Rightwinger Rightwinger

Octuplet mom....nutty as a pecan ball...

▼

Octuplet mom....nutty as a pecan ball...

.....and just as cheesy.

from JoeUser Forums

So the octuplet mom now has 14 kids. or, perhaps I should say, the people of California now have 8 more. Now, I have little doubt that most people would call it just a tad unethical, and in some places illegal, for any doctor to implant that many embryos at one time, in a woman who can't afford the 6 she already has.

It's one thing to HAVE 8 kids at one time; that can't be helped, if nature takes that course. 

But to have 8 embryos IMPLANTED?                                                                                                                                                  

Who would want that many? Her own mother said she's been obsessed with having kids since she was a teenager; obviously, the woman is, well...unbalanced?                                                                                                                                                                   But besides that; she's a prime example of what happens when government is perfectly willing to provide for all the needs of its citizens.

If there's no reason to take personal responsiblility, and to take care of you and your brood yourself, when you know that government will help you for as long as you need, where's the incentive to take responsiblity? To work? Your first thought becomes, literally, that the government will help you, so why should you be responsible? This is a perfect analogy for what's happened in Europe, and why England, for example, is virtually bankrupt, and for what's going to happen here, when and if Obama implements European-style Socialism.

People will take advantage; it's human nature, which is something leftist/liberal activists can never seem to grasp. And there's no incentive for the government bureaucrats who manage the system to get people out; the more people in the system, the better. It's job security. That's why welfare is so hard to get out of, even if you want to, once you get in.

But other than paying for all her kids, I want to know who paid for her plastic surgery; she's obviously had her lips done, and it looks like her eyes have been touched-up, too. She's on welfare! She hasn't got a job! Is the shallow, appearance-is-everything Hollyweird mentality so overwhelming that the welfare dept. even pays for minor cosmetic procedures?  What kind of state is Ahh-nuld running, out there on the Left Coast?

One that's as bankrupt as England. And deservedly so; or so it might seem.

politics
17,663 views 43 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting little-whip, reply 24
Welcome to America, land of the brave, where profit is privatized and risk is socialized. (If you can't see that you need only take a look at the banking bailout.)
End of little-whip's quote

Right.  Somehow I doubt that Congress would bail Brad out if Stardock went belly-up.

Reply #27 from Stardock Forums Top

...what was that about (corporate) welfare again?
End of quote

Ask Ralph Nader ... :rofl:

The suckers in the middle get to pay for all of it, one way or another.
End of quote

just two facets on the same spectrum of sticking it to the taxpayer.
End of quote

If by "taxpayer" you mean "The suckers in the middle" ... then that is yours truly .... and the funny thing is that i am not complaining ...

Both areas of government's speding, if done properly, are needed to make the economy grow, the rich richer and the poor from being destructive.

The trick is to make that spending "properly" .... that is what we should be talking about not about whether we spend on both areas.

that 300k over ten years (note, not an up-front lump sum, unlike the 900k up-front cost of expansion) is barely enough to pay half of one brand new developer over that ten year span.
End of quote

wait a minute ... isn't the price the consumer pays for the product suppose to pay for that?

I'm sick of seeing threads hijacked by her just so that she can smear me. It pisses me off seeing some asshat trying to argue that the government confiscating less of what we earn as being equivalent of someone who cranks out kids and stands back and gets checks from the government with nothing in return.
End of quote

of course you know that i am exiled from the site and also BL from your Blog, but i just wanted to tell you something.

First relax and take a deep breath and get off your high horse.

Second, LW did not equate the validity or the sense behind the two areas, she merely equated the fact that the "suckers" i.e. middle cass taxpayers like me, had no say in the matter. The rich have their connection to present their case to the gov and mostly get what they ask for and the poor have "the suckers" like me defending their right to some services.

