22 Kids - 13 Women - No Job - ALL ON WELFARE

[Papageorgio]

He has too many children. I don't however see how where he tosses his sperm is a "liberal" issue, or any of the publics business.

It's the public's business, if the public supports him.

 

[Sunshine]

The right to have children is written in the Constitution. What most people don't seem to realize is that every right can also be regulated. So, yes, we the public DO have a say in how many children he can father. "We the public" have just been too chicken shit to take the bull by the horns and regulate the right. And by the time we get enough intestinal fortitude for the task we will be so outnumbered that regulating that right will be impossible.

You have the freedom to have as many kids as you want as long as you can afford them yourself, just as you have the freedom to own as many guns as you want as long as you buy them, and travel as you wish as long as you do your own travelling.

You do not have the right to be given guns, you do not have the right to travel by having someone carry you from place to place. Why do you then have the right to have multiple children and have someone else (taxpayers) pay for them?

Because the right to have children is not regulated at present.

 

[AmyNation]

It becomes the public's "biznez" when he becomes a bloodsucking parasite and robs taxpayers of their hard earned money to support all of his children..

You wouldn't get it.. that doesn't surprise me in the least about you.

Alas, that's not how it works. We(the public) have no say in how many children he can father.


However with all this attention maybe someone will start a "get Orlando fixed" fund. I'd donate to that.

The right to have children is written in the Constitution. What most people don't seem to realize is that every right can also be regulated. So, yes, we the public DO have a say in how many children he can father. "We the public" have just been too chicken shit to take the bull by the horns and regulate the right. And by the time we get enough intestinal fortitude for the task we will be so outnumbered that regulating that right will be impossible.

You should start a thread about that. I'd love to see you defend expanding government by such monumentally intrusive proportions.

 

[AmyNation]

He has too many children. I don't however see how where he tosses his sperm is a "liberal" issue, or any of the publics business.

It's the public's business, if the public supports him.

Can you point out the law that says this?

 

[Papageorgio]

Over eat, have large soda, smoke a cigarette and left flips out because of a burden of added health care. Pop out welfare babies, cost taxpayers that way, and that is none of our business.

Can someone explain the logic?

 

[Sunshine]

Over eat, have large soda, smoke a cigarette and left flips out because of a burden of added health care. Pop out welfare babies, cost taxpayers that way, and that is none of our business.

Can someone explain the logic?

According to T...polkadot, the word 'logic' is not in the Bible.

 

[Sunshine]

Alas, that's not how it works. We(the public) have no say in how many children he can father.


However with all this attention maybe someone will start a "get Orlando fixed" fund. I'd donate to that.

The right to have children is written in the Constitution. What most people don't seem to realize is that every right can also be regulated. So, yes, we the public DO have a say in how many children he can father. "We the public" have just been too chicken shit to take the bull by the horns and regulate the right. And by the time we get enough intestinal fortitude for the task we will be so outnumbered that regulating that right will be impossible.

You should start a thread about that. I'd love to see you defend expanding government by such monumentally intrusive proportions.

You would be too stupid to understand it.

 

[AmyNation]

Over eat, have large soda, smoke a cigarette and left flips out because of a burden of added health care. Pop out welfare babies, cost taxpayers that way, and that is none of our business.

Can someone explain the logic?

I don't consider myself "the left". I don't agree with regulating someone soda intake or the amount of children they have

You seem to not see the difference in "being disgusted"(which I am) and "demanding the government fix it"( which I don't)

 

[ClosedCaption]

I love this so what do we do when people end up turning to welfare? It happens when people don't expect it so if they have a bunch of kids then end up on welfare is that when we take the children and put them into the foster home system? Do you adopt them? Kill them? make them kneel on dry beans?

When ppl get off of welfare do we give the kids back? Dead or alive? say "my bad I had to torture you but it was for your own good"?

I'm really intrigued by this idea...it's so awfully short sighted.

 

[AmyNation]

The right to have children is written in the Constitution. What most people don't seem to realize is that every right can also be regulated. So, yes, we the public DO have a say in how many children he can father. "We the public" have just been too chicken shit to take the bull by the horns and regulate the right. And by the time we get enough intestinal fortitude for the task we will be so outnumbered that regulating that right will be impossible.

You should start a thread about that. I'd love to see you defend expanding government by such monumentally intrusive proportions.

You would be too stupid to understand it.

Perhaps.

I have yet to hear an argument about government permission to procreate that I find logical or ethical.

 

[Papageorgio]

Over eat, have large soda, smoke a cigarette and left flips out because of a burden of added health care. Pop out welfare babies, cost taxpayers that way, and that is none of our business.

Can someone explain the logic?

I don't consider myself "the left". I don't agree with regulating someone soda intake or the amount of children they have

You seem to not see the difference in "being disgusted"(which I am) and "demanding the government fix it"( which I don't)

I don't want government to fix it, I don't want government support it either.

 

[AmyNation]

Over eat, have large soda, smoke a cigarette and left flips out because of a burden of added health care. Pop out welfare babies, cost taxpayers that way, and that is none of our business.

Can someone explain the logic?

I don't consider myself "the left". I don't agree with regulating someone soda intake or the amount of children they have

You seem to not see the difference in "being disgusted"(which I am) and "demanding the government fix it"( which I don't)

I don't want government to fix it, I don't want government support it either.

Are you against welfare or against welfare in this specific situation?

 

[auditor0007]

Are you suggesting we should sterilize people? or that the kids don't deserve to eat? Why is this in politics?

^^^^ Stoooopid Zombie response to some assclown screwing 17 diff women and have 21 different kids by all of them and NO FUCKING job to support them.

LIBRULS= BRAINDEAD MORONS

See, nobody really supports this. The difference is that moderates and liberals understand there are some jackasses like this out there, but we don't support cutting out welfare completely to millions of truly needy people just so this one assclown will no longer be able to collect. Those of you with all the outrage believe the solution is to cut off everyone from welfare regardless of their actual need, just so this one guy won't get a free ride.

And don't try telling me you support welfare for those who truly need it, because you have never ever suggested a way to remove this type of jackass from the system without affecting all those who truly need welfare. If you have an idea of how to better the system rather than just squealing about it, then please, give us your ideas. You see, not even liberals support this assclown, but you try to make it some bullshit partisan issue.

 

[Meathead]

I don't consider myself "the left". I don't agree with regulating someone soda intake or the amount of children they have

You seem to not see the difference in "being disgusted"(which I am) and "demanding the government fix it"( which I don't)

I don't want government to fix it, I don't want government support it either.

Are you against welfare or against welfare in this specific situation?

I am not against a safety net for children, but less so inclined for their parents.

I have only one child whom I've put a lot of effort into in the hope of him being successful in every way possible.

What I do object to is the indignation that my child will likely be far more successful than the 22 children of said stud. Progressives will invariably whine about the unequal distribution of wealth.

That is what the Obama presidency is all about after all.

 

[auditor0007]

Over eat, have large soda, smoke a cigarette and left flips out because of a burden of added health care. Pop out welfare babies, cost taxpayers that way, and that is none of our business.

Can someone explain the logic?

Seems to me it's the right that is against abortion. Just saying......

 

[AmazonTania]

Are you suggesting we should sterilize people? or that the kids don't deserve to eat? Why is this in politics?

^^^^ Stoooopid Zombie response to some assclown screwing 17 diff women and have 21 different kids by all of them and NO FUCKING job to support them.

LIBRULS= BRAINDEAD MORONS

See, nobody really supports this. The difference is that moderates and liberals understand there are some jackasses like this out there, but we don't support cutting out welfare completely to millions of truly needy people just so this one assclown will no longer be able to collect. Those of you with all the outrage believe the solution is to cut off everyone from welfare regardless of their actual need, just so this one guy won't get a free ride.

There are millions who really need it, but there are far more who truly don't. Calling this a diamond in the rough is calling a distinction without a difference.

And don't try telling me you support welfare for those who truly need it, because you have never ever suggested a way to remove this type of jackass from the system without affecting all those who truly need welfare. If you have an idea of how to better the system rather than just squealing about it, then please, give us your ideas. You see, not even liberals support this assclown, but you try to make it some bullshit partisan issue.

An auditing system.

 

[Sunshine]

You should start a thread about that. I'd love to see you defend expanding government by such monumentally intrusive proportions.

You would be too stupid to understand it.

Perhaps.

I have yet to hear an argument about government permission to procreate that I find logical or ethical.

Actually, the Constitution doesn't specifically enumerate the right to have children. I thought you would be fast enough on the uptake to catch that. Guess not. LOL

 

[AmyNation]

You want to argue that the right to a family isn't part of the constitution?

 

[Sunshine]

^^^^ Stoooopid Zombie response to some assclown screwing 17 diff women and have 21 different kids by all of them and NO FUCKING job to support them.

LIBRULS= BRAINDEAD MORONS

See, nobody really supports this. The difference is that moderates and liberals understand there are some jackasses like this out there, but we don't support cutting out welfare completely to millions of truly needy people just so this one assclown will no longer be able to collect. Those of you with all the outrage believe the solution is to cut off everyone from welfare regardless of their actual need, just so this one guy won't get a free ride.

There are millions who really need it, but there are far more who truly don't. Calling this a diamond in the rough is calling a distinction without a difference.

And don't try telling me you support welfare for those who truly need it, because you have never ever suggested a way to remove this type of jackass from the system without affecting all those who truly need welfare. If you have an idea of how to better the system rather than just squealing about it, then please, give us your ideas. You see, not even liberals support this assclown, but you try to make it some bullshit partisan issue.

An auditing system.

We will either reach the place where we have to implement a 1 child policy like China, or we will have a new class of slaves whose entire earning potential goes to people who don't work. Last year, I paid enough federal taxes alone to support a family of 6 under the federal poverty guidelines.

I feel cheated. I wish I had more children. But I bought the 60s rhetoric that advocated a couple only replace themselves - two children only. It was hard raising them alone, but they turned out OK. They are there for me every day. I just wish I had more, I would have enjoyed more. And their burden of caring for me with this illness would have been split in more than just two ways. Why did I listen to that silly bullshit. Beats the hell out of me. Now look who gets to have them, worthless low life scum.

 

[Sunshine]

You want to argue that the right to a family isn't part of the constitution?

The right to marry and to raise your children as you see fit is part of it. The right to HAVE children is not.