Home - List All Discussions

Fess up time Nancy

by: BossMomma

http://www.pro-lifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=5880&STARTPAGE=3&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
Originally posted by: nancyu
What a perverted saying that is. I don't know why anyone would think it's worth repeating.
You are avoiding the responsibility of having children aren't you? How many cars can you afford on your single income? How big of a home can you afford on your single income? How many steak dinners per week can you afford on your single income? What about your cable bill. Why is it that children are the first to be sacrificed because we "can't afford" them. What you really mean is that with more kids you might not have as many nice things right now.
Don't you get it? Does your state do its best to keep people from entering? No they want more people, because more people means a better stronger economy. Kids need to be financially supported for 18 years maybe a little less. My daughter had her first job at age 15. My son had a good paying job at age 17. If I had 10 more kids, I'd have 10 more now, to help pay the bills and help around the house. And it doesn't have to cost a fortune to feed children. There are plenty of ways to economize. Money saving tips in this thread
Don't be so short sighted. There is no way to know what life will be like a few years down the road. Times could be better, they could be worse, with three kids or ten. You might end up caring for your parents some day. Would you say to them, "sorry I 'can't afford you' right now?" What would be the "responsible" thing to do then?

reply from: Faramir

As much as I dislike nancyu for her sticking the knife in and twisting it when she can, I don't see what's all that wrong with her statements you quoted.

reply from: BossMomma

A responsible parent handles their own bills and expenses, that is not the child's job. Nancy's statement that she would have kids just to help with the house and pay bills is appalling. If she can't handle her own bills she didn't need to have kids which are far more expensive. She was claiming that it is irresponsible to limit your family size according to what your income can support.

reply from: nancyu

A responsible parent handles their own bills and expenses, that is not the child's job. Nancy's statement that she would have kids just to help with the house and pay bills is appalling. If she can't handle her own bills she didn't need to have kids which are far more expensive. She was claiming that it is irresponsible to limit your family size according to what your income can support.
That would be appalling if I had said (or did) that, but I didn't.
You really should get more sleep.

reply from: BossMomma

A responsible parent handles their own bills and expenses, that is not the child's job. Nancy's statement that she would have kids just to help with the house and pay bills is appalling. If she can't handle her own bills she didn't need to have kids which are far more expensive. She was claiming that it is irresponsible to limit your family size according to what your income can support.
That would be appalling if I had said (or did) that, but I didn't.
You really should get more sleep.
you really should get help for that habitual lying.

reply from: Yuuki

you really should get help for that habitual lying.
Yeah, really Nancyu. The post is right out there for everyone to see. And it's hard to misinterpret. You basically did say that you'd have more kids so they could help pay the bills.

reply from: Faramir

you really should get help for that habitual lying.
Yeah, really Nancyu. The post is right out there for everyone to see. And it's hard to misinterpret. You basically did say that you'd have more kids so they could help pay the bills.
That wasn't what she meant.
She just meant that it's not necessarily a burden to have lots of children, and eventually they can help out with the expenses.
If you'll be fair and look at it IN CONTEXT, what she meant was that there's no economic excuse for KILLING THEM.

reply from: yoda

Wow....... you just never know where common sense is going to raise it's ugly head around here...... Faramir actually got it!

reply from: nancyu

you really should get help for that habitual lying.
Yeah, really Nancyu. The post is right out there for everyone to see. And it's hard to misinterpret. You basically did say that you'd have more kids so they could help pay the bills.
I'm sure you worked very hard at misinterpreting it. Kudos to you.

reply from: nancyu

Wow....... you just never know where common sense is going to raise it's ugly head around here...... Faramir actually got it!
Shocking.
Ahh, I know why, he tried misinterpreting it, but it was too hard to do. We all know how lazy he can be!

reply from: Cecilia

BM and Yukki, so you have nancyu talking about her micro economy being better if she had 10 more kids.
that's what some prolifers say about the macro level economics.
what's the difference?

reply from: Faramir

Wow....... you just never know where common sense is going to raise it's ugly head around here...... Faramir actually got it!
Shocking.
Ahh, I know why, he tried misinterpreting it, but it was too hard to do. We all know how lazy he can be!
You're welcome.
But no need to thank me. I strive to be fair and balanced, even towards those who are not that way themselves.

reply from: Yuuki

Child labor is the point here.

reply from: BossMomma

you really should get help for that habitual lying.
Yeah, really Nancyu. The post is right out there for everyone to see. And it's hard to misinterpret. You basically did say that you'd have more kids so they could help pay the bills.
That wasn't what she meant.
She just meant that it's not necessarily a burden to have lots of children, and eventually they can help out with the expenses.
If you'll be fair and look at it IN CONTEXT, what she meant was that there's no economic excuse for KILLING THEM.
Children shouldn't have to help with the expenses, that is the parent's job. The parents created that child and brought that child into the world, they alone are responsible for providing for that child. If you're so broke you need the child to bring in added income you had no business creating a child.

reply from: BossMomma

Killing them wasn't the argument, of course that's wrong. She was calling me irresponsible for getting sterilized to avoid conceiving more children because I did not want to have more than I could support. She said I was evading my 'responsibility' to have children, as if such a thing exists.
I had no responsibility to have children, I got pregnant all three times via failed birth control and chose to have my kids as abortion was never an option I considered. I have a personal responsibility to support my children, but I do not have a responsibility to have anymore.

