gmac17 Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 And only 25 years old... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 And only 25 years old... 790492[/snapback] nice i like when people get the title "entrepreneur" as a PC substitution for my source of income when i was 15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilsAlum Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 I would've been more entertained with the list of the different " babies' mommas" Also, how many of those 9 children are supported by our tax dollars? My guess. . . 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 He died of "gunshot wounds on Martin Luther King Boulevard" Gee, I wonder what kind of entrepeneur he was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 I would've been more entertained with the list of the different " babies' mommas" Also, how many of those 9 children are supported by our tax dollars? My guess. . . 9 790510[/snapback] You can't really punish people for just existing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 He died of "gunshot wounds on Martin Luther King Boulevard" Gee, I wonder what kind of entrepeneur he was 790572[/snapback] Contract killing, apparently. Apparently he was a "convicted felon" with "multiple arrests for murder". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 You can't really punish people for just existing. 790575[/snapback] no but wastes of space/ drains on the economy (drug dealers and welfare cases) should not be producing that many kids. Personally, people relying on government funding to feed their kids should sign a deal that they will not have any more kids or they lose their funding. just my $.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 no but wastes of space/ drains on the economy (drug dealers and welfare cases) should not be producing that many kids. Personally, people relying on government funding to feed their kids should sign a deal that they will not have any more kids or they lose their funding. just my $.02 790636[/snapback] I think a couple years ago, there was discussion of trying to pass a law that once you had a certain number of kids on welfare, you would be forcibly sterilized if you wanted your benefits to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 I think a couple years ago, there was discussion of trying to pass a law that once you had a certain number of kids on welfare, you would be forcibly sterilized if you wanted your benefits to continue. 790639[/snapback] I believe Supreme Court precedent wouldn't allow it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 no but wastes of space/ drains on the economy (drug dealers and welfare cases) should not be producing that many kids. Personally, people relying on government funding to feed their kids should sign a deal that they will not have any more kids or they lose their funding. just my $.02 790636[/snapback] I agree with you as long as you are punishing the irresponsible person and not the children who can't control who their parents are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackur Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 some ignorance up in here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 I agree with you as long as you are punishing the irresponsible person and not the children who can't control who their parents are. 790695[/snapback] Of course... I am rational and big hearted. The fact of the matter is that the kids should have to suffer cuz mommy and/or daddy can't keep off of members of the opposite sex. I feel bad for the kids in the case, because i grew up really poor and lived near families with 6,7,8 kids and it was obvious they couldn't support having half as many kids as they had. Honestly, a condom or the pill are cheaper than a kid. As a college student rite now, i don't want a kid cuz i know i can't financially support a child on top of myself, when i live off of ramen, spaghetti, and $1 packs of hot dogs. People should really plan for that kind of stuff better (i understand that sometimes it just happens), because there is no reason a couple that barely makes 20k/year has 8-9 kids. With that many kids in poverty, chances are that the kids will have little chance to really make anything of themselves. Statistically poverty stricken children are less likely to graduate high school, and less likely to earn bachelors and masters degrees. So i plead to the people that are financially struggling already: BUY CONTRACEPTION OR CLOSE YOUR LEGS!!! wow that was a fun rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts