there is. It's called freedom to live your life how you want to.

While others suffer the choices you make and accept the consequences?

Isn't that wrong of those people ?

fan4ever
07-07-2011, 01:07 PM
OK, I'm ready for a beating, but I think women who go on welfare should be required to be on a Norplant type birth control or sign away any rights to receive more funding for additional children while on welfare (I know..."think of the children")

Women have the ability to gurarantee birth control; either by their own precautions, or by requiring them from their partner. Whether they like it or not, they own the situation. Men shouldn't be off scott-free, but it's an after-the-fact argument.

BEP, you started out as a traditional family; you ended up as a single mom, not starting out as one...huge difference...to your credit IMO.

ROYC75
07-07-2011, 01:07 PM
here too!



hmmm...

We do too, I sense a pattern here, maybe it will catch on?

Brock
07-07-2011, 01:07 PM
While others suffer the choices you make and accept the consequences?

Isn't that wrong of those people ?

If you think so, work to get the laws changed. Let me know how that goes.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 01:08 PM
Maybe he was a neocon.

:LOL: ROFL:LOL:

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 01:10 PM
You are being foolish, is responsibility a one way street? I'll give you a hint, it's not, it's mutually shared.

I'm guessing he's from a very old generation and a hit and run kinda guy. ;)

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 01:11 PM
Meh. I can guess.

Well, that's a big change in your behavorial pattern. No more questions 'eh?

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 01:12 PM
Yes there is. It's called freedom to live your life how you want to.

Provided they pay the consequences and not demand the taxpayer pay for their lifestyle choices.
This, alone, would compel better behavior. Not all of it but it's a start.

ROYC75
07-07-2011, 01:12 PM
If you think so, work to get the laws changed. Let me know how that goes.

There will be a small minority that will bark and say it fringes on their rights.

It's best to continually teach the children and keep them in line with these beliefs as they continue to grow up.

Take the ME, they continue to teach the hate for westerners, they will always hate us. Reason I said if we go into Iraq, we have to stay there for a hundred years to change the culture. Same principal here, in order to change the way Americans act, behave, believe, we have to start a program and stay with it for 100 years to get the people to adapt.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 01:13 PM
OK, I'm ready for a beating, but I think women who go on welfare should be required to be on a Norplant type birth control or sign away any rights to receive more funding for additional children while on welfare (I know..."think of the children")

Women have the ability to gurarantee birth control; either by their own precautions, or by requiring them from their partner. Whether they like it or not, they own the situation. Men shouldn't be off scott-free, but it's an after-the-fact argument.

BEP, you started out as a traditional family; you ended up as a single mom, not starting out as one...huge difference...to your credit IMO.

And it is still kept as traditional as possible. I have support. He knows he'll go to jail should I report what he did. All I have to say is three letters— FBI!

Brock
07-07-2011, 01:14 PM
Provided they pay the consequences and not demand the taxpayer pay for their lifestyle choices.
This, alone, would compel better behavior. Not all of it but it's a start.

Well, if both parents work, they both pay taxes. I'm not referring to single moms here.

Saulbadguy
07-07-2011, 01:14 PM
It's best to continually teach the children and keep them in line with these beliefs as they continue to grow up.



Seems like you've done a fine job at that.

Brock
07-07-2011, 01:15 PM
There will be a small minority that will bark and say it fringes on their rights.

It's best to continually teach the children and keep them in line with these beliefs as they continue to grow up.

Just to be clear here, you are advocating forbidding women from working if they have children?

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 01:19 PM
Well, if both parents work, they both pay taxes. I'm not referring to single moms here.
So. If you prefer more freedom you'd advocate for most of those taxes being gone. I have taken no welfare BTW.

And also two parents working makes things more expensive due to more demand from the extra income. That in turn as changed things from one breadwinner being able to afford to support a family to now needing two.

mikey23545
07-07-2011, 01:33 PM
FYP

If you notice I did say, they had more to lose so they had to be firmer. But it still takes two to make that baby and that man is still the father.
And I do protect myself but I didn't start soon enough since I have unfortunately already procreated and blighted the earth.

FYP.

ROYC75
07-07-2011, 01:40 PM
Seems like you've done a fine job at that.

Could have done better, they could have listen better. The latter more than the other. But the principals and teachings were there. There will always be exceptions to the rule and when it does happen, consequences will apply. Accountability will be answered, it's the only way to teach, train them the way to live.