reply from: BossMomma

I disagree, I am still under the belief that if you can't feed em don't breed em. Children should not be your secondary income.

reply from: Faramir

Killing them wasn't the argument, of course that's wrong. She was calling me irresponsible for getting sterilized to avoid conceiving more children because I did not want to have more than I could support. She said I was evading my 'responsibility' to have children, as if such a thing exists.
I had no responsibility to have children, I got pregnant all three times via failed birth control and chose to have my kids as abortion was never an option I considered. I have a personal responsibility to support my children, but I do not have a responsibility to have anymore.
OK, sorry, I didn't see that part of the discussion and I didn't realize those comments were directed at you personally.
I thought they were general comments.
I don't agree with sterilization, but you have no responsibility to have more children, either, and that's not her business.

reply from: nancyu

No it isn't. She makes a habit of twisting words of people she doesn't like. Maybe that is why you are trying to stay on her good side.

reply from: Yuuki

You don't have to twist this for it to be horrible:

reply from: yoda

How many kids do you have? What do you know about raising kids? Why are you such an expert of what people "really mean"?
No experience = loudest opinion......

reply from: nancyu

Child labor is the point here.
No it isn't. Read the topic title, "Nancy Pelosi Accused of Saying Children Hurt Economy "
The point was that children don't hurt the economy.
http://www.edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension.htm
This looks like a great resource for those of you who have difficulty comprehending what you read.

reply from: nancyu

You should learn to pay attention to key words like "if" but there is nothing at all wrong with expecting children to "help around the house" And if that "child" is over 18 and still living at home he will be helping to pay the bills.

reply from: Yuuki

Child labor is the point here.
No it isn't. Read the topic title, "Nancy Pelosi Accused of Saying Children Hurt Economy "
The point was that children don't hurt the economy.
http://www.edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension.htm
This looks like a great resource for those of you who have difficulty comprehending what you read.
The point of why Bossmomma was offended by your post was because you advocated child labor of your own children to support household bills that Bossmomma feels a GOOD parent should be able to pay for themselves, without forcing their children to pay and work for.

reply from: Yuuki

You should learn to pay attention to key words like "if" but there is nothing at all wrong with expecting children to "help around the house" And if that "child" is over 18 and still living at home he will be helping to pay the bills.
Help around the house? Not a problem. And you'll notice I didn't BOLD that part. I bolded the part about them working to pay the bills!!! Maybe YOU should check out that reading comprehension site. And you WEREN'T talking about children over the age of 18, you specifically mentioned two children of yours who were UNDER the age of 18 when they started working. You've got nothing going for you here.

reply from: nancyu

Child labor is the point here.
No it isn't. Read the topic title, "Nancy Pelosi Accused of Saying Children Hurt Economy "
The point was that children don't hurt the economy.
http://www.edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension.htm
This looks like a great resource for those of you who have difficulty comprehending what you read.
The point of why Bossmomma was offended by your post was because you advocated child labor of your own children to support household bills that Bossmomma feels a GOOD parent should be able to pay for themselves, without forcing their children to pay and work for.
NO, I DID NOT.

reply from: Yuuki

YES YOU DID. You said they had jobs AND that they were under the age of 18 AND that if you had MORE kids, YOU WOULD EXPECT THEM TO WORK TOO, so that they could PAY THE BILLS. Bills which both BossMomma and I feel a GOOD parent should be able to pay themselves, without depending on their KIDS, who should be PLAYING and LEARNING, not working for hourly wages.

reply from: nancyu

NO I DID NOT.
YOU CAN'T READ.
(MAYBE BECAUSE YOU ARE A STUPID PRO ABORT WAD OF TISSUE WHO CLAIMS TO BE PRO LIFE; YET ADVOCATES THE INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION OF INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE.)

reply from: Yuuki

Hah. Hit a nerve I see. Look, if what you wrote wasn't what you actually meant to say, then just admit you phrased it badly, rewrite it a little more clearly, and let's all move on, okay? The point remains that what you originally wrote looks, to many people on this forum, to advocate giving birth to children just so they can pay bills as soon as they reach legal working age.

reply from: nancyu

I don't think so. Two people with low reading comprehension are not "many people."

reply from: Yuuki

I don't think so. Two people with low reading comprehension are not "many people."
It's more than two people; they simply aren't involving themselves in the conversation. Also, I'm pretty confident that my reading/writing/comprehension level is much higher than yours, just judging from the style of writing you use on this forum, and how quick you are to resort to insults when you become confused/lost in what is being said. When you don't understand it because you can't comprehend it, you just cover your butt by saying "abortion is simple, you're overcomplicating things!". No, I'm not. I'm just using language you can't - or chose not to - comprehend. Your immaturity on the other thread is proof enough of this.

