# Man who fathered 23 kids with 14 different women



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

being sent to prison after missing more than $533,000 in child support payments!!!

*http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/09/man_who_fathered_23_children_w.html*

"You are the poster child for irresponsibility," Judge Leiber told Howard Veal, who appeared surprised 
by the sentence. "You're an insult to every responsible father who sacrifices to provide for their children."

On Thursday, Judge Dennis Leiber sentenced Veal, 44, to two to four years in prison for failure 
to pay child support, a felony. With this sentence, the judge far exceeded the state guidelines,
which called for Veal to get no more than six months in the county jail.

"The Attorney General's Child Support Division has prosecuted thousands of felony nonsupport 
cases since its inception, but none as outrageous as this," said Assistant Attorney General
Mitchell Wood in a memo asking Leiber to exceed the guidelines for Veal's sentence.

Wood said their investigation revealed that between 1989 and 1999, Veal impregnated 
at least one woman every year. "Incredibly, in three of those years, the defendant 
impregnated three women per year ...," the memo said.

Wood said Veal was unable to remember the names of several 
of his children and could not say specifically how many he fathered.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

It reminds me of an old saying - "It takes two to tango".

The felon had another partner in these "humpty dances".

What about their "responsibility"?


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

As bad as his behavior is, isn't this debtors prison? Hasn't this been outlawed? How can you imprison a man for not making an amount of money that he simply does not have the income potential for?


And they say men run the world...........................


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Totally unfair. How do they expect a man that busy to have the time or energy to work to pay child support?


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

plowjockey said:


> It reminds me of an old saying - "It takes two to tango".
> 
> The felon had another partner in these "humpty dances".
> 
> What about their "responsibility"?



I 100% agree that the mothers have a responsibility, to help support their children and, preferably, never get involved with a guy like this in the first place. Where in the article did it say they were not supporting their children?



tinknal said:


> As bad as his behavior is, isn't this debtors prison? Hasn't this been outlawed? How can you imprison a man for not making an amount of money that he simply does not have the income potential for?
> 
> And they say men run the world...........................


What's your solution? Have the government support the children? No? Then it's up to the mothers, on their own....not what women would choose if they were running the world....

"However, even those meager funds never made it to their intended recipients. According to the attorney general's memo, authorities believe when Veal did pay some child support, he was trying to divert a portion of that to Loretta Noble, the mother of four of his children with whom he lives.

"In addition, he is likely hiding assets to avoid the reach of the Friend of the Court," it states.

Wood wrote that Noble has a home built in 1995 and has two cars registered in her name, including a 1994 Mercedes Benz S420."

So there is some money. But this guy was trying to make sure it went to the mother of the children he lives with....in other words, he was getting it back.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

I believe if every male who made a welfare baby was imprisoned, for 18 years, the rate of unwed mothers on welfare would drop.

And, after one child on welfare, no more additional mouths on the public teat.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

texican said:


> I believe if every male who made a welfare baby was imprisoned, for 18 years, the rate of unwed mothers on welfare would drop.
> 
> And, after one child on welfare, no more additional mouths on the public teat.


It won't work. The women would just find someone else to have sex with and the majority of them aren't particular. It's like cutting the dear herd. To be effective, you have to do something about the females of the species.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

poppy said:


> It won't work. The women would just find someone else to have sex
> with and the majority of them aren't particular. It's like cutting the dear herd.
> To be effective, you have to do something about the females of the species.


*******************************
on unwed mothers???:hysterical:


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

JanS said:


> I 100% agree that the mothers have a responsibility, to help support their children and, preferably, never get involved with a guy like this in the first place. Where in the article did it say they were not supporting their children?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK, how about me. I have been unemployed for 3 years, and am now working a temp job for $8.36 an hour. I have been ordered to pay over $600 a month in child support. The state is going to put me in prison if I can't pay up. Do the math. I don't care anymore, put me in jail, I'll just catch up on my summer reading.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

poppy said:


> It won't work. The women would just find someone else to have sex with and the majority of them aren't particular. It's like cutting the dear herd. To be effective, you have to do something about the females of the species.


Yes blame the woman as usual. One woman can have one baby a year. One man can father over 365 children a year if he made only ONE per day, even more if he wanted to.

Yes, doing something about the women makes much more sense 

Castrate the men, just like they neuter feral cats to cut the population. That takes care of a whole bunch of those babies you don't seem to like.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Shygal said:


> Yes blame the woman as usual. One woman can have one baby a year. One man can father over 365 children a year if he made only ONE per day, even more if he wanted to.
> 
> Yes, doing something about the women makes much more sense
> 
> Castrate the men, just like they neuter feral cats to cut the population. That takes care of a whole bunch of those babies you don't seem to like.


And theeeeeere, we have it. Shygals view of the world.

It explains sooooooo much.


----------



## farmmom (Jan 4, 2009)

This is disgusting on so many levels. As a single mom, not by choice, it's difficult at times to support my children, but I do it. I'm *supposed to* recieve child support weekly for my oldest son, but my ex husband refuses to work (not "can't work") and leaves it to his wife to make the payments, so they are sporadic at best.

I believe this "man" should be sterilized and forced to work to make up these payments, even if it's busting rocks. Yes, the women are responsible as well, but only for the children they have, not for all 23. This guy is responsible for all 23. He's their biohazard, so he should be helping support them. Period.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

poppy said:


> It won't work. The women would just find someone else to have sex with and the majority of them aren't particular. It's like cutting the dear herd. *To be effective, you have to do something about the females of the species*.


What would you suggest be done?

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

never mind 
.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

tinknal said:


> As bad as his behavior is, isn't this debtors prison? Hasn't this been outlawed? How can you imprison a man for not making an amount of money that he simply does not have the income potential for?
> 
> 
> And they say men run the world...........................


Because he needs to be isolated away from society and woman so he won't get any more women pregnant. It's not about the money anymore, or about whether or not debtor's prison has been outlawed. It's about him not having any discretion or showing social responsibility. He's being indiscriminate and breeding babies that he can't support willy nilly all over the place. Somebody like him needs to be neutered or else taken out of society and since neutering against his will is against his "human rights" and can't be done then he has to be taken out of society. What else can be done about somebody like that?

.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

naturelover said:


> Because he needs to be isolated away from society and woman so he won't get any more women pregnant. It's not about the money anymore, or about whether or not debtor's prison has been outlawed. It's about him not having any discretion or showing social responsibility. He's being indiscriminate and breeding babies that he can't support willy nilly all over the place. Somebody like him needs to be neutered or else taken out of society and since neutering against his will is against his "human rights" and can't be done then he has to be taken out of society. What else can be done about somebody like that?
> 
> .


i AGREE BUT at the same time these women have no self repsect obviously to sleep witha man that has 23 children by 13 different baby mama's why on earth would any woman engage ins ex with this slime ball....


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

tinknal said:


> And theeeeeere, we have it. Shygals view of the world.
> 
> It explains sooooooo much.


Explain it then, since you seem to feel that that post explains my entire view of the world. Im waiting to see how you actually come up with something.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

farmmom said:


> This is disgusting on so many levels. As a single mom, not by choice, it's difficult at times to support my children, but I do it. I'm *supposed to* recieve child support weekly for my oldest son, but my ex husband refuses to work (not "can't work") and leaves it to his wife to make the payments, so they are sporadic at best.
> 
> I believe this "man" should be sterilized and forced to work to make up these payments, even if it's busting rocks. Yes, the women are responsible as well, but only for the children they have, not for all 23. This guy is responsible for all 23. He's their biohazard, so he should be helping support them. Period.


Careful, or you will be accused of having the same view of the world as I do


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

If you have no belief in God then what that man did makes perfect sense. If I am just another critter then my purpose on this planet it to pass on my genes to as many progeny as possible.
All those doggone unintended consequences. Before welfare women were more choosey.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bigkat80 said:


> i AGREE BUT at the same time these women have no self repsect obviously to sleep witha man that has 23 children by 13 different baby mama's why on earth would any woman engage ins ex with this slime ball....


How are they each supposed to know that he's got all these other baby-mamas kicking around? What guy is going to try to get into a woman's pants by telling her _"Oh, by the way, I have all these babies by all these other women."_ ???? I cannot imagine too many women that would be willing to have a relationship and have sex and have babies with somebody they know is that irresponsible and has a track record like that.

Look, I know a guy like that. He's in his mid 60's and has had 9 common-law wives over the course of 42 years and fathered 27 children out of them. None of those gals knew anything about any of the previous women or children in his life until they already had children by him themselves and were dependent on him because they were STUCK with his babies. HIS babies. He lived with each one of them for a few years and the left them and moved on to another younger woman to have more babies and the gals he left behind were still stuck with HIS babies. Their chances of finding another more responsible mate who is willing to be a father to HIS babies is very slim. It was a dirty stunt he pulled on all of those women because he diminished them and left his children without a father. No woman chooses a life like that.