But who is representing us to the gov once we elected it? I am sure you agree with that. and yes we are the ones who actually decide what type of gov the country gets ... we are suckers but we are the majority ... and vote is our only way we can speak or get heard by the powers to be. unforthunately ... it is usually after the fact ... not when it counts.

that is what she was saying. not equating your tax cut to the money that stupid woman is getting.

why is that insulting to you. You got what you asked for in a normal way that makes sense to the state and benefits you .. what is insulting in that? that you got a tax break? and that is insulting? .... 

everyone gets tax break of some kind ... the question is does the gov give those breaks where it benefits the country the most? and that is the gov job not yours.

It is very interesting ... this thread put in plain sight and in details what i was exiled for.

1- taxes are necessary to pay for busn incentives and create new and more customers

2- more and new customers make bus grow and make the rich richer and keep the "suckers" employed

the suckers know that and they dont complain much

the funny thing is .. the two groups who benefit the most, other than having a job, are the ones who complain the loudest all the time.

besides, isnt it better and more interesting to debate with opposing views .... i think it is ... but apparently you have very thin skin and get insulted easily.

I always tell my sons, almost your age by the way, dont put your dignity that low so it gets insulted easily. Keep it way up there where it should be.

 

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #28 from Stardock Forums Top

No ThinkAloud, I black listed from participating on my threads because you, like LW, have the IQ of a gnat.

If someone breaks into your house and steals everything in your living room but decides to leave the TV, he's not giving you a TV.

The government isn't giving me anything. They're simply agreeing to not take as much in exchange for me agreeing not to move to another state where I can run my business more profitably.

The problem is, losers like Little Whip waste their lives because they make poor decisions. LW certainly had more advantages than I did growing up. The difference comes down to the decisions we make. She made poor decisions, I made better decisions.

The government isn't giving me anything. I make relatively little use of the government. But yea, I'm going to use whatever leverage I have to try to get the government to get off my back as much as possible. Because at the end of the day, the people who actually have power are the ones who actually DO things. 

It chaffes liberals because they don't want to take any responsibility for what they do. That's why they rationalize the checks they get in the mail as being the same wiith the government taking less from successful businesses.

The middle class have little to complain about. Given that 10% of the population is paying 75% of the taxes, that means the middle class is getting more services out of the government than they are contributing. How in the world can they possibly complain?

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

If someone breaks into your house and steals everything in your living room but decides to leave the TV, he's not giving you a TV.

The government isn't giving me anything. They're simply agreeing to not take as much in exchange for me agreeing not to move to another state

End of quote

First of all the burglary analogy isn't really comparable - you have the right to move to a different state and work there, for example, and you're not being forced to work either. If you do work, then the price of being able to work in x state in y country is that you pay a small amount of your proceeds. Furthermore the taxing of the profits made is legal, while burglary isn't.

As to the government giving you anything, they are. Relative to the alternative of you working in the same state with no tax break, you're gaining around $230k. Even just looking relative to the alternative of you relocating with no tax break, it's almost impossible that the government will have got the size of promised in tax cuts that is over and above what was needed to make you stay, meaning compared to the alternative of receiving a lower tax cut that's only just enough to make you stay, you've been given money.

 

losers like Little Whip waste their lives because they make poor decisions. LW certainly had more advantages than I did growing up. The difference comes down to the decisions we make. She made poor decisions, I made better decisions.
End of quote

It depends what you mean by 'poor' and 'good' decisions - if for example someone goes out and buys a lottery ticket, and wins millions, I'd say that it was a poor decision, since the expected gain on say a $1 lottery ticket would have been negative. However that person is now rich because they made a poor decision and got lucky. I'm not trying to say that's the case with you, just giving an illustration of how luck can mean someone that makes a good decision loses out and someone that makes a bad decision wins.

Similarly, you might have the choice between earning a save $40k a year, or you could try a job that initially would give you nothing for several years, and then skyrocket up to $100k a year (meaning over the medium-long term you'd make far more going for the second option). It might seem that the good decision is to go for the second option (it gives you the best expected result, afterall), but what if you have several children who are dependent on you? If you go for the second option and get 0 income, you end up with massive hardship for them, far worse proportionately to $40k than the $100k is better than $40k. In that situation the best decision would likely be to go for the safe job.

 

Anyway back to the original topic, I haven't heard many people give alternatives to the current situation that they'd support - either you give money to people in cases like this so they can survive, or you end up with (some of) them suffering, and possibly being out on the streets starving+eventually dead. You might say that's what the mother deserves (for making poor decisions, or being unfortunate, or having the misfortune of not being born with as high an intelligence as someone else), but is that what the children deserve?

Reply #30 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting maudlin27, reply 34
First of all the burglary analogy isn't really comparable - you have the right to move to a different state and work there, for example, and you're not being forced to work either.
End of maudlin27's quote

And I suppose once all of the states are bad that Brad should move out of the USA entirely.  Nobody should be forced to leave the country just because of a few idiots in business suits think socialism is a good idea and pass a few laws for it.

I might move out of the USA myself, at the rate we're going, we won't be here much longer anyway.

And as for not being forced to work - that is unfounately true with the government welfare programs and other such socialistic things.

That is, it's true until the system collapses, and all those freeloaders find themselves in the cold, cruel world (aka reality).  Where will all of those precious handouts come from then?

Reply #31 from Stardock Forums Top

you have the right to move to a different state and work there, for example, and you're not being forced to work either
End of quote

Glad you agree.  So what more is there to discuss? LW's idiotic comparison of welfare to the Octuplet mom being the same as a tax cut.

As for the rest of your statement, no, you're just clueless. The money we earn is ours. It is not inherently the government's. 

Since we're approaching tax time, I would highly recommend you not talk about how generous the government is to the guy who's paying millions in taxes. Because Maudlin, you're very close to losing access to JU.  

You want to talk about issues in the abstract, be my guest.  But don't sit on the site that we provide to you for free and try to argue that the govenrment is "giving" me money.  

Let's get some facts out of the way:

1. The government doesn't give me a cent.  I am not a company. So comparing me personally to the Octuplet mom is incredibly offensive. I do not exist as some sort of machine to provide jobs and opportunities to others.

2. The state government has agreed to reduce the amount of money it takes. 53 employees over 10 years is a $25 million investment by Stardock (that's just salary, not counting benefits, buildout costs, maint. etc.). In exchange, they have agreed to reduce the taxes we pay on our profits by up to $1.1M (give or take).  If we aren't profitable, for some reason, then obviously the taxes cut aren't there. The state takes no risk at all here.

3. The state government has agreed to do the above because running a tech company in Michigan is more expensive than in other states due to higher taxes, smaller employee base, poorer tech infrastructure, etc.  The state of Michigan is wisely trying to make the state more competitive for businesses.

4. Let me just say it again: A tax cut is NOT free money. That "logic" only works if you assume that all of your earnings are property of the government and what you keep is merely the money the government allows you to have.

5. The law of JU remains the same: Don't piss me off. I don't care about your opnions on any political matter. But if you are going to start attacking, insulting or demeaning me or our company (or helping those that do) then you're out of here. 

Reply #32 from Stardock Forums Top

Anyway back to the original topic, I haven't heard many people give alternatives to the current situation that they'd support - either you give money to people in cases like this so they can survive, or you end up with (some of) them suffering, and possibly being out on the streets starving+eventually dead. You might say that's what the mother deserves (for making poor decisions, or being unfortunate, or having the misfortune of not being born with as high an intelligence as someone else), but is that what the children deserve?
End of quote

We have charities.  If people feel the way they do, they should donate to charity.

I personally resent having to pay for other people's so-called compassion. In a country where nearly half the country pays no net taxes, it's pretty ridiculous that we're transfering cash payments to individuals for irresponsible behavior.

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

The law of JU remains the same: Don't piss me off...if you are going to start attacking, insulting or demeaning me or our company (or helping those that do) then you're out of here.
End of quote


I didn't do any of that, I simply disagreed with you (since until now I didn't know that wasn't acceptable). As an aside it might be worth clarifying the 'don't piss me off' rule (and others) in the terms of service, since gal civ players are directed to here for political (and other inflammatory) issues, where due to the nature of them I'd have thought debate was acceptable unless otherwise stated, and from my own experience  I'd have appreciated knowing in advance that debating with you would jeopordise my stardock account. This is meant just as a suggestion to avoid other customers having a similar experience, and is in no way intended to be construed as a criticism, or an attack, or to make you angry. In any event you don't have to worry about me making any further posts on the JU part of the site (outside of the gal civ/game related area - I'm assuming that's still ok since I am one - which seem to fall under JU) - I've no wish to have my galciv account banned for engaging in political debate.

Reply #34 from Stardock Forums Top

in regards to the mass implantation, if i remember correctly, they implant about 10 eggs, usually only a few take, and in the rare case that more than 2 take they abort the others. So, the crazy part here is her carrying 8 babies at once... how does that even WORK? how is there space in the stomach for that?

oh wait, I SEE how it works: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/11/octuplet-mom-nadya-sulema_n_166030.html

Notice every single baby is on life support? because there is not enough space in the stomach they are all under developed, and underdeveloped babies are SICK babies, they are going to have a variety of issues growing up, from diseases to weak immune system to lower IQ than they could have otherwise had. It is criminal that she carried them ALL to term instead of limiting herself to 2-3 at once and giving those the change to fully develop.

Reply #35 from Stardock Forums Top

 She also receives $490 a month in food stamps and receives about $600 in disability payments a month for each of the three of her older six children with disabilities. One has ADHD, one had a speech impediment and one has autism,

Wow... ADHD and "speech impediment" counts as a disability for which your parents get a check every month? how fucked up is that?

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

When you subsidize disability in an environment of underemployed lawyers (has there ever been a time when there was a shortage of lawyers?), the definition of disability continuously expands and the incidence of disability skyrockets.  Nothing mysterious about that.

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting maudlin27, reply 8

The law of JU remains the same: Don't piss me off...if you are going to start attacking, insulting or demeaning me or our company (or helping those that do) then you're out of here.

I didn't do any of that, I simply disagreed with you (since until now I didn't know that wasn't acceptable). As an aside it might be worth clarifying the 'don't piss me off' rule (and others) in the terms of service, since gal civ players are directed to here for political (and other inflammatory) issues, where due to the nature of them I'd have thought debate was acceptable unless otherwise stated, and from my own experience  I'd have appreciated knowing in advance that debating with you would jeopordise my stardock account. This is meant just as a suggestion to avoid other customers having a similar experience, and is in no way intended to be construed as a criticism, or an attack, or to make you angry. In any event you don't have to worry about me making any further posts on the JU part of the site (outside of the gal civ/game related area - I'm assuming that's still ok since I am one - which seem to fall under JU) - I've no wish to have my galciv account banned for engaging in political debate.
End of maudlin27's quote

So that we're clear:

Good political debate need not be personal.

I want people to debate the issues. I get pretty irritated when people try to drag me personally into the discussion, especially when they don't know what they're talking about.

People love the strawman "I got banned for disagree with Brad".  People disagree with Brad.  What gets them thrown off is when they stop talking about politics and instead target me personally or the company.

Reply #38 from Stardock Forums Top

in regards to the mass implantation, if i remember correctly, they implant about 10 eggs, usually only a few take, and in the rare case that more than 2 take they abort the others.
End of quote

No, that's not the way it works.  The common practice with a woman as young as this is to only implant a max of 3 embryos.  The ultimate goal is 1 baby at a time.  I don't know anyone who would suggest going in and aborting if all 3 took.  When there are more than 3, that's when things get down right dangerous for mom and babies.

Reply #39 from Stardock Forums Top

I'd have appreciated knowing in advance that debating with you would jeopordise my stardock account.
End of quote

Debating won't jeopordize anything.  Personal attacks will indeed do the trick but that should be a no brainer and not need to be spelled out or reminded.  If you are too stupid to follow that simple rule, you don't belong here.

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting JillUser, reply 13

in regards to the mass implantation, if i remember correctly, they implant about 10 eggs, usually only a few take, and in the rare case that more than 2 take they abort the others.

No, that's not the way it works.  The common practice with a woman as young as this is to only implant a max of 3 embryos.  The ultimate goal is 1 baby at a time.  I don't know anyone who would suggest going in and aborting if all 3 took.  When there are more than 3, that's when things get down right dangerous for mom and babies.
End of JillUser's quote

thanks for the correction, then the doctor was doing it wrong then... probably at her request... maybe she figured "hey, if i had 6 babies at once I will be famous and get more donations... and the doctor says they will be disabled due to premature birth! That means MORE FREE MONEY!"

Honestly she should be jailed for reckless endangerment of her children. or something like that.

Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

3) I just saw an article this morning that said she has started a website where she is actively soliciting donations. She takes Visa, Mastercard, and Paypal. How nice of her to be so accepting.
End of quote

I wonder if that'll be deducted from her welfare check?

I wonder when they'll suspend the MD who implanted the embryos (first and second times)?

I wonder when the awesome responsibility of parenthood will be licensed? After all, to sell hot dogs, cut hair, do plumbing or drive a car you need one.

Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

I wonder when the awesome responsibility of parenthood will be licensed? After all, to sell hot dogs, cut hair, do plumbing or drive a car you need one.
End of quote

Won't have to wait too long, what with the official birth of the nanny state courtesy of BO.  Federally controlled licenses for just about every aspect of life are the logical and probably inevitable consequence of ever-expanding federal largesse - we must be sure that the mythical 'taxpayers' money' is wisely spent, after all.  It may have already occurred to some Rahm Emanuel type, but the surest way to achieve complete federal gun control is to tax-subsidize gun ownership.  They made the first end-run around the 2nd amendment in the 1930's, which ultimately gave us what is now the ATF.

Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top

Didn't take you long to revert to your normal habit of quoting things I never said. You basically seem to be arguing it's better for the government to spend 3 times as much on child benefits with those children being spread over several families than it is to make those child benefits be used in the most efficient manner (assuming you don't want children+their parents out on the streets starving, which thinking about it is probably a fairly big assumption), since I'm arguing for the 'more efficient' spending and you're disagreeing with me.
End of quote
---maudlin

Yeah...sorry; old habits die hard, especially when I did it maybe once before. I apologize. Coulda sworn you wrote that, now I can't find it. My fault. You're still an asshole. :cylon:

I think the babies should be adopted out to families that can honestly care for them, emotionally and psychologically as well as financially. Then she should be sterilized so it never happens again.

Lots of childless people out there; people with big hearts and homes. How much love, guidance and plain old stability do you think this creepy, whacked-out, self-deluding Angelina Jolie wannabe is going to be able to provide? For 14 kids?

You, on the other hand, want to leave them in the care of this woman, who is obviously suffering from some severe personality and mental issues. I've heard of kids being taken away for much less. Much less.

Yeah, looking after 14 children is 'sitting on your ass doing nothing'. No doubt you aren't the primary carer of any children.
End of quote
--maudlin

Typical, sad little bleeding heart liberal; that's right dear...when in doubt, nitpick and parse words.  Allow me, for a moment, the same priviledge: no, I'm not the primary CAREGIVER of any children. You know perfectly well what I meant; please stop being deliberately dense. She doesn't have a job....as in, gainful, clock-punching, taxpaying employment. She collects the fruits of others labors.

"So you have no problem with a society that leaves women and children to starve on the streets? Because that is the inevitable result if you don't have the government ensure that people can at least survive. Charity will help some people, but not all, since by it's nature it's unreliable."---maudlin, replying to Drag

And the government is a rock? Solid and trustworthy? Governmental bureacracy is a boil on the ass of the world. Can you say Katrina? Can you say the Department of Motor Vehicles, for crying out loud? I'll let a great man speak for himself:

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."---Ronald Reagan