reply from: nancyu

I don't think so. Two people with low reading comprehension are not "many people."
It's more than two people; they simply aren't involving themselves in the conversation. Also, I'm pretty confident that my reading/writing/comprehension level is much higher than yours, just judging from the style of writing you use on this forum, and how quick you are to resort to insults when you become confused/lost in what is being said. When you don't understand it because you can't comprehend it, you just cover your butt by saying "abortion is simple, you're overcomplicating things!". No, I'm not. I'm just using language you can't - or chose not to - comprehend. Your immaturity on the other thread is proof enough of this.
Uh, I don't think you're a qualified judge. I'd like to hear from someone unbiased.

reply from: Yuuki

Lawl. I don't think a single person on this forum is unbiased in regards to you.

reply from: nancyu

So my 15 year old daughter gets a summer job, and that is "child labor" Terrible child abuse right?
But breeding a child for spare parts...
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=6375&enterthread=y
(These are the intelligent people we're supposed to be intimidated by?)

reply from: Yuuki

Oh it's not just that she got a summer job, Nancyu. It's that you expected her to pay YOUR bills with HER money. And that you would expect OTHER children to pay YOUR bills with THEIR money.
And I said it was "okay". I'm still queasy about the issue, but some bone marrow is nothing compared to killing the child.

reply from: lukesmom

What a stupid and pointless thread.

reply from: BossMomma

No, he just sees what a lying ass child exploiting task master you are.

reply from: BossMomma

How many kids do you have? What do you know about raising kids? Why are you such an expert of what people "really mean"?
No experience = loudest opinion......
I have three kids, what's your point?

reply from: BossMomma

Child labor is the point here.
No it isn't. Read the topic title, "Nancy Pelosi Accused of Saying Children Hurt Economy "
The point was that children don't hurt the economy.
http://www.edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension.htm
This looks like a great resource for those of you who have difficulty comprehending what you read.
Having kids you can't support does hurt the economy.

reply from: BossMomma

NO I DID NOT.
YOU CAN'T READ.
(MAYBE BECAUSE YOU ARE A STUPID PRO ABORT WAD OF TISSUE WHO CLAIMS TO BE PRO LIFE; YET ADVOCATES THE INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION OF INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE.)
Then explain that statement, what does "If I had 10 more children, I'd have ten more now, to help with the bills and house work" mean? It looks pretty literal to me.

reply from: BossMomma

I don't think so. Two people with low reading comprehension are not "many people."
Then explain your statement to the 'comprehension impared.'

reply from: BossMomma

So my 15 year old daughter gets a summer job, and that is "child labor" Terrible child abuse right?
But breeding a child for spare parts...
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=6375&enterthread=y
(These are the intelligent people we're supposed to be intimidated by?)
Typical, you change the subject just to cover your ass. Where I live 15 year olds can't work without a hardship license, are you really that broke?

reply from: BossMomma

Ironically you didn't say the same thing when the legitamacy of calling nancy a b*tch was called into question in two seperate threads. Getting a little selective are we?

reply from: BossMomma

I concur. I have resisted the urge to say that for days because I didn't want to bump this waste of bandwidth, but it doesn't appear to matter. It seems to have a life of it's own now.
For the record, I have to say I'm with Nancy on this one. I think too much has been made of her comment, and personal animosities have spilled over onto this thread. I think some people may be misunderstanding, or perhaps even intentionally distorting what she said and/or what the perceived her to have meant by it.
Now we have flame wars carrying over on a bunch of threads and posters trolling each other across the forum. Nobody is willing to let it die, and it really doesn't seem like such a major issue to begin with. It's sad, really.
I only posted it because nancy asked for it, literally. Then when I post the proof she tries to deny her own statement. Yeah it's a stupid thread I agree, but so are almost 45% of the threads on this forum, you can only argue abortion for so long before someone seeks a change of subject.

reply from: lukesmom

Ironically you didn't say the same thing when the legitamacy of calling nancy a b*tch was called into question in two seperate threads. Getting a little selective are we?
Guess I didn't read that one and wish I hadn't read this one. Not selective in replying but trying to be selective in reading.

reply from: Faramir

That's just the way it is on the internet--especially on a board that is unmoderated.
It will always be clogged up with junk.

reply from: Faramir

I started the thread about another poster and the b-word, and I take full responsibilty (and credit) for that waste of bandwidth.

reply from: Faramir

I'm not throwing rocks at anybody here, and I've posted my share of crap as well. I'm just getting tired of sifting through the same crap every day on this forum. I posted some new pointless crap today. How about everybody just go to those threads and get onto me for a while just to change things up a little?
I didn't take it that way.
Just didn't want anyone else to get the credit for my work.
I'd say that your posts are the more meaningful ones here. I proabably disagree with about 37% of what you say, but your comments are usually insightful, unpredictable, and interesting.
You make me think.

reply from: Faramir

Hey, I wasn't sucking up to you. I know that would earn a good swift kick, anyway.

reply from: BossMomma

Ironically you didn't say the same thing when the legitamacy of calling nancy a b*tch was called into question in two seperate threads. Getting a little selective are we?
If it's any consolation to you, I opted not to weigh in on that particular issue as well, even though, in my opinion, a lot of "bit**ing " is going on from a lot of sources now, but I also think this thread has become a giant turd.
This forum has become a giant turd.

reply from: BossMomma

I'm not throwing rocks at anybody here, and I've posted my share of crap as well. I'm just getting tired of sifting through the same crap every day on this forum. I posted some new pointless crap today. How about everybody just go to those threads and get onto me for a while just to change things up a little?
Heh, our fights were always interesting.