Now the only good thing I can say about him is that he has paid child support for each of his children because he was able to afford it, and he is still supporting the younger children. His last baby he fathered is only 2 years old, and his present CL wife is pregnant again, that's # 28 on the way. But although he has supported the children he's never supported his ex-CL wives for their own expenses after he left them.

For him it is a point of pride to have that many children but he was devious about it even if he has supported them. It's like supporting an entire community. And he is a grandfather now too but he doesn't contribute anything towards any of his grandchildren or his adult children.

I don't understand a man with that kind of mentality. It makes me think of a cocky gorilla running around beating on it's chest and producing progeny all around himself and yelling "Look what I can do, look what I can do, wooooo hoooo!"

.


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Shygal said:


> Yes blame the woman as usual. One woman can have one baby a year. One man can father over 365 children a year if he made only ONE per day, even more if he wanted to.
> 
> Yes, doing something about the women makes much more sense
> 
> Castrate the men, just like they neuter feral cats to cut the population. That takes care of a whole bunch of those babies you don't seem to like.


Respectfully, you _know_ this is not going to work, for exactly the same reasons that you believe that it would work.

Like you said, it only takes one male to father many, many offspring. If a woman wants to get pregnant for whatever reason, she'll just go to the nearest capable male.

Put it this way -- you've been thinking of getting goats. If you get ten bucks and ten does, then wether all but one buck, you can still end up with ten pregnant does.

Men and women can behave the same way. (They do not always, but they _can._) If you start neutering the males without spaying the females, then just like cats, you'll still end up with just as many pregnancies and just as many babies, no matter the species.

Point of fact, doing something about the women makes a lot more sense. Snip a male, and another can pick up the slack, so to speak. Do the same to a female, and boom, the baby factory is shut down.

Yes, fixing the man would work for a couple that is in a committed relationship.

But if all they -- male and female -- are interested in a hook-up, then you have to fix the female, too, to avoid the careless and/or intentional swelling of the Welfare rolls.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Attorney Norman Miller argued that prison is not appropriate for his client, who has no criminal record and was seeking training to become employed so he could support his children.

So at 44, he wants to learn a trade!

Naturelover

Their chances of finding another more responsible mate who is willing to be a father to HIS babies is very slim. It was a dirty stunt he pulled on all of those women because he diminished them and left his children without a father. *No woman chooses a life like that.*

In a way they did. Why not have kids the old fashion way, after marriage in a strong family unit? It wouldn't have stopped this moron, but may have slowed his dumb-ass down by keeping him in court getting divorces and paying the piper for his actions!


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

tinknal said:


> OK, how about me. I have been unemployed for 3 years, and am now working a temp job for $8.36 an hour. I have been ordered to pay over $600 a month in child support. The state is going to put me in prison if I can't pay up. Do the math. I don't care anymore, put me in jail, I'll just catch up on my summer reading.


sounds like my ex. he is 60K and counting in arrears. though in his case the gene for self preservation is VERY strong.He shudders when I threaten him with jail. and I get a measely support payment. The funny thing is i am not even asking for what he owes a month...2800. i am just asking for help..thats all...just make an honest attempt.That *fill in blank* cannot even do that unless I threaten to hold him in contempt. I do my part..and he should do his. Jail, death, or pay up....i really dont care which at this point.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

po boy said:


> In a way they did. Why not have kids the old fashion way, after marriage in a strong family unit? It wouldn't have stopped this moron, but may have slowed his dumb-ass down by keeping him in court getting divorces and paying the piper for his actions![/COLOR]
> 
> [/COLOR]



Umm..i was married for 17 years...a very good provider during our marriage. I did it THE RIGHT WAY! He decided *to heck with me and the kids* when the marriage went sour and i left. Typical response of controlling men.

Thats alright...i have the kids..and will eventually collect. I may struggle but I have the most important thing and he wont live forever.I just hope its sooner rather than later


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

poppy said:


> It won't work. The women would just find someone else to have sex with and the majority of them aren't particular. It's like cutting the dear herd. To be effective, you have to do something about the females of the species.


you are right..my solution? educate the women. I push my girls into college and nag them to do well and to stay in school. 

We can no longer expect our daughters to be taken care of. Society for so long has focused on the boys because ONE day they will have to support a family. PHHFT. No longer. My focus is still my sons but I do find myself pushing my daughters more. They will one day have children...carry the bulk of the responsibility if things go sour. A child support order is WORTHLESS.


----------



## Prismseed (Sep 14, 2009)

> As bad as his behavior is, isn't this debtors prison? Hasn't this been outlawed? How can you imprison a man for not making an amount of money that he simply does not have the income potential for?


I think it is more to stop him from making another 6-12 children over the next 2-4 years.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

tinknal said:


> OK, how about me. I have been unemployed for 3 years, and am now working a temp job for $8.36 an hour. I have been ordered to pay over $600 a month in child support. The state is going to put me in prison if I can't pay up. Do the math. I don't care anymore, put me in jail, I'll just catch up on my summer reading.


dont you at least pay SOMETHING? Do you mean you havent paid anything for your children in three years? 

My ex did that to me...i would be the one in jail..I kid you not. if he gets a nickel..i want half. period.


----------



## Gregg Alexander (Feb 18, 2007)

This jerk should have been taken out of the breeding system yrs ago. He takes no responsibly in fathering the kids, period. Now reading the article the women are not blame less either. Just by the numbers 23 , average is not quite 2 per woman. The one he lives with didn't say married to there are 4 kids. 
Since the system is all ready paying to raise the kids , put his butt in jail is not going to effect anything because the tax payers are all ready raising the kids. 
The women too should be fixed to never birth any more kids period.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

megafatcat said:


> If you have no belief in God then what that man did makes perfect sense. If I am just another critter then my purpose on this planet it to pass on my genes to as many progeny as possible.
> All those doggone unintended consequences. Before welfare women were more choosey.


Ding Ding Ding!!! We have a winner!!!
You are right on all levels.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

megafatcat said:


> If you have no belief in God then what that man did makes perfect sense. If I am just another critter then my purpose on this planet it to pass on my genes to as many progeny as possible.
> All those doggone unintended consequences. Before welfare women were more choosey.


Oh, I see. So those Mormon offshoots with 40 wives with 39 collecting welfare and hundreds of kids are somehow better? Oh, and I especially love the ones that are so responsible and godly that they're sure to boot all their young male offspring into cities as soon as they might be good looking enough to provide competition to the next 12 year old those old goats have their eyes on.

Face it, regardless of religion, some people are just nasty and shouldn't breed. 

Throwing the whole god sheet over the bed doesn't make it any less trashy.


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

Is a dog trashy if he jumps the fence for the lady dog? No, he is just being a dog.
Without God to say 'bad dog, you will be punished' and a society that is an enabler of such behavior we will see more of it.
Belief in God does not always work, but it does help, generally. Some can twist even religion into evil.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

tinknal said:


> OK, how about me. I have been unemployed for 3 years, and am now working a temp job for $8.36 an hour. I have been ordered to pay over $600 a month in child support. The state is going to put me in prison if I can't pay up. Do the math. I don't care anymore, put me in jail, I'll just catch up on my summer reading.


But we were NOT talking about you. Read this guy's story and try not to take my original comments personally. 

I'd be glad to debate your situation in a different thread.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Bigkat80 said:


> i AGREE BUT at the same time these women have no self repsect obviously to sleep witha man that has 23 children by 13 different baby mama's why on earth would any woman engage ins ex with this slime ball....


Seeing as he didn't even know some of the children's names, I doubt he was bragging about them to potential love interests.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

The cost to society outweighs his "rights" and he's shown that he has no self control so I'm in favor or locking him up or sterilizing him. The alternative is to let him continue damaging people just like a thief or a murderer. Those people are stopped and so should he be stopped.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

megafatcat said:


> Is a dog trashy if he jumps the fence for the lady dog? No, he is just being a dog.
> Without God to say 'bad dog, you will be punished' and a society that is an enabler of such behavior we will see more of it.
> Belief in God does not always work, but it does help, generally. Some can twist even religion into evil.


*deep sigh*

When one Believes, and Follows Christ, one's goal it to become, like Christ.
To follow the single greatest Command:

*Matthew 22:36-38
*36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 
37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

*Matthew 6:33*
33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

Humans who Believe in Christ, Follow Christ, and Walk in His Ways, still, make mistakes......
However they are fewer, and further between because their "goal" is to be like Christ, who is perfect.
For non believers, this is almost impossible to explain, or to get them to understand. Their hearts have to be prepared by the Lord to receive this Truth!

I see what you are saying, and you are right.
Even the demons 'believe'.

*James 2:18-20*

18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." 
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. 19 *You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe thatâand shudder. *
20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless.


Anyone can "believe". 
Being a Follower of Christ, that's a whole new Creation!!


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

lilmizlayla said:


> dont you at least pay SOMETHING? Do you mean you havent paid anything for your children in three years?
> 
> My ex did that to me...i would be the one in jail..I kid you not. if he gets a nickel..i want half. period.


No, I have actually stayed current for most of that time. I am behind a few grand right now, but I am paying the monthly amount.

BTW, didn't you leave in a tirade a few months back and promise to never return?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

fishhead said:


> The cost to society outweighs his "rights" and he's shown that he has no self control so I'm in favor or locking him up or sterilizing him. The alternative is to let him continue damaging people just like a thief or a murderer. Those people are stopped and so should he be stopped.


So you are also in favor of round up the baby mama's and sterilizing them too? Last I check he didn't RAPE anyone.

And for good measure, should we then sterilize the children of these people, since the obviously are being raised in 'animal' mentality, one can assume they too will become 'like animals'??

Do you see this slippery slope?


----------



## springvalley (Jun 23, 2009)

You know what? I really don't care how many kids folks have, nor by how many partners! What I do care about is how many of those kids I am supporting! I'd like to change our welfare program such that a single mother being left unexpectantly is helped for a limited time, say two years, then weaned off the system. If she ends up having another baby while not being able to afford the ones she has.... well, that's her stupidity. Either put the baby up for adoption or find a way to raise your family. 

Perhaps something has to be done with the males, too? Perhaps neuter deadbeat dads if they father another child without being able to pay their child support for their existing children? 

I don't have the answers, but I'm sure tired of having welfare mothers making a better 'living' than I am. I'm tired of hearing about welfare girls growing up in the system and planning on when they'll have to get pregnant so they can go on the system like their mothers. Call me ..... whatever you'd like. I'm just too tired this morning to watch what I say... and just bold enough to give my opinion. It's just that, an opinion. Nothing meant to be directed at anyone in particular, just at our welfare situation.

Now I'm off to take care of my children.... with my husband.... by ourselves. 
Catherine


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

springvalley said:


> You know what? I really don't care how many kids folks have, nor by how many partners! What I do care about is how many of those kids I am supporting! I'd like to change our welfare program such that a single mother being left unexpectantly is helped for a limited time, say two years, then weaned off the system. If she ends up having another baby while not being able to afford the ones she has.... well, that's her stupidity. Either put the baby up for adoption or find a way to raise your family.
> 
> Perhaps something has to be done with the males, too? Perhaps neuter deadbeat dads if they father another child without being able to pay their child support for their existing children?
> 
> ...


Amen Catherine.
I agree. I am tired of paying for baby mama to get her hair and nails done while she lays around on the bed makin' babies and watchin ophra on my dime.
I support her crack habit, her liquor habit, her 'gettin busy' habit.
And I work two jobs to do it.
And I am sick of it.
I would like to keep the money I EARN.

There is no reward (on earth) for doing the RIGHT thing.
Our government rewards poor behavior poor choices.
Our government punishes good behavior and good choices.

Hmmmmmmmm calling good evil, and evil good?
*Isaiah 5:20*
Woe to those who *call* *evil* *good* and *good* *evil*, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Shygal said:


> Yes blame the woman as usual. One woman can have one baby a year. One man can father over 365 children a year if he made only ONE per day, even more if he wanted to.
> 
> Yes, doing something about the women makes much more sense
> 
> Castrate the men, just like they neuter feral cats to cut the population. That takes care of a whole bunch of those babies you don't seem to like.


Now that reply is really out there. You know full well that except in cases of rape, the woman controls the sex. Any woman wanting sex can go into any bar, club, mall, or anywhere else on any day and find someone willing to have sex with her unless she is horribly ugly, in which case all she has to do is wait till closing time at any bar. Not so with a man. Most guys would be willing to have sex most days but many go home alone every night. Ever notice it is female prostitutes you see on street corners?


----------



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> What about their "responsibility"?


Well, the mothers have been 'responsible' for raising the children without the support of their legal father.

Are you seriously giving this guy a pass, you of the ' everyone should man-up and be responsible for themselves' club????


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

dahliaqueen said:


> Well, the mothers have been 'responsible' for raising the children without the support of their legal father.
> 
> Are you seriously giving this guy a pass, you of the ' everyone should man-up and be responsible for themselves' club????


Maybe they have but it is more likely they either shoved the responsibility off on taxpayers, the grandparents, or are off bumping nasties with some other guy instead of being home raising their kids. These women are no better than the guy who fathered the kids.


----------



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

poppy said:


> Maybe they have but it is more likely they either shoved the responsibility off on taxpayers, the grandparents, or are off bumping nasties with some other guy instead of being home raising their kids. These women are no better than the guy who fathered the kids.


That is quite an assumption- but not surprising, coming from a misogynist such as yourself.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> There is no reward (on earth) for doing the RIGHT thing.
> Our government rewards poor behavior poor choices.
> Our government punishes good behavior and good choices.


You might enjoy this short story by Mark Twain.

Edward Mills And George Benton: A Tale 

http://www.mtwain.com/Edward_Mills_And_George_Benton:_A_Tale/0.html


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

tinknal said:


> As bad as his behavior is, isn't this debtors prison? Hasn't this been outlawed? How can you imprison a man for not making an amount of money that he simply does not have the income potential for?
> 
> 
> And they say men run the world...........................


"THEY" lied.:kiss:


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

dahliaqueen said:


> That is quite an assumption- but not surprising, coming from a misogynist such as yourself.


Okay, you win. Your logic has convinced me. The guy is the scum of the earth but all those women were innocent victims of his charm. They were likely all virgins who had no intention of having sex when they left home. They bear no responsibility for the birth of the child. They all had spent their lives as pure as the driven snow and did not have the benefit of knowing about birth control. It took a mostgoonyest such as yourself to convince me.


----------



## glwalker (Apr 19, 2005)

It's doubtful that the man told the mothers about his other girlfriends and children before he fathered more children with them. Still, I saw a picture of the man on another website, and I can't understand what made 14 women want this man to be the father of their children.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

poppy said:


> . It took a mostgoonyest such as yourself to convince me.


Careful there poppy, didn't you know that the National Organization for Women has declared that only women may call men names and not vice versa?


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2010)

poppy said:


> Okay, you win. Your logic has convinced me. The guy is the scum of the earth but all those women were innocent victims of his charm. They were likely all virgins who had no intention of having sex when they left home. They bear no responsibility for the birth of the child. They all had spent their lives as pure as the driven snow and did not have the benefit of knowing about birth control. It took a mostgoonyest such as yourself to convince me.


Not only all that, but I bet none of those women have children by any other men either..I just wonder why they didn't report the total number of children by those 14 women. You think its only the 23 in question?? yea, probably.


----------



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

poppy said:


> Okay, you win. Your logic has convinced me. i


Good Gawd a'mighty and praise the Lawd...
Miracles do happen.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

glwalker said:


> It's doubtful that the man told the mothers about his other girlfriends and children before he fathered more children with them. Still, I saw a picture of the man on another website, and I can't understand what made 14 women want this man to be the father of their children.


Probably true but I wonder how many of those women told him about all the other guys they had slept with. Both he and the women are members of a class of people most of us could not identify with. I see it here all the time. A couple living together for a year or two with a kid or two and the guy moves out or is arrested for dope and the same night a different guy is living with the woman. They basically live like animals.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

zong said:


> Not only all that, but I bet none of those women have children by any other men either..I just wonder why they didn't report the total number of children by those 14 women. You think its only the 23 in question?? yea, probably.


Nah, like I said, they were probably all virgins walking home from Sunday School when this evil man pulled over and seduced them.


----------



## casusbelli (Jan 6, 2009)

This open bedroom mentality would stop if, instead of falling into the nanny state 'safety net' (which has been abused and made a way of life), these women would have to take in extra laundry or add another house to clean for every mouth she had to feed. But, oh, I forget, that was 1910, when the world still made sense...


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

poppy said:


> Maybe they have but it is more likely they either shoved the responsibility off on taxpayers, the grandparents, or are off bumping nasties with some other guy instead of being home raising their kids. These women are no better than the guy who fathered the kids.


We KNOW the father isn't supporting his children. We don't know the mothers AREN'T. You're so determined to blame the women that you're making up your own little story to fit your rant.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

tinknal said:


> Careful there poppy, didn't you know that the National Organization for Women has declared that only women may call men names and not vice versa?


I didn't know "misogynist" was a bad word.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

casusbelli said:


> This open bedroom mentality would stop if, instead of falling into the nanny state 'safety net' (which has been abused and made a way of life), these *women* would have to take in extra laundry or add another house to clean for every mouth she had to feed. But, oh, I forget, that was 1910, when the world still made sense...


Yep, back before child support, when a man could go his own way with no worries. Good times.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Amen Catherine.
> I agree. I am tired of paying for baby mama to get her hair and nails done while she lays around on the bed makin' babies and watchin ophra on my dime.
> I support her crack habit, her liquor habit, her 'gettin busy' habit.
> And I work two jobs to do it.
> ...


Ahem...



> Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Tiempo, that isn't going to work. The is some kind of "judging" loophole which I'm sure will be explained to us shortly.


----------



## casusbelli (Jan 6, 2009)

"Yep, back before child support, when a man could go his own way with no worries. Good times. "

No, not just before child support, but when there were natural consequences to our actions. Like Spencer said, the ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. 
In a world that made sense, that man would be too tired from cutting corn, hoeing beets, or digging ditches to lolly-gag with such abandon.
Must you view everything with a feminist slant?


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2010)

tinknal said:


> OK, how about me. I have been unemployed for 3 years, and am now working a temp job for $8.36 an hour. I have been ordered to pay over $600 a month in child support. The state is going to put me in prison if I can't pay up. Do the math. I don't care anymore, put me in jail, I'll just catch up on my summer reading.


How have you been getting by? Have you been living with relatives?



tinknal said:


> You might enjoy this short story by Mark Twain.
> 
> Edward Mills And George Benton: A Tale
> 
> http://www.mtwain.com/Edward_Mills_And_George_Benton:_A_Tale/0.html


I suppose that was written something over a hundred years ago. It's timeless.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

casusbelli said:


> "Yep, back before child support, when a man could go his own way with no worries. Good times. "
> 
> No, not just before child support, but when there were natural consequences to our actions. Like Spencer said, the ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.
> In a world that made sense, that man would be too tired from cutting corn, hoeing beets, or digging ditches to lolly-gag with such abandon.
> Must you view everything with a feminist slant?


I don't consider myself a feminist. 

If I come across as prejudiced toward the mothers in this situation it's because, as I've stated more than once, we don't know whether or not they are sitting home on welfare. While we do know what the father has been doing. If it were a woman who wasn't paying child support to the children's custodial fathers, I'd be just as critical.


----------



## casusbelli (Jan 6, 2009)

Ok, understood.
But, chances are, 99.999% that those gals and kids ARE on public assistance. 
And I ignored the man in my post, cause, as said, they weren't raped, and a dog will be a dog. 
I'd just have the dog be...dog-tired!


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Well I'm glad we're getting along. LOL I have strong opinions but do try to form them based on facts. A lot of people are attacking the mothers rather than the father when they do not have the facts.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

ladycat said:


> How have you been getting by? Have you been living with relatives?


Mostly by living in abject poverty, eating simply, and ignoring my mortgage for the last year. Hopefully I can start paying the bank soon. I have petitioned for and received an adjustment from the child support authority, but of course my ex is fighting it so nothing will change until after it is adjudicated.

My wife is handicapped and gets SSI.


----------



## whodunit (Mar 29, 2004)

Women in America completely control reproduction.

She gets to choose if the baby is valuable or desirable and therefore whether it lives or dies.

Then, if she chooses to keep the baby, even AGAINST the wishes of the sperm donor/father (who she also chose- "two to tango"), he will have to pay for the child's upkeep for 18 years and then some.

Heck, there have even been cases where men have been court-ordered to pay child support for another man's child!

Even if the wife leaves the union, HE will still have to pay child support that will likely be more than he actually earns.

For the record, I am happily married (one time) and have four children with whom I live and support.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

poppy said:


> Okay, you win. Your logic has convinced me. The guy is the scum of the earth but all those women were innocent victims of his charm. They were likely all virgins who had no intention of having sex when they left home. They bear no responsibility for the birth of the child. They all had spent their lives as pure as the driven snow and did not have the benefit of knowing about birth control. It took a mostgoonyest such as yourself to convince me.


******************************
And the win goes to poppy!!!:duel:


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

In case it hasn't been said:
Vasectomy, cheaper than child support!


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> In case it hasn't been said:
> Vasectomy, cheaper than child support!


*****************************************
_*FORCED STERILIZATION*_ for both sexes........a very slippery slope indeed.

Now if we could get it somehow enacted that "if" the parties involved want to avoid jail time for 
*NOT* supporting their offspring....that they'd 'voluntarily' have their tubes tied or 'snip-snip'.......
then we might have a possible solution......but I'm not holding my breath on it ever happening in my lifetime.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Tiempo said:


> Ahem...


Check your Greek sir.......
In this verse "Judge" means "to condemn one to eternal death"

Paul, via the Holy Spirit, told us to MAKE RIGHT JUDGEMENTS.

Please, before you blaspheme the Name of the Lord, by quoting Scriptures for the purpose of manipulation (which if you look up THAT word in Hebrew mean WITCH CRAFT) know the MEANING of what you are saying.

This verse, Christ was telling Believers they have NO SEAT, RIGHT or MIND to 'determine ones eternal destination".

Look up the Greek.....


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

whodunit said:


> women in america completely control reproduction.
> 
> She gets to choose if the baby is valuable or desirable and therefore whether it lives or dies.
> 
> ...


potda!!!!!!


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

This guy is among the new rich that Obama mentions. Do the math. He gets to exchange a debt of over a half-million dollars for two years of his time. cool. He will be on vacation at prison. He can take classes and learn how to restore his classic car. There is plenty of sex in prison too.

All we have to do now is to get his taxed income up so he can take advantage of Obama's new tax rates for the rich.:run:


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

edcopp said:


> This guy is among the new rich that Obama mentions. Do the math. He gets to exchange a debt of over a half-million dollars for two years of his time. cool. He will be on vacation at prison. He can take classes and learn how to restore his classic car. There is plenty of sex in prison too.
> 
> All we have to do now is to get his taxed income up so he can take advantage of Obama's new tax rates for the rich.:run:


Ok......
This TIES the POTDA!!


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

whodunit said:


> Women in America completely control reproduction.


Except for the part where he chooses whether or not to have sex and if he feels like using a condom.




whodunit said:


> Even if the wife leaves the union, HE will still have to pay child support that will likely be more than he actually earns.


And of course you know of actual cases where this has happened. Men who have fathered 23 children don't count.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> potda!!!!!!


You quote the bible, then a few posts later agree it's not right that only the woman gets to decide whether or not there is an abortion. :shrug: Is allowing the man to choose the good Christian alternative?


----------



## Tracy Rimmer (May 9, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Because he needs to be isolated away from society and woman so he won't get any more women pregnant. It's not about the money anymore, or about whether or not debtor's prison has been outlawed. It's about him not having any discretion or showing social responsibility. He's being indiscriminate and breeding babies that he can't support willy nilly all over the place. Somebody like him needs to be neutered or else taken out of society and since neutering against his will is against his "human rights" and can't be done then he has to be taken out of society. What else can be done about somebody like that?
> 
> .


All valid, except that this guy isn't sprinkling his seed like fairy dust as he walks by the mothers on the street. The women involved have some responsibility for BEING impregnated by a guy like this. I would imagine that, if support orders exist, that these women are doing their part in supporting their children -- we don't know if they are or aren't -- but anyone who either A) sees this guy's track record and chooses to reproduce with him, or B) doesn't know him well enough to know his track record and yet chooses to sleep with him anyhow, is at least PARTIALLY responsible for the situation.

Men, unless they're rapists, don't get into a situation like this alone. He may be a jerk, he may be the dirtiest slime ball to walk the earth, but women continue to CHOOSE to be involved with him, to the point of making babies. There needs to be accountability on both sides.

I'm not saying that he shouldn't be made to pay support; realistically, however, is supporting 23 kids even possible these days?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

JanS said:


> You quote the bible, then a few posts later agree it's not right that only the woman gets to decide whether or not there is an abortion. :shrug: Is allowing the man to choose the good Christian alternative?


I agree with both of you.
I do.

Abortion is wrong. Period.
I do not agree with taking a life. Any life.
What I agree with is his "perception" of how things are. Because that *IS* how they are. I think the way they ARE is wrong. But I agree with him that what he has stated is how they are.

I agree with you, if a man makes a baby.....he should support the child.

However, like the "death penalty is SUPPOSED to deter people from committing heinous crimes"..........child support division threats, jail time, and abortion is equally effective as a deterant to men and women having sex outside of marriage.

I hope this clears up where I am coming from.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

poppy said:


> Now that reply is really out there. You know full well that except in cases of rape, the woman controls the sex. Any woman wanting sex can go into any bar, club, mall, or anywhere else on any day and find someone willing to have sex with her unless she is horribly ugly, in which case all she has to do is wait till closing time at any bar. Not so with a man. Most guys would be willing to have sex most days but many go home alone every night. Ever notice it is female prostitutes you see on street corners?


And.....what does that have to do with what I said?

By the way, you do realize the last sentence was sarcasm in my post, right?


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

tinknal said:


> Mostly by living in abject poverty, eating simply, and ignoring my mortgage for the last year. Hopefully I can start paying the bank soon. I have petitioned for and received an adjustment from the child support authority, but of course my ex is fighting it so nothing will change until after it is adjudicated.
> 
> My wife is handicapped and gets SSI.



Im just a little bit confused here. 
What happened to the restaurant?


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Laura: it does.



Tracy Rimmer said:


> I'm not saying that he shouldn't be made to pay support; realistically, however, is supporting 23 kids even possible these days?


I don't think so. I know a woman who received the princely amount of 17 cents in child support. The father didn't have a huge income and what he did pay was divided with the larger amount going to the mother of his second, younger child.

Can't honestly say I have a solution as to what should be done to Mr. Father-of-23.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> So you are also in favor of round up the baby mama's and sterilizing them too? Last I check he didn't RAPE anyone.
> 
> And for good measure, should we then sterilize the children of these people, since the obviously are being raised in 'animal' mentality, one can assume they too will become 'like animals'??
> 
> Do you see this slippery slope?


If the women are having children they can't support and living off welfare then my answer is YES. Sterilize or mandatory contraception. It might be cheaper to pay these women NOT to get pregnant than to support the children.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Shygal said:


> And.....what does that have to do with what I said?
> 
> By the way, you do realize the last sentence was sarcasm in my post, right?


****************************************************
that you are using 'sarcasm' in your many posts??? Perhaps that answer is that you aren't 
very good at it......hence the reason you're _*ALWAYS*_ having to explain what it is?:awh:


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

JanS said:


> Laura: it does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My gf's ex-husband had everything he owned (home, business, etc.) put in his new wife's name, and used to be a 'public official' in their town (so he knew all the judges) and his support was 25.00 a week.
He lived in a 2K square foot home, with all the trimmings, had a successful business.....and paid 25.00 a week. Not a cent more.
My gf and 2 kids lived in a run down trailer in a skuzzy trailer park, ate 2 meals a day, and lived without heat more than they had it. 
He lived like a king. Right across the street.
The SECOND his daughter turned 18, he filed emancipation papers, so he would not have to pay for college.....

Yes, there are HIDEOUS injustices out there for REAL single moms (he filed, she fought it, even though he cheated). 

The OP was dealing with a whole new set of circumstances with a man (if you want to call him that) producing so many children with so many women......and what to do with such a situation. This man could never support 23 kids. Not on a good day. And why should he? That's what the government's for, right? (tongue in cheek)

Side note:

I used to work in a pretty 'seedy' part of town, as a bartender in a restaurant. When I had to leave at night, I always had a young man that worked in the kitchen, walk me out. He was a big guy, and he was packin'.
I got to know this young man, chatting with him.
He explained to me that it was 'his goal' to produce as many children as he could (had 9 that he knew of) because statistics proved that the life he led, and if his kids followed in his footsteps, total life expectancy was about 27. He figured the more he had, the more chance of his name carrying on.

I couldn't get my head wrapped around that.
See, he was a gang banger. Once in, you can't get out (so he said). He told me I could never understand, because I was a white girl from the country. I had a different upbringing. 
I asked him why he couldn't just 'leave that life' and start a new one somewhere else. He said he tried, and almost died for it......
His hope was that if he made many children that one of them would 'make something' of themselves, or to avenge the family name.
He put his name on every birth certificate.

I asked him "don't the women get jealous of each other".
He said "no, they understand".

Time passed, and we always had great talks. One day he didn't come into work....I asked his cousin in the back where he was......
He was killed in Chicago. Gang retaliation. He was 24 years old.
He wasn't some 'horny goat' lookin' for a good time. There was a method to his madness...Key word. Madness.
It broke my heart. 
To this day, I still, don't understand.
But he was a human being, and someone took his life.
And that's sad.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

fishhead said:


> If the women are having children they can't support and living off welfare then my answer is YES. Sterilize or mandatory contraception. It might be cheaper to pay these women NOT to get pregnant than to support the children.


Google where the abortion clinics are in your closest big city.
90% of them are in the ghetto. 
Planned Parenthood, funded by Federal Tax dollars is doing just as you suggest.....abortion on demand. And those clinics are slaughtering more black babies than whites....every single day.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

The best way to remedy this situation is to eliminate comforts and services for these fools...(ALL parties involved)... let them suffer and set an example. 

The only business Government has with fools is to try them in court, found innocent/guilty by their peers and imprisoned if need be. 

Food stamps,welfare, etc should not be, and if it should be, for a very short time(3 months, max)


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Shygal said:


> Im just a little bit confused here.
> What happened to the restaurant?


Just didn't make it. Basically I didn't succeed in bringing more than the same old drinking crowd into the bar.


----------



## whodunit (Mar 29, 2004)

One man married to one woman (until one of them dies), then having children within the bonds of that marriage equals the greatest chance of that family being successful and our country being stronger.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

copperkid3 said:


> ****************************************************
> that you are using 'sarcasm' in your many posts??? Perhaps that answer is that you aren't
> very good at it......hence the reason you're _*ALWAYS*_ having to explain what it is?:awh:


And here is your typical post attacking me and having nothing at all to say about the topic whatsoever.


----------



## farmmom (Jan 4, 2009)

whodunit said:


> One man married to one woman (until one of them dies), then having children within the bonds of that marriage equals the greatest chance of that family being successful and our country being stronger.


I agree, as long as the bonds of that marriage are strong because of love and genuine caring for each other, and supported by hard work. A marriage that remains together but that is an example to the children of abuse, distrust, and infidelity, and/or being supported by the government will not help produce a strong nation.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

tinknal said:


> Just didn't make it. Basically I didn't succeed in bringing more than the same old drinking crowd into the bar.


Im really sorry to hear that =/


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Ok......
> This TIES the POTDA!!


I am unable to determine what a "POTDA" is. Please elaborate so that I may attempt to find out how to get it untied.


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2010)

edcopp said:


> I am unable to determine what a "POTDA" is. Please elaborate so that I may attempt to find out how to get it untied.


Post Of The Day Award.


----------



## JMD_KS (Nov 20, 2007)

ChristyACB said:


> Oh, I see. So those Mormon offshoots with 40 wives with 39 collecting welfare and hundreds of kids are somehow better? Oh, and I especially love the ones that are so responsible and godly that they're sure to boot all their young male offspring into cities as soon as they might be good looking enough to provide competition to the next 12 year old those old goats have their eyes on.
> 
> Face it, regardless of religion, some people are just nasty and shouldn't breed.
> 
> Throwing the whole god sheet over the bed doesn't make it any less trashy.


Those people are freaks, plain & simple, bunch of perverted old men w/ their brood mares, & the great majority of the baby mamas are on welfare. Somehow, some think it's ok when they use the excuse "But it's our _religion_" :hand:


----------



## Farmerwilly2 (Oct 14, 2006)

Shygal said:


> Yes blame the woman as usual. One woman can have one baby a year. One man can father over 365 children a year if he made only ONE per day, even more if he wanted to.
> 
> Yes, doing something about the women makes much more sense
> 
> Castrate the men, just like they neuter feral cats to cut the population. That takes care of a whole bunch of those babies you don't seem to like.


Or how bout we just spay all of the women that can't keep their legs crossed.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

tinknal said:


> As bad as his behavior is, isn't this debtors prison? Hasn't this been outlawed? How can you imprison a man for not making an amount of money that he simply does not have the income potential for?
> 
> 
> And they say men run the world...........................


He should have considered his earnings potential and ability to provide for a wife and children before starting a family. That is what the rest of us did.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Common Tator said:


> He should have considered his earnings potential and ability to provide for a wife and children before starting a family. That is what the rest of us did.


While I'm not defending this guy, tinknal asks a good question. There's always a "should have" in financial matters. For example, AIG should have done proper diligence on $150 billion in mortgage investments, but no one is talking about putting them in jail.

I understand the family court needing to have teeth, and I agree that this case is extreme, but it does seem to be enough to give the court the power to lien property & wages. The fact is that having this man serve prison time will not benefit the welfare of any of those children.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

tinknal said:


> Just didn't make it. Basically I didn't succeed in bringing more than the same old drinking crowd into the bar.


I'm sorry to hear that Tink, I had been wondering how it was doing.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Common Tator said:


> I'm sorry to hear that Tink, I had been wondering how it was doing.


Hey, that's ok. I had a blast and it was a great experience.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Shygal said:


> And here is your typical post attacking me and having nothing at all to say about the topic whatsoever.


*************************************************
and I've already made my comments, concerning who was already 'off topic'....:hysterical:


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

I, I clicked on the link from the newspaper, He's B.., B.., BALD. Who would have guessed it.:bash:


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Haven't read thread but this was told to me as a true story. Guy occasionally does some farm work for me - which means when he is broke he comes out to see if I have any day labor. Enough work for a six-pack and smokes and he is right with the world. Anyway, he went into Nashville, TN and got caught in a drug sting. Had to appear at night court to make bail. Said they where about 20 guys in the holding area and some of the AA dudes got bragging on how many children they had. One guy said as best he can recollect something like 25. Someone ask if he remembered all of their names and he said he couldn't remember half of the names of their mothers. He would do drugs with them until they came up preggy and then drop them.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Check your Greek sir.......
> In this verse "Judge" means "to condemn one to eternal death"
> 
> Paul, via the Holy Spirit, told us to MAKE RIGHT JUDGEMENTS.
> ...


JanS wins a cookie.

And I'm not a sir


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The fact is that having this man serve prison time will not benefit the welfare of any of those children.


At least he won't be able to sire any more kids while he is in prison.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Common Tator said:


> At least he won't be able to sire any more kids while he is in prison.


**********************************
he's allowed conjugal visits???


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Tiempo said:


> JanS wins a cookie.
> 
> And I'm not a sir


My apologies, ma'am.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Tiempo said:


> JanS wins a cookie.


Heh. Not sure if I deserve one for hanging out at message boards too much.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

"Ever notice it is female prostitutes you see on street corners?"

In many cities, from what I understand, many of those female as actaully cross-dressers.

One my attornys in Dayton, OH said the jail isn't quite comfortable as to what to do with them. Lock the up with the men or the women?


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2010)

Ken Scharabok said:


> "Ever notice it is female prostitutes you see on street corners?"
> 
> In many cities, from what I understand, many of those female as actaully cross-dressers.


There are male prostitutes (not cross dressers). They are less obvious. Those who look for them know what to look for.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

tinknal said:


> No, I have actually stayed current for most of that time. I am behind a few grand right now, but I am paying the monthly amount.
> 
> BTW, didn't you leave in a tirade a few months back and promise to never return?


i dont leave in tirades....you have me mixed up with someone else apparently.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

whodunit said:


> Women in America completely control reproduction.
> 
> She gets to choose if the baby is valuable or desirable and therefore whether it lives or dies.
> 
> ...


 That is a real slanted view. You act as if the victim is the man..not the child. 
Who suffers when the man doesnt pay? The child.
Typically those worthless scumsuckers dont see their children either.
There is nothing as disgusting as a man who doesnt support his children. They really should be beaten for every day they are behind. seriously. That should be law..but I will accept prison as a trade off. 
It is child abuse. Most fathers who do not pay..are doing it deliberately to be controlling . Oh..My wife left me..boohoo....i am not paying....

Decent men pay the support..they see their children...and they dont use the child support as a manipulation tool


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

casusbelli said:


> Ok, understood.
> But, chances are, 99.999% that those gals and kids ARE on public assistance.
> And I ignored the man in my post, cause, as said, they weren't raped, and a dog will be a dog.
> I'd just have the dog be...dog-tired!


you cannot possibly be sure of that. Lets keep in mind that without a child...one is lucky to recieve any assistance SO if the father was paying Child support..they wouldnt need it. 

So you guys can take up for all these losers who wont pay for their children...you will continue to support their babies!


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Ken Scharabok said:


> "Ever notice it is female prostitutes you see on street corners?"
> 
> In many cities, from what I understand, many of those female as actaully cross-dressers.
> 
> One my attornys in Dayton, OH said the jail isn't quite comfortable as to what to do with them. Lock the up with the men or the women?


Yep, but they are trying to attract men by making them think they are women. Some of them are nearly impossible to tell by looking. It is a dangerous gamble if they try to get the customer to believe they are female when making the deal. Depending on what the customer wants, they can fool them sometimes. Other times the customer finds out he didn't get what he thought he was getting and it turns violent.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

lilmizlayla said:


> That is a real slanted view. You act as if the victim is the man..not the child.
> Who suffers when the man doesnt pay? The child.
> Typically those worthless scumsuckers dont see their children either.
> There is nothing as disgusting as a man who doesnt support his children. They really should be beaten for every day they are behind. seriously. That should be law..but I will accept prison as a trade off.
> ...


Men ARE often the victim too. Women are not all angels either. Women have to understand that in a consensual relationship, THEY are the ones who can get pregnant and take responsible precautions. Are all these women complete idiots? Why would a sane woman agree to have sex, especially unprotected sex, with some guy she met that night in a bar? Why would she have sex with a guy she hardly knows and knows nothing about his job status, work history, type of friends he has, marital status, etc.? That used to be the purpose of dating. It gave you time to get to know the person and you could pick up on things like alcohol or drug abuse, abusive personalities, lying, etc.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

plowjockey said:


> It reminds me of an old saying - "It takes two to tango".
> 
> The felon had another partner in these "humpty dances".
> 
> What about their "responsibility"?


Sounds to me like the women are the ones raising the kids, how's that for responsibility?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

tinknal said:


> OK, how about me. I have been unemployed for 3 years, and am now working a temp job for $8.36 an hour. I have been ordered to pay over $600 a month in child support. The state is going to put me in prison if I can't pay up. Do the math. I don't care anymore, put me in jail, I'll just catch up on my summer reading.




So you don't feel you have any responsibilites to the child you sired?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

tinknal said:


> And theeeeeere, we have it. Shygals view of the world.
> 
> It explains sooooooo much.


Makes sense to me.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Bigkat80 said:


> i AGREE BUT at the same time these women have no self repsect obviously to sleep witha man that has 23 children by 13 different baby mama's why on earth would any woman engage ins ex with this slime ball....


Did they know he had 23 children by 13 different women at the time they slept with him?


----------



## whiskeylivewire (May 27, 2009)

My exSIL was in the hole on child support around 2 grand. She didn't have her license revoked(supposed to after 1500 in the hole), didn't have her taxes taken, nothing was done to her at all. If a man did that, he would be slammed-at least in Mo that is. 

Probably the women didn't know they were in a long line of women and kids being born to this man. Do they bear responsibility for having the children? Sure. Does he bear responsibility for not getting cut a looooooong time ago? Absolutely. Do we know that these women are on welfare? Nope. It wasn't part of the story because not everything has to be about welfare.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Gregg Alexander said:


> This jerk should have been taken out of the breeding system yrs ago. He takes no responsibly in fathering the kids, period. Now reading the article the women are not blame less either. Just by the numbers 23 , average is not quite 2 per woman. The one he lives with didn't say married to there are 4 kids.
> Since the system is all ready paying to raise the kids , put his butt in jail is not going to effect anything because the tax payers are all ready raising the kids.
> The women too should be fixed to never birth any more kids period.


Hmmm, I didn't see where it said that the system is paying to raise the kids......


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> Did they know he had 23 children by 13 different women at the time they slept with him?


If they didn't, whose fault is it? Did any of them even try to find out the history of the guy before they slept with him? How many other men have they slept with who may have been married or had multiple kids by different women? The short answer is they did not care. The guy is a worthless piece of trash but the women are just as bad. I bet the sexual history of these women would drive any decent man away from them in a flash. Of course they wouldn't tell him.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> So you are also in favor of round up the baby mama's and sterilizing them too? Last I check he didn't RAPE anyone.
> 
> And for good measure, should we then sterilize the children of these people, since the obviously are being raised in 'animal' mentality, one can assume they too will become 'like animals'??
> 
> Do you see this slippery slope?


I don't think any of the Mom's had 23 kids. Big difference.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

poppy said:


> Maybe they have but it is more likely they either shoved the responsibility off on taxpayers, the grandparents, or are off bumping nasties with some other guy instead of being home raising their kids. These women are no better than the guy who fathered the kids.


Got anything to back that up?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

poppy said:


> Okay, you win. Your logic has convinced me. The guy is the scum of the earth but all those women were innocent victims of his charm. They were likely all virgins who had no intention of having sex when they left home. They bear no responsibility for the birth of the child. They all had spent their lives as pure as the driven snow and did not have the benefit of knowing about birth control. It took a mostgoonyest such as yourself to convince me.


I'm not sure why you say they were likely all virgins, doesn't really matter, but why do you assume they aren't taking care of their kids? You autimatically assume they are recieving welfare.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

whodunit said:


> Women in America completely control reproduction.
> 
> She gets to choose if the baby is valuable or desirable and therefore whether it lives or dies.
> 
> ...


Why shouldn't the Father have to pay for the raising of his own child? As you said, it takes two to tango. If a man doesn't want the responsibilities of paying for the raising of a child, he shouldn't go around getting women pregnant. The child suffers because the parents can't get along?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> Hmmm, I didn't see where it said that the system is paying to raise the kids......


It may not have said, but I would wager 99% of them are living off the taxpayers. Are you unfamiliar with this class of people? Look around because they are everywhere. About a month ago the son ( about 30 years old, won't work, uses drugs ) of one of my wife's friends came home to find his ---- of a wife in bed with some other bum. He leaves and somehow gets to a town 20 miles south of us where he gets bombed on meth and booze, steals a jeep, and proceeds to hit a family head on on a country road. The dad and kids weren't hurt bad, but the woman is still on a respirator and the guy who hit them is still in the hospital too. His wife had 3 kids by 3 different men when he met her and they have 2 more together. There she is in bed with yet another guy. She tested higher for meth than her husband who had the wreck and now my wife's friend has all 5 of the kids because the woman doesn't even know where the dads are of the other 3.


----------



## whiskeylivewire (May 27, 2009)

poppy said:


> If they didn't, whose fault is it? Did any of them even try to find out the history of the guy before they slept with him? How many other men have they slept with who may have been married or had multiple kids by different women? The short answer is they did not care. The guy is a worthless piece of trash but the women are just as bad. I bet the sexual history of these women would drive any decent man away from them in a flash. Of course they wouldn't tell him.



Ever heard of liars or manipulators? I totally agree that women should be more astute when it comes to picking the men in their lives-BTDT. But to downgrade these women you know NOTHING about, because the man that most likely lied to them had other kids by different mothers does not immediately make them bad women.

How about this...you meet a man, he tells you that he's been married twice, he's not from the same town you're from. He's in the Army, so he has a full time job with benefits. He preys on a woman that has just gotten out of a 10 year relationship where she was mentally abused and controlled daily. She thinks it's love-he thinks it's sex. They get married and THEN she finds out why he really got divorced the previous two times, how many sexual partners he has had in the past(because there really is no way to tell if a man or woman is lying about that now is there?) and he then proceeds to cheat on the woman when she is 8 weeks pregnant and they have been married for 3 weeks(and they found out they were pregnant 2 days before the marriage). Does the woman have fault? Bet your patootie I did. The fault of falling in love with the WRONG man. Did he have fault. Darn straight. He lied and manipulated, left a pregnant woman, she took him back 3 times, and he then left again. He fought not to pay the amount he was asked to pay for child support and when it went up because he fought, he begged me to have them reduce it. I did NOT.

I'm sorry for getting riled up about your post, it sounds like you might be basing something on your past. But don't assume that just because of what he has done, that the women he had the children with are just as bad.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Tracy Rimmer said:


> All valid, except that this guy isn't sprinkling his seed like fairy dust as he walks by the mothers on the street. The women involved have some responsibility for BEING impregnated by a guy like this. I would imagine that, if support orders exist, that these women are doing their part in supporting their children -- we don't know if they are or aren't -- but anyone who either A) sees this guy's track record and chooses to reproduce with him, or B) doesn't know him well enough to know his track record and yet chooses to sleep with him anyhow, is at least PARTIALLY responsible for the situation.
> 
> Men, unless they're rapists, don't get into a situation like this alone. He may be a jerk, he may be the dirtiest slime ball to walk the earth, but women continue to CHOOSE to be involved with him, to the point of making babies. There needs to be accountability on both sides.
> 
> I'm not saying that he shouldn't be made to pay support; realistically, however, is supporting 23 kids even possible these days?


Again I'll say, we don't know if the Moms are supporting the kids or not, but as far as I know, none of the Moms have 23 kids. This man knew he impregnating these women, yet he kept doing it. Did he expect the Moms to raise them by themselves? 

I don't get it. How did the Moms wind up being the bad guys, when it appears most of them only have a couple of kids?

No where did it say that the Moms were on drugs, welfare, drunks or not supporting their children. Yet everyone seems to assume this is the case.

Yes, the Moms made a mistake of sleeping with this guy, but other than that we don't know any more. How many women makes the mistake of sleeping with jerks? Maybe this guy is very charming, maybe the Moms were young and didn't think things through, but they are NOT the ones who have 23 kids they aren't supporting.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

fishhead said:


> If the women are having children they can't support and living off welfare then my answer is YES. Sterilize or mandatory contraception. It might be cheaper to pay these women NOT to get pregnant than to support the children.


Where did it say these women were on welfare?


----------



## whiskeylivewire (May 27, 2009)

Google can tell you many things about a person, it can NOT tell you how many women they have slept with. Nor(unless you're a really good researcher) can it tell you how many children they have. People LIE. Some people are so good at it, they make careers out of it!


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

copperkid3 said:


> **********************************
> he's allowed conjugal visits???


Good Gracious! That's a scary thought!


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

poppy said:


> If they didn't, whose fault is it? Did any of them even try to find out the history of the guy before they slept with him? How many other men have they slept with who may have been married or had multiple kids by different women? The short answer is they did not care. The guy is a worthless piece of trash but the women are just as bad. I bet the sexual history of these women would drive any decent man away from them in a flash. Of course they wouldn't tell him.


You are making assumptions that they have slept with other men, or had babies with other men. These women didn't have 23 kids, and the kids they did have, from what I gathered reading the article, were living with them, so they were taking at least some responsibility for the kids.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

poppy said:


> It may not have said, but I would wager 99% of them are living off the taxpayers. Are you unfamiliar with this class of people? Look around because they are everywhere. About a month ago the son ( about 30 years old, won't work, uses drugs ) of one of my wife's friends came home to find his ---- of a wife in bed with some other bum. He leaves and somehow gets to a town 20 miles south of us where he gets bombed on meth and booze, steals a jeep, and proceeds to hit a family head on on a country road. The dad and kids weren't hurt bad, but the woman is still on a respirator and the guy who hit them is still in the hospital too. His wife had 3 kids by 3 different men when he met her and they have 2 more together. There she is in bed with yet another guy. She tested higher for meth than her husband who had the wreck and now my wife's friend has all 5 of the kids because the woman doesn't even know where the dads are of the other 3.


I would prefer to go with the actual facts than assumptions. And yes, I am familiar with all types of people, but I also am very careful about making assumptions. Here's my reasons for NOT assuming anything about anyone. When I was 19 years old I had 2 children that died in a housefire. After I got out of the hospital I was in the grocery store with my Dad when I heard two women speaking behind us. They were talking about a fire where two kids died and said that the Mother wasn't even home, but had left those babies alone in the house. I was that Mother, and believe me, I was there when my kids died. It's a nightmare I have lived over and over again. Yet for whatever reason, these two gossips assumed I was not there and was spreading their horrible lies. So before making assumptions about anyone, think about it.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> You are making assumptions that they have slept with other men, or had babies with other men. These women didn't have 23 kids, and the kids they did have, from what I gathered reading the article, were living with them, so they were taking at least some responsibility for the kids.


Are you suggesting they were all virgins until they met this guy? It sounds like you have lead a sheltered life. Talk to any cop or someone who works for family services. Like it or not, there is a subculture of people out there who are little more than animals in their living habits. I will bet at least 90% of those women are in that subculture. They will go to bed with any guy who will buy them a drink and think nothing about it. Unfortunately, there are plenty of willing deadbeats to seize the opportunity. These people, both male and female, have zero sense of responsibility or self control. Let's spread the blame fairly here. Both are equally guilty.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

poppy said:


> Are you suggesting they were all virgins until they met this guy? It sounds like you have lead a sheltered life. Talk to any cop or someone who works for family services. Like it or not, there is a subculture of people out there who are little more than animals in their living habits. I will bet at least 90% of those women are in that subculture. They will go to bed with any guy who will buy them a drink and think nothing about it. Unfortunately, there are plenty of willing deadbeats to seize the opportunity. These people, both male and female, have zero sense of responsibility or self control. Let's spread the blame fairly here. Both are equally guilty.


I guarantee you that I have not led a sheltered life. I have raised kids who's birthmoms died of drug overdoses. I have seen enough drug addicts to last me a lifetime. I have ministered to kids who have seen their parents commit suicide, or who have been sexually abused by their parents, so I do know about the lifestyle you are referring to, what I'm not doing is making assumptions about women I know nothing about other than they had the misfortune or falling for this man and getting pregnant by him. No, they aren't innocent in all of this, however, I have seen no evidence to suggest they are not supporting their children, whereas it's obvious this man wasn't.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

poppy said:


> Are you suggesting they were all virgins until they met this guy? *It sounds like you have lead a sheltered life.* Talk to any cop or someone who works for family services. Like it or not, there is a subculture of people out there who are little more than animals in their living habits. I will bet at least 90% of those women are in that subculture. They will go to bed with any guy who will buy them a drink and think nothing about it. Unfortunately, there are plenty of willing deadbeats to seize the opportunity. These people, both male and female, have zero sense of responsibility or self control. Let's spread the blame fairly here. Both are equally guilty.


There you go making assumptions again.


----------



## whiskeylivewire (May 27, 2009)

Sonshine-I am sorry for the loss of your children. I cannot imagine how truly horrific that must have been for you.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

poppy said:


> Men ARE often the victim too. Women are not all angels either. Women have to understand that in a consensual relationship, THEY are the ones who can get pregnant and take responsible precautions. Are all these women complete idiots? Why would a sane woman agree to have sex, especially unprotected sex, with some guy she met that night in a bar? Why would she have sex with a guy she hardly knows and knows nothing about his job status, work history, type of friends he has, marital status, etc.? That used to be the purpose of dating. It gave you time to get to know the person and you could pick up on things like alcohol or drug abuse, abusive personalities, lying, etc.


Men have to understand that in a consensual relationship, THEY are the ones who may end up fathering a child/paying child support and take responsible precautions. Are all these men complete idiots? What would a sane man agree to have sex, especially unprotected sex, with some tramp he met that night in a bar? Why would he have sex with a woman he hardly knows and knows nothing about her job status, work history, type of friends she has, marital status, etc.? That used to be the purpose of dating. It gave you time to get to know the person and you could pick up on things like alcohol or drug abuse, abusive personalities, lying, etc.

See what I'm getting at? No? Didn't really expect you would. If a woman has the responsibility to be careful because she might get pregnant, a man has a responsibility to be careful because he might end up paying child support. Normally I'd say he needs to be careful because he might end up bringing an unwanted child into the world but it's obvious a lot of people posting here don't care either way about the child. Just about how much money is coming out of their pockets.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

JanS said:


> Men have to understand that in a consensual relationship, THEY are the ones who may end up fathering a child/paying child support and take responsible precautions. Are all these men complete idiots? What would a sane man agree to have sex, especially unprotected sex, with some tramp he met that night in a bar? Why would he have sex with a woman he hardly knows and knows nothing about her job status, work history, type of friends she has, marital status, etc.? That used to be the purpose of dating. It gave you time to get to know the person and you could pick up on things like alcohol or drug abuse, abusive personalities, lying, etc.
> 
> See what I'm getting at? No? Didn't really expect you would. If a woman has the responsibility to be careful because she might get pregnant, a man has a responsibility to be careful because he might end up paying child support. Normally I'd say he needs to be careful because he might end up bringing an unwanted child into the world but it's obvious a lot of people posting here don't care either way about the child. Just about how much money is coming out of their pockets.


And to me this should be POTD!


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

JanS said:


> Men have to understand that in a consensual relationship, THEY are the ones who may end up fathering a child/paying child support and take responsible precautions. Are all these men complete idiots? What would a sane man agree to have sex, especially unprotected sex, with some tramp he met that night in a bar? Why would he have sex with a woman he hardly knows and knows nothing about her job status, work history, type of friends she has, marital status, etc.? That used to be the purpose of dating. It gave you time to get to know the person and you could pick up on things like alcohol or drug abuse, abusive personalities, lying, etc.
> 
> See what I'm getting at? No? Didn't really expect you would. If a woman has the responsibility to be careful because she might get pregnant, a man has a responsibility to be careful because he might end up paying child support. Normally I'd say he needs to be careful because he might end up bringing an unwanted child into the world but it's obvious a lot of people posting here don't care either way about the child. Just about how much money is coming out of their pockets.


You are just not getting it. Reality may not be pleasant but it is still reality. Any woman less ugly than a mud fence can have sex any time she desires and as often as she desires because men are sexual pigs and we all know it. That is reality. The feminists ALWAYS say a woman has the power over her own body when it comes to giving birth. They must then also have the power over whether or not they get pregnant. You can't have it both ways. Women must be responsible. It is simple. Don't go to bed with someone you don't know anything about. A lot of these deadbeat guys will never pay child support because they won't work. It isn't hard to find out about a guy unless he just drifted into town, in which case you shouldn't be going to bed with him anyway. If you met him, chances are you have mutual friends or acquaintances. Ask around about him. It isn't that difficult.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

I agree that women must be responsible. But men must be responsible too. If a woman doesn't want a child, it's HER responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen. If a man doesn't want a child, it's HIS responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen. You're making it sound like men have no self control and HAVE to have it. When the truth is that they can control themselves and WANT to have it. And guess what! Men can have it both ways, sex - yes, pregnancy - no, by the simple act of using a condom. 

Note that, unlike you, I'm not putting ALL responsibility on one sex or the other. Both women and men should look out for their own bodies.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

poppy said:


> You are just not getting it. Reality may not be pleasant but it is still reality. Any woman less ugly than a mud fence can have sex any time she desires and as often as she desires because men are sexual pigs and we all know it. That is reality. The feminists ALWAYS say a woman has the power over her own body when it comes to giving birth. They must then also have the power over whether or not they get pregnant. You can't have it both ways. Women must be responsible. It is simple. Don't go to bed with someone you don't know anything about. A lot of these deadbeat guys will never pay child support because they won't work. It isn't hard to find out about a guy unless he just drifted into town, in which case you shouldn't be going to bed with him anyway. If you met him, chances are you have mutual friends or acquaintances. Ask around about him. It isn't that difficult.


Guess it's not any more difficult than keeping your pants zipped up or wearing a condom.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

Cut off all child support. That would solve most if not all of the problems. The offended party would most likely cut off the offenders child producing equipment. No additional offenses. Huge money savings for the taxpayers.:bored:


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

JanS said:


> I agree that women must be responsible. But men must be responsible too. If a woman doesn't want a child, it's HER responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen. If a man doesn't want a child, it's HIS responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen. You're making it sound like men have no self control and HAVE to have it. When the truth is that they can control themselves and WANT to have it. And guess what! Men can have it both ways, sex - yes, pregnancy - no, by the simple act of using a condom.
> 
> Note that, unlike you, I'm not putting ALL responsibility on one sex or the other. Both women and men should look out for their own bodies.


Look, I have repeatedly said the men are deadbeats. However, it is the woman who can get pregnant. Would you co-sign a loan for someone you knew nothing about? No you wouldn't because you could end up getting in a bind. It is fine to put the responsibility on the person wanting you to co-sign the loan, but in the end it is you that is at risk. Same thing.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

You can quit trying to explain. I get what you're saying. I just don't agree with you.

Under your theory that men can't help themselves, should rape even be a crime? After all, men have to have it and that girl's skirt WAS pretty short....

You are so far out there that I almost can't believe it. It IS the woman who can get pregnant. It IS the man who can get stuck paying child support. Everyone take responsibility for preventing your own mess!


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

JanS said:


> You can quit trying to explain. I get what you're saying. I just don't agree with you.
> 
> Under your theory that men can't help themselves, should rape even be a crime? After all, men have to have it and that girl's skirt WAS pretty short....
> 
> You are so far out there that I almost can't believe it. It IS the woman who can get pregnant. It IS the man who can get stuck paying child support. Everyone take responsibility for preventing your own mess!


I'm the one who is " out there "? Really? Have you ever seen a man who will not work pay child support? They take them to court over and over and they never pay a dime. You cannot get blood from a turnip. You can put a claim on their income tax returns but since they do not work, they don't have a tax return to claim. They lay around with other deadbeat women and usually end up eating off the woman's food stamps meant to feed her kids.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Counselors often have someone "mirror" another person's words back at them so all are sure they understand each other. Let's try that. Here is what I'm hearing you say:

Men are bad. They cannot control their sexual urges. They don't like using protection. If they do get caught out, they will not pay child support and will in fact quit working rather than having money taken out of their check. But boys will be boys, and we wouldn't want to force them to take responsibility for their own behavior. So women have to be the responsible ones and either do without sex or use birth control.

That about right?


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2010)

poppy said:


> I'm the one who is " out there "? Really? *Have you ever seen a man who will not work pay child support?* They take them to court over and over and they never pay a dime. You cannot get blood from a turnip. You can put a claim on their income tax returns but since they do not work, they don't have a tax return to claim. They lay around with other deadbeat women and usually end up eating off the woman's food stamps meant to feed her kids.


I have. Some of them find jobs where they can get paid under the table, so that they don't have a *reportable* income.

And then of course are those who make their living dealing drugs.

But it's not always the men who are at fault in that department. A lot of multi-generational welfare mothers will deny that they know who the father is because they get more welfare if they don't get child support.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

An update to this story was filed. http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/09/families_paint_unflattering_pi.html Those of you who were ranting about the children being raised on welfare will be jumping up and down in glee.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

JanS said:


> An update to this story was filed. http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/09/families_paint_unflattering_pi.html Those of you who were ranting about the children being raised on welfare will be jumping up and down in glee.


To me the issue of the mothers is a non-issue. They did not have 23 kids. Although I don't agree with the way welfare is run, I do know that there are times when it's a neccessity.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

JanS said:


> An update to this story was filed. http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/09/families_paint_unflattering_pi.html Those of you who were ranting about the children being raised on welfare will be jumping up and down in glee.


It is nothing to be happy about at all, but it was easy to predict. Look at that guy's picture. He sure ain't no movie star. It gives some insight into the mentality of the women that bore kids by him. In other words, they weren't too particular and I bet if we could see their pictures, he wasn't too picky either.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

tinknal said:


> OK, how about me. I have been unemployed for 3 years, and am now working a temp job for $8.36 an hour. I have been ordered to pay over $600 a month in child support. The state is going to put me in prison if I can't pay up. Do the math. I don't care anymore, put me in jail, I'll just catch up on my summer reading.


What happened to the restaurant Tinknal?


----------

