davjohns

I am growing more certain by the post that some people hereon intentionally misunderstand my posts. My question (probably rhetorical) is how we effect policies that dissuade this kind of behavior while protecting children. In this case, how do we withhold money from irresponsible people while not leaving the children behind? Yes, I presume there are state social programs being utilized here. I have no evidence of it other than 45 years of life in the South. But I'll put my next paycheck against yours and then investigate if you like. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Neat little trick. He fooled me. Thanks for cluing me in. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'm not sure we were basing anything on his race. I'm pretty much assuming that intelligent, hard working women would run from this guy. And I don't know that anyone is suggesting policy based on this guy. It seems to me we are mostly at a loss as to how to handle stuff like this without doing wrong by someone elsewhere. You seem to be spoiling for an argument. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Looks like lots of fun to me. Where do I order my wheel of death? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I've done a fair amount of federal criminal defense. What I saw was that high conviction rates were due to cherry picking. A buddy of mine was a state bureau of investigation detective at the time and he had the same perspective. The feds have two kinds of cases; slam dunks and political. During the Bush administration, they prosecuted lots of felon in possession of a firearm cases. The bulk of them were guys who had entered a guilty plea in state court in exchange for probation. Then, the feds stepped in an prosecuted for the exact same crime, but with an admission of guilt in hand. Slam dunk. Alternately, they would keep sending investigators back to the drawing board until the case was airtight. Until it was airtight, they would not seek an indictment. The other kind of case is the one they lose. They prosecute someone for political reasons despite a weak case. Those are the ones where a good defense lawyer can make a difference. Meanwhile, make no mistake, the US Attorney's Office does not hire dummies. They are good. They also have the odds stacked in their favor much of the time. But when they don't, they are vulnerable. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

That's my concern. How do we put pressure on the parents without harming the children? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I don't think Billy meant it quite as serious as all that. Forced sterilization would never pass constitutional muster. However, it does beg the question of public financing of private behavior. If we are funding this as I suspect... I don't know. There is no perfect solution. I just think our society makes it too easy for this behavior to go on. Maybe if eleven dads knew they could beat this guy black and blue without criminal charges, he would keep it in his pants. Maybe if these eleven women knew they would not receive government support for the children, they would keep their legs crossed. Maybe if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their asses all the time. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[reply) But if its not necessary, I wouldnt be using one, so it seems silly to put one on just to take it off... This is the same argument I use for wandering around the house naked. Surprised nobody else caught that. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'd do them. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Billy suggested the guy get a vasectomy. I think he would also agree that the women should get fixed. I don't think anyone suggested it was only the fault of the male. I would bet large sums of money that the 11 women have children by other men as well. I would bet large sums of money that tax dollars are going to support this debacle. That's why I'm at a loss. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Thanks for sharing. You are right that it was a very nice change. Do GW and Laura look younger than they did while in office? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

No doubt that's part of it, maybe a lot of it. But it begs the question: if he's a f***ing pig of a dictator (which I think he basically is), and he's been in office since 1999, why only now? Why not at least 10 years ago as an urgent element in his strategy to consolidate his power? Actually, the stuff I am reading indicates this is just one of many steps. Apparently he has been known for cutting funds to cities and areas that did not elect people loyal to him, stripped firearms from police in those same areas, etc. That has lead to more violence. Police have had to supplement their income by becoming criminals (restricting gun ownership to cops should help, right?). It's basically a complete mess with lots of reasons that ultimately lead back to Chavez. Papers have published pictures of murder victims and the Chavez courts have outlawed such photos. Murder rates have been increasing steadily and dramatically since he took office. Now, the time is ripe to restrict firearms to only those loyal to him and crush resistance. This could get even uglier. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country Wow! I had no idea the US had 89 firearms per 100 people. I don't see Venezuela on the list at all. I don't think that means they are too low to make the list. I suspect it is hard to get numbers under the Chavez regime. What I've been reading indicates the murder rate is also hard to figure out because of his regime. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Interesting. Personally, I think the president is only concerned about preventing one murder...his. Just my two cents. I'm going to use my magical google to try to find out why they have so many murders. I know some around here will argue that it's private ownership of firearms. I'm going to pretend that people are weilding those firearms and see if they have some motivation other than the firearm told them to do it. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I think I caught on the news that this actually happened a year ago. The video just went viral and started the commotion. I find that interesting. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Great story. Thanks for sharing. David I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Funny. I tried to join a sorority in college. I've even approached the personnel section about changing my ethnic status. I kind of like the idea here: Dear Senator Harkin, As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you. My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for only three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out. Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005. Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year. Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as 'in-state' tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son. Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me, given that I still have college age children driving my car. If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance Your Loyal Constituent, (hoping to reach 'illegal alien' status rather than just a bonafide citizen of the USA ) Donald Ruppert Burlington , IA I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Fully agree. If they reviewed it annually, there would still be some people complaining in election years, but it would be a tempest in a teacup. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