reply from: BossMomma

It's foreign to any responsible parent, except me. At age 16 I was made to get a job and pay my stepdad rent to live under his roof, I also had to pay utilities and buy my own food. Sure it made me good at managing money but it was utterly abusive. I'm going to owe a butt load in student loans once I finish my 8 month MA course, but my kids will never have that problem. Out of each tax return I put a grand into their college funds, Tristan already had 7 thousand towards his education, by the time he is 18 he will have all he needs.

reply from: Faramir

I think the "right wing" needs to "reinvent" itself by simply going bact to what it was once was and what it forgot.
When the Republicans swept both houses during the early 90's they had it right.
Then the Republicans became "democrats."
All they have to do is become true Republicans again. I'm referring to Regan Republicans and not the country club Republicans.
There's no guarantee they'll get enough support, of course, but that's better than compromising on core principals and trying to be a clone of the opposition.

reply from: nancyu

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
HEY!
I JUST PAID GOOD MONEY TO HAVE SEVERAL CUBIC YARDS OF CRAP DUMPED IN MY DRIVEWAY!
I place enormous value on fine-quality crap...
haha. Honestly, that's funny..

reply from: nancyu

I am from a hard working family of 9. My father ran a very successful business and we all started out working there when we were teenagers. We weren't forced by any means, and we were paid very well. And we weren't expected to "pay the bills" (figure of speech) But we all contributed to the overall economy of our family. We had a good life.
I'm not saying you can't have the same things with fewer children, but it is much more fun and interesting with more children in my opinion.
I have only two children, but I live in an apartment in the house I grew up in. My brother lives downstairs with 3 kids, and my neice and her husband and three children live in another apartment in the same house.
I think we just like big families, and they do NOT hurt the economy.
I think the ones who do are those like Yuuki that think a teenager having to work is child abuse. I've seen quite a few products of that kind of thinking.
My brother worked at Sea World in Orlando for a while, he said that on a slow day, one of the teens he worked with was told to go and do some sweeping, and the teen said "Why! What did I do?"

reply from: lukesmom

I have 4 kids. My dh and I pay the bills and necessities and some frills, the kids have to pay for all the extra frills they want. If I can buy a pair of tennies for 30 bucks and they want the $50 shoes, they pay the difference. As for jobs for them, there aren't any around here. Many adults are layed off. Hopefully this summer my son can pick up something.
We don't have boats or huge TV's or Carribian vacations or other "necessities" many people have. As a kid, I was the oldest of 7 on a farm and we ALL worked. You have to on a family farm or you don't eat. We all had at least one outside job too, and if we couldn't drive, we biked it. Didn't hurt a single one of us. Chid abuse? Huh! If that's "child abuse" we could have a little more of it these days. I do agree though in Boss's case, her working was child abuse but heaped on other types of abuse.
The only way I see my large family "hurting" the economy is we learned the value of money and how not spead what we don't have through credit. BTW, my kids can go through college the same way I did, work for it. I will help a little if needed and if we can financially, but I will not give them something they need to do for themselves.

reply from: Yuuki

There is a difference between what you describe and what Nancyu described, LukesMom. I have a friend who was also a farm girl and she worked very hard too. However, I think it is a very different concept to live in a non rural area, and purposely have more kids so that when they get old enough they can pay the BILLS. No child should have to pay just to live at home. Being a farm girl is a lifestyle; being forced to work to pay for rent in your own home when you're 16 is abuse.

reply from: lukesmom

Sometimes it's a necessity to be able to pay for shelter. As in Nancy's case, I think you all read more into her post than she was saying and then you took an innocent, unintended remark and beat her over the head with it. I've seen it done over and over on this forum and had it happen to me by spinny. Time to go on. What I was saying was parents have no obligation to provide frills, college educations, cars, vacations etc. Unfortunantly many kids seem to expect that and consider themselves somewhat disadvantages if their parents don't provide the above. Heck, a lot of people here feel that way, that's one reason they site for not having more than 1-2 children. They want to provide every advantage available. Good recipe for a spoiled kid.

reply from: BossMomma

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Bless your evil little heart.
It has come to the attention of researchers that human beings don't really become adults intil age 26. I'm all in favor of arrested development. I hope this MA project gives you some comfy bumpers and some time to revert to the childhood you got shorted on. (I note that you have a hossie, too. That's the link to my childhood I cling to. Best toy EVER!)
Yeah, Navarre is my dream horse. He's a thoroughbred fresian mix, solid black except for one tiny snip of white on his nose, he has the most beautiful temper, can you believe he was bought from a group destined for slaughter? I couldn't believe someone just sold him off like that. I'm hoping the dual income will allow me to buy my son a horse, he's scared to ride Navarre because he stands almost 20 hands and to a 7 year old he might as well be riding a sky scraper. I'm considering a nice even tempered little quarter horse for him.

reply from: BossMomma

It's foreign to any responsible parent, except me. At age 16 I was made to get a job and pay my stepdad rent to live under his roof, I also had to pay utilities and buy my own food. Sure it made me good at managing money but it was utterly abusive. I'm going to owe a butt load in student loans once I finish my 8 month MA course, but my kids will never have that problem. Out of each tax return I put a grand into their college funds, Tristan already had 7 thousand towards his education, by the time he is 18 he will have all he needs.
Wow. I had to skip school to fish so my family and I would have something to eat 3-4 days out of the week from the time I was 7-8 years old, by 10 y/o, I had a paper route and a small lawn mowing/weeding/leaf raking business, and at 15 y/o, I had quit school to work the deep sea trawlers full time as the sole bread winner in my family, which included myself, my mom, three brothers and a sister. I had already been working them during the summer for a few years....
I don't think the idea of kids working is all that "foreign," and I can attest to the fact that it does them more good than harm....
It's not foreign in the USA, just to responsible parents who handle up on their business. You're dad split which is why you had to become the man of the house when you were just a boy. Your dad obviously wasn't a responsible parent. I was fortunant, 99% of single mothers are not so fortunant.

reply from: BossMomma

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I worked, and I believe that work IS character-building and a very good thing for kids.
...But I still wish you had more time to fart around, enjoy your earnings, and had not had to bear the responsibility of supporting a family at that age.
My friend Dan had a very similar upbringing, and I was thrilled when he became successful and had a bazillion little boys. I SWEAR he's finally getting that childhood he earned. (He taught my nieces to make kites. They spent an entire weekend just messing with kites. He's finally a big 'ol child, and I'm happy for him.)
There's nothing wrong with a kid having a summer job as long as that kid gets to reap the fruits of his/her labors and buy all the expensive clothes, CD's, bling bling and other stuff that they want that mom and dad can't afford. A child should not be paying the parent's utilities, rent, etc.

reply from: BossMomma

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Good for you! You did get your "kid time" back!
Now go to the living room and build a cool fort out of couch cushions.
(It's a kid thing. You've earned it...)
lol my favorite 'kid thing' is taking Navvie to the beach, we just go plowing through the waves and thundering after the sea gulls. (and back when I had that cute pre-baby figure guys couldn't resist me.)

reply from: BossMomma

I am from a hard working family of 9. My father ran a very successful business and we all started out working there when we were teenagers. We weren't forced by any means, and we were paid very well. And we weren't expected to "pay the bills" (figure of speech) But we all contributed to the overall economy of our family. We had a good life.
I'm not saying you can't have the same things with fewer children, but it is much more fun and interesting with more children in my opinion.
I have only two children, but I live in an apartment in the house I grew up in. My brother lives downstairs with 3 kids, and my neice and her husband and three children live in another apartment in the same house.
I think we just like big families, and they do NOT hurt the economy.
I think the ones who do are those like Yuuki that think a teenager having to work is child abuse. I've seen quite a few products of that kind of thinking.
My brother worked at Sea World in Orlando for a while, he said that on a slow day, one of the teens he worked with was told to go and do some sweeping, and the teen said "Why! What did I do?"
I know another family of nine, right up the road from me. The kids age a year and a day apart practically. Dad struggles to bring home the bacon working at a gas station, mom has to stay home with the kids because they can't afford day care and, they practically live off what WIC can provide, milk, cheese, juice, eggs and, dried beans.
Those kids recieve free lunch, those who go to school anyway and dress in hand-me-downs donated from various other families. They are hurting and yes their oldest boy has to mow lawns for added income, he asks to mow my lawn so I give him a hundred bucks and send him on his way with a kiss on the head. Big families these days don't make sense, when the family is dirt poor it's the children who suffer in the end.

reply from: Yuuki

I do NOT think large families hurt the economy, are you on CRACK? The only families that hurt the economy are those on welfare who refuse to get OFF their lazy butts. That family could have one child for all I care. The Duggars have what, 20? and they are NOT a burden on society.
I am not opposed to a teen having a part time job. I AM opposed to the thought that teens should have to PAY BILLS, because I feel the RESPONSIBLE PARENT should be able to support their own children.

reply from: Yuuki

Sometimes it's a necessity to be able to pay for shelter. As in Nancy's case, I think you all read more into her post than she was saying and then you took an innocent, unintended remark and beat her over the head with it. I've seen it done over and over on this forum and had it happen to me by spinny. Time to go on. What I was saying was parents have no obligation to provide frills, college educations, cars, vacations etc. Unfortunantly many kids seem to expect that and consider themselves somewhat disadvantages if their parents don't provide the above. Heck, a lot of people here feel that way, that's one reason they site for not having more than 1-2 children. They want to provide every advantage available. Good recipe for a spoiled kid.
I think it's a very sad place to be in if you have to depend on your children - who should be able to depend on YOU - to help keep your family out of a shelter. I'd feel like I had failed as a parent and a protector if that happened.

reply from: Faramir

Bingo.
I didn't make either of my sons pay any room and board...but I SHOULD HAVE.
It would have been better for me, but more importantly BETTER FOR THEM.
It's not a matter of either/or.
They can still have money to spend on their fun things. But they need to understand that food does not fall out of the sky, electricity is not free, housing is not free, etc.
I'm not saying a teenager should SUPPORT his parents, unless absolutely necessary, just that he should pay SOMETHING at least--even if only a token payment.

reply from: yoda

And just suppose that was the case..... you were laid off, or your job didn't pay enough to buy your kids all they needed.... what would you do? Would you ask them to pitch in, or just what?

reply from: Yuuki

And just suppose that was the case..... you were laid off, or your job didn't pay enough to buy your kids all they needed.... what would you do? Would you ask them to pitch in, or just what?
If I was so dirt poor I couldn't even feed them, I don't think I'd have to ask. I'd assume any caring, properly raised child would WANT to help. But I would never, EVER REQUIRE them to work. Never. I would find another way. Poverty like that is not permanent; it is a temporary state of existence. I have family members, shelters and food banks to help me. There is always temp work to be found. My children will NEVER be FORCED to work to survive.

reply from: Faramir

Fortunately, both my sons, now in their 20's, are responsible and hard workers, but I did them no favors by making things too easy for them, and I consider that I failed them in that regard.
It was irresponsible to not require some form of contribution. I took the easy way out, by avoiding the work and confrontation that might have been involved.

reply from: yoda

I know nothing about you or your future children, but I do know that there ARE children in this world who are forced to work to survive, due to no fault of their parents. That's just how the world is.

reply from: Yuuki

I know nothing about you or your future children, but I do know that there ARE children in this world who are forced to work to survive, due to no fault of their parents. That's just how the world is.
It's not RIGHT, even if it happens. Children are aborted all around the world, but that doesn't make it OKAY. What kind of logic is that?

reply from: Yuuki

Bingo.
Check your card again. I'm pretty sure the rent or mortgage and utilities are expenses from which the entire family benefits. The Victoria's Secret bill would be "the parent's." The kids shouldn't be paying a share of that one....
A child. Should not have to pay. TO LIVE WITH HIS MOMMY AND DADDY.
PERIOD!!!!!!

reply from: yoda

Not "right"? Of course it isn't right, but when it happens, through no fault of the parent(s), what's the best thing to do? Stand around and scream that it isn't right, or take every available source of income to keep the family alive?

reply from: Yuuki

A chore is a HOUSEHOLD issue. A job sends your child out of the house. Look, I don't know how to make this any clearer to you:
NO parent should EVER FORCE their child to get a job. It is the PARENT'S job to work, not the child's. The child is supposed to be learning and doing homework and being a KID, not an adult. Jobs are for adults. If a child WANTS a job, then they can get one. On Friday and Saturday. No school nights, because sleep and homework are more important, as well as something called FAMILY TIME, which you do not get if your child is AT WORK. Can you not see all of the things wrong with forcing a child to have a job?

reply from: Yuuki

Oh, it's OK to force the kid to work, but it's wrong if the kid gets paid for it? Is it wrong for them to work outside their home? Are you just insisting that it is wrong to make your kids do something they may not want to do? I don't get it... Is this another "big picture, but I can't really explain it" deal?
Aren't you a teacher? Do you make kids do schoolwork? In the home or out? How many kids did you say you have, and what ages? ...Cuz I'm not sure you get how this works...
You act as if you think the parent says, "get a job and pay me or you're out of here." Some do, once the kids are 18, but I'm not sure that's what we're talking about here, is it?
You can't make this any clearer to me? I can make it all very clear. There is not one thing wrong with parents making demands of their children, and enforcing consequences when those demands are not met. That is a large part of what being a parent (or teacher) is about.
If a child doesn't do their chores, they are not kicked out onto the streets. If a child fails to pay rent, they technically SHOULD be kicked out. A child should not have to pay to live at home. That's wrong wrong wrong. They are a DEPENDENT. If they wanted to be forced to pay rent they may as well be living on their own! You are supposed to care for your child until they are at LEAST 18. Care does not involve forcing them to pay just to live under your roof. That is illogical. Supporting your child in every way you can IS logical. It seems I can't make real parental responsibility any clearer to you. My children won't owe me a cent to live under my roof.
If you cannot tell the difference between sitting at home with a caring parent and doing homework which will help you in your studies and make you smarter VS toiling away in a fast food restaurant flipping burgers then you're an idiot. A child can learn the value of hard work WITH YOU, the parent, at home and in school. You don't have to send them off to a bunch of strangers and make them labor away as mindless peons.
I'm sorry I'm being rude about this, but I have very strong opinions about forcing children to work outside of the home (no, I don't mean in the yard). I have very strong family values, and those include protecting and providing everything that your children need. If your child has to work just to survive, you are failing as a parent. A child should not pay rent. That's basically saying that they do not deserve to live in your home based on love alone. You don't love them enough to let them live there; they have to bribe you with money like some corrupt politician. They have to pay you off. And that's not right.
And maybe this is coming from teens I have seen working in these places. They are not happy. They are tired when they go home; their grades suffer, their health suffers. People I knew in highschool. More time away from the family means they don't eat dinner together, don't connect, and aren't really a family at all. The child depends on friends when they are upset, they block out the parent from important events in their lives, like sex or drugs or alcohol. And I see how happy I was compared to them; how much better I did in school and how much more awake I was because I got enough sleep. I got to be a kid. They didn't, and that's really sad to me.