Just because we have had to step in a help raise grand kids does not mean they didn't get the principals we taught them. Just because the jerk ex's or irresponsible fathers not being a part in their daily lives is not failure on our part. They ( kids & grand kids ) are a work in progress, they are not a failure, it's not a reason to throw your hands up in the air and say I quit.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 01:40 PM
I'm a blight on the earth and I project it in my posts because it takes one to know one.

FYP

ROYC75
07-07-2011, 01:41 PM
Just to be clear here, you are advocating forbidding women from working if they have children?

I never said that, did I? If so, please show me.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-07-2011, 01:43 PM
Take the ME, they continue to hate the fact westerners are always killing them, they will hate us until we stop such atrocities.

Fixed yer post.

Brock
07-07-2011, 01:53 PM
I never said that, did I? If so, please show me.

Well, that's what I was referring to when I was talking about people living their lives the way they want to, and you stated that it was harmful to other people.

Radar Chief
07-07-2011, 01:54 PM
Your husband left you? Why?

Probably sobered up.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YZWKRD37Zq0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

philfree
07-07-2011, 02:15 PM
I've got the solution. Just give all young men reversable vasectomies as they become teens. Then they can have it reversed when they get married.

Brock
07-07-2011, 02:16 PM
I've got the solution. Just give all young men reversable vasectomies as they become teens. Then they can have it reversed when they get married.

And then make the marriages irreversible too, right?

ROYC75
07-07-2011, 02:23 PM
Well, that's what I was referring to when I was talking about people living their lives the way they want to, and you stated that it was harmful to other people.

It is if they are a menace to our society. If they are just free loaders, irresponsible just because they have the right to live any way they wish. With no regards to person or property, being immoral and just plain ugly. I would say that this is harmful to other people.

Families that have 2 working parents can still live a healthy, responsible, good life without having to be a burden to other people.

mikey23545
07-07-2011, 02:23 PM
Probably sobered up, found the keys to the manacles and figured out how to hot-wire the car.


FYP.

philfree
07-07-2011, 02:26 PM
And then make the marriages irreversible too, right?

No matter what is done the problem will never be completely alleviated so no.

vailpass
07-07-2011, 02:51 PM
You're a tiny, tiny minority.

Well, congratulations for being part of the 25 percent of families who do it that way. Most people don't, and never will. So it's really not a generalization, you see, it's a citation of facts.

We went from tiny, tiny to 25%. Care to go for more?

vailpass
07-07-2011, 02:57 PM
Same here.


here too!



hmmm...

We do too, I sense a pattern here, maybe it will catch on?

Brock will soon show you that you are wrong, that you only think this is how your families are structured.

Calcountry
07-07-2011, 03:14 PM
They have the babies because they need the money. If you want to make it unattractive cut off welfare.I think he was suggesting a one time payout to sterilize them.

Calcountry
07-07-2011, 03:15 PM
No matter what is done the problem will never be completely alleviated so no.That is because mankind is inherently corrupt.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 04:54 PM
I think he was suggesting a one time payout to sterilize them.

Yeah, but I wasn't addressing that. I was offering my own solution to this situation. I don't think it's the govt's business to suggest sterilization or even pay for it.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2011, 04:55 PM
That is because mankind is inherently corrupt.

I don't agree with that either. I think man is corruptible but some more than others.

Brock
07-07-2011, 04:57 PM
We went from tiny, tiny to 25%. Care to go for more?

That's fine, you can think it's the norm because it's how things are for you. I realize ignorance is kind of your thing.

vailpass
07-07-2011, 04:58 PM
That's fine, you can think it's the norm because it's how things are for you. I realize ignorance is kind of your thing.

Are you jealous or just being purposely obtuse?

Brock
07-07-2011, 04:59 PM
Are you jealous or just being purposely obtuse?

Prove to me you know what obtuse means.

vailpass
07-07-2011, 05:15 PM
Prove to me you know what obtuse means.

You can do better than this.

The_Doctor10
07-08-2011, 09:57 PM
How do you propose to do this? Mandatory sterilization of those making less than 20k/yr?

Well, look at it this way. A couple making 60K a year collectively isn't exactly rolling in dough. Throw a kid in there, money gets really tight really fast. Maybe you've got a mortgage at say, 1500 a month, I don't know.

But if you don't have that kid to pay for, you're a couple with a ton more cash, less stress, more time for each other, time for a vacation, etc, and you're happier.

We need the poor people to realize that shitting out kids is not good for them or the offspring. Have kids when you can afford it, otherwise you're just setting yourself up for misery.