He once tried to get himself elected president for life. The only thing surprising about this move is that he waited so long. Tyrants usually try to disarm the population first. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I've gotten rather skeptical of conspiracy theories as the years go by. I see what you are saying and I definitely agree it is suspicious enough to question. At the same time, I think conspiracy theories often give government and political parties too much credit. My experience has been that you can't get enough people to agree and head in the right direction long enough for a good conspiracy. I find things like this are most often a result of incompetence rather than malice. Worth investigating, but likely just ineptness at a suspicious time. I would be completely unsurprised to find that this move was directed years ago and the approach of the elections caused someone to finally do their job. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I agree with your comment that it is a common sense way to reduce expenditures. I think even more basic is the idea that authority and responsibility go hand in hand. You can not make government responsible for your health care and simultaneously retain authority. If the government pays the costs of your smoking, the government gets to stop your smoking. If the government pays the costs of your health issues, the government gets to tell you how to take care of yourself. I honestly think that mandatory exercise classes run by the government are reasonable once government is responsible for healthcare. Thus, my desire to keep government out of my life as much as possible. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

YES! My point exactly! Just like fences make good neighbors; good contracts make clear agreements. Get the government out of telling people what constitutes a family, marriage, etc. Whoever wants to enter into a permanent relationship with another person(s) can put it in writing. There! Done! Everyone knows what they are getting into, what's expected of them, and what the exit strategy is. No government involvement needed unless someone tries to breach the contract. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Years ago, I noticed a difference in media wording when it came to events involving firearms. I would read, "The victim was killed by a 12 gage shotgun". Some articles don't mention that anyone was holding the shotgun. It's as if gangs of shotguns are hanging out in alleys waiting for victims. Meanwhile, "The victim was stabbed with a knife." Well that makes sense. 'With' means that someone was weilding the knife. There was another person involved. Got it. So, why is someone killed 'by' a firearm, but 'with' another weapon? Because being killed by a firearm eliminates the person who formulated the intent and weilded the firearm. It would be more accurate to say, "The victim was killed by David Johnson with a 12 gage shotgun". But that puts the blame on me, and exonerates the tool, doesn't it? Listen to the media and read more critically. See if you notice this funky wording to put blame on the firearm. I hear it pretty routinely. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

(Newser) – Move over, Jon and Kate. Time to retire, Duggar family. Because Desmond Hatchett has you all beat—he has 30 children, courtesy of 11 different women. And as the 33-year-old Tennessee man earns just minimum wage, he's asking the courts to give him a break on his child support payments, reports Yahoo!'s Sideshow blog. But with so many children, some of his babymamas get as little as $1.49 per month, so the court doesn't have a ton of room to help him. After getting in legal trouble for not paying support in 2009, Hatchett, who then had 21 children, promised a court that he would stop having children. He apparently hasn't tried very hard, and has since upped his count by nine. http://www.newser.com/story/146358/guy-wants-a-break-on-child-support-for-30-kids.html This was on the local news. I'm at a loss. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Fully agreed. Now, how many people can I be civil unioned with? Take out the religious portion and it seems clear there is no reason to prohibit polygamy. For that matter, there's no reason to regulate it at all. If men and women are equal, there is no reason for regulation of marriage or civil unions. Everything provided under the law was meant to protect a lesser party (traditionally the woman) from abuse and abandonment. If we are all equal, those protections are no longer needed. They can be easily replicated by a Last Will, a marriage contract and the appropriate arrangements with your health insurance provider, etc. The courts are perfectly suited to determining property rights pursuant to a contract that the parties have decided to terminate without all the extraneous regulation for marriage. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.