reply from: BossMomma

Bingo.
I didn't make either of my sons pay any room and board...but I SHOULD HAVE.
It would have been better for me, but more importantly BETTER FOR THEM.
It's not a matter of either/or.
They can still have money to spend on their fun things. But they need to understand that food does not fall out of the sky, electricity is not free, housing is not free, etc.
I'm not saying a teenager should SUPPORT his parents, unless absolutely necessary, just that he should pay SOMETHING at least--even if only a token payment.
Why should they have to pay? If you can't man up to your responsibilities then you shouldn't be having kids. IMHO if your kids have to support you they should have the authority and rights of an adult as they are forced to play an adult role, it's only fair.

reply from: BossMomma

No, sweetheart, at 15, I was a man, and don't you doubt that for one minute. Before that, my mom washed dishes for pennies, and didn't make enough to pay the bills, and while we were poor, we were proud, and we preferred to all pitch in rather than ask anyone for anything. The legal age of consent is just a number. I'm a firm believer that all members of a family should pull their weight according to their abilities from the time they are old enough to contribute. I see no difference between making my daughter do the dishes and insisting she contribute a share of her money from outside work.
It's the right thing to do because it teaches the kid responsibility, and that there's no free lunch. I think letting the kid get the idea that only my money is community property, and that his/her money is their own to do with as they please sends the wrong message.
Yeah, my dad was a deadbeat, and I had no choice but to work, but I'd like to think my mom would have tried to teach me the same lessons that have served me so well regardless. If I told you the financial arrangement between myself and my daughters (who both work at 16 and 18, even though some of you might think they shouldn't have to), you would likely have a fit. I don't care. Teaching them to be responsible and to put family before self is a good lesson they need to learn, and if you think waiting until they are 18 to grow up all at once is the best way, more power to you, and I wish your kids the best of luck. I, however, believe you make your own luck largely by your choices (or in the case of children, most often the parent's choices)....
The average 15 year old boy is hardly a man, you were forced to mature too quickly. I don't know why you're being so pissy and spouting off all the " I don't care about your opinion" mess, I'm empathizing with you as I was in similar straights as a kid. There is nothing wrong with a kid getting a job and helping out if they want to, but the fact is that YOU made those kids, You put them on this earth and, YOU are a grown ass man who should be able to handle his business without his kids having to handle it for him. BTW, an 18 year old is an adult.
My 7 year old does chores and makes an allowance which is HIS money to do with as he wishes. He buys his toys, the pair of cowboy boots he MUST have, the video game he's waited forever to come out and, he knows how to save his money. Later if he wants $150 designer jeans and the latest designer shoes he'll have to get a job to afford his luxuries, but his nessesities are his parent's responsibility until he is legally an adult.

reply from: Yuuki

I say that I may dictate what my child will or will not do, as my judgement dictates, and insist that it is good for a child to have responsibilities which must include work. It can be in the home or not, and I see no ethical difference between the two, nor have you pointed out any that I can discern....
I clearly stated that it is not an issue of "pay rent or get out," yet you continue to misrepresent my arguments! Why? Are you allowing your emotions to interfere with your comprehension?
You are the only one here who has said that, "if a child fails to pay rent, they technically SHOULD be kicked out." I strongly disagree, and shame on you for even implying that it might be justifiable for a parent to abandon their child, even "technically!" That is "WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!"
Am I now being lectured on parental responsibilty? Is that what this is?
I'm sorry, but don't you make kids work in a classroom? Are these classrooms in these children's homes? It's wrong for me to send my teen to work with "strangers" at McDonalds, but you have no problem with packing them off to school at age 4 and dropping them off?
Clearly the atmosphere is not conducive to reasonable discussion, so good night to you.
"WORKING" IN A CLASSRROOM IS NOT THE SAME THING AS WORKING IN THE WORK FORCE YOU MORON.

reply from: Yuuki

I say that I may dictate what my child will or will not do, as my judgement dictates, and insist that it is good for a child to have responsibilities which must include work. It can be in the home or not, and I see no ethical difference between the two, nor have you pointed out any that I can discern....
I clearly stated that it is not an issue of "pay rent or get out," yet you continue to misrepresent my arguments! Why? Are you allowing your emotions to interfere with your comprehension?
You are the only one here who has said that, "if a child fails to pay rent, they technically SHOULD be kicked out." I strongly disagree, and shame on you for even implying that it might be justifiable for a parent to abandon their child, even "technically!" That is "WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!"
Am I now being lectured on parental responsibilty? Is that what this is?
I'm sorry, but don't you make kids work in a classroom? Are these classrooms in these children's homes? It's wrong for me to send my teen to work with "strangers" at McDonalds, but you have no problem with packing them off to school at age 4 and dropping them off?
Clearly the atmosphere is not conducive to reasonable discussion, so good night to you.
"WORKING" IN A CLASSRROOM IS NOT THE SAME THING AS WORKING IN THE WORK FORCE YOU MORON.
If I'm not mistaken, your objection was to forcing children to work outside the home. I'm working with what you are giving me, dear, and you are clearly unable to show rational support for your inconsistent position on this issue....
You are irrationally implying that that my acting on my convictions somehow equates to abusing my children, and that is certainly not the case. While I do resent the implications of your rants to some degree, I simply assume your misunderstanding of this issue is based on your own lack of parenting experience, so I do not take it personally. I will accept that I am unable to lend any further clarity to the issue at this point and drop it without participating in the flame fest that is obviously beginning.
Outside the home as in AT A JOB like McDonalds, WalMart, etc. Have you never heard of these things? I do not consider working in class to be the same as TOILING IN A BURGERKING.

reply from: BossMomma

I say that I may dictate what my child will or will not do, as my judgement dictates, and insist that it is good for a child to have responsibilities which must include work. It can be in the home or not, and I see no ethical difference between the two, nor have you pointed out any that I can discern....
I clearly stated that it is not an issue of "pay rent or get out," yet you continue to misrepresent my arguments! Why? Are you allowing your emotions to interfere with your comprehension?
You are the only one here who has said that, "if a child fails to pay rent, they technically SHOULD be kicked out." I strongly disagree, and shame on you for even implying that it might be justifiable for a parent to abandon their child, even "technically!" That is "WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!"
Am I now being lectured on parental responsibilty? Is that what this is?
I'm sorry, but don't you make kids work in a classroom? Are these classrooms in these children's homes? It's wrong for me to send my teen to work with "strangers" at McDonalds, but you have no problem with packing them off to school at age 4 and dropping them off?
Clearly the atmosphere is not conducive to reasonable discussion, so good night to you.
"WORKING" IN A CLASSRROOM IS NOT THE SAME THING AS WORKING IN THE WORK FORCE YOU MORON.
CP is actually not a moron, he's one of the smarter individuals here. He didn't insult you so who lit the fuse on your tampon?

reply from: BossMomma

If your children are content then kudos, however school age children should not be given the responsibilities of adults. Their focus should be on their studies. Many kids I knew including myself suffered where their grades were concerned and, despite my sleep deprivation my stepdad beat me if I made less than a B+ on reportcards. I know you are not an abusive ass hole with your kids but many are. Perhaps it's just how we were raised. I want my children to live the exact opposite of how I lived which is why I want to work two careers, one in medicine and one in criminal justice so my kids can just focus on being kids instead of adults with no rights. I will however say that once children are working and earning they should have the rights and respect of adults.

reply from: BossMomma

I think we're on the same page in this, perhaps I'm just over protective because of the sorry treatment I got from the age of 3 to age 17. In a way I guess I shelter my kids but then my oldest is only in 1st grade, maybe in his teens I'll toughin up some. I still would not have kids to increase family income though, that is irresponsible no matter how you slice it.

reply from: Yuuki

CP is actually not a moron, he's one of the smarter individuals here. He didn't insult you so who lit the fuse on your tampon?
I talked to my mom a bit about this; turns out the concept of coming home and spending time with your children and having dinner together is a very conservative christian tradition, and one I experienced almost every day of my life until college. It's just such an inherently NORMAL and good thing to me that I can't even fathom losing that time of connection and family togetherness.
As I explained, I feel making a child pay rent devalues the child's worth. It means they are not "good" enough to live with you; that you do not love them enough to let them stay, so they have to bribe you.
I did NOT say I have a problem with teens having jobs in general. They do need to learn financial responsibility etc. However, I do NOT approve of them being forced to pay for household things like food, rent, bills etc. Those things are the responsibility of the parent.
In fact, if the child is providing 50% of his/her own living expenses, then legally the "parent" cannot claim the child on taxes, and the child can become emancipated through a judge's decision. That is why I do not believe it is right to make the child pay for such things. If a child wanted to be forced to pay rent, they may as well move right on out of the house.

reply from: yoda

Like most arguments on this forum, this one took the usual route. First, two posters expressed seemingly conflicting ideas. Then, both opponents couched the other's positions in far more extreme terms than the posters themselves had taken. The debate proceeds with most participants debating not their opponents positions, but "strawman" positions that no one has actually taken. Then, when participants tire of the subject, they begin to drop the tactic of trying to imply extreme positions to their opponents, and stop the name-calling. Ho-hum, just another day on the forum.......

reply from: BossMomma

No, sweetheart, at 15, I was a man, and don't you doubt that for one minute. Before that, my mom washed dishes for pennies, and didn't make enough to pay the bills, and while we were poor, we were proud, and we preferred to all pitch in rather than ask anyone for anything. The legal age of consent is just a number. I'm a firm believer that all members of a family should pull their weight according to their abilities from the time they are old enough to contribute. I see no difference between making my daughter do the dishes and insisting she contribute a share of her money from outside work.
It's the right thing to do because it teaches the kid responsibility, and that there's no free lunch. I think letting the kid get the idea that only my money is community property, and that his/her money is their own to do with as they please sends the wrong message.
Yeah, my dad was a deadbeat, and I had no choice but to work, but I'd like to think my mom would have tried to teach me the same lessons that have served me so well regardless. If I told you the financial arrangement between myself and my daughters (who both work at 16 and 18, even though some of you might think they shouldn't have to), you would likely have a fit. I don't care. Teaching them to be responsible and to put family before self is a good lesson they need to learn, and if you think waiting until they are 18 to grow up all at once is the best way, more power to you, and I wish your kids the best of luck. I, however, believe you make your own luck largely by your choices (or in the case of children, most often the parent's choices)....
The average 15 year old boy is hardly a man, you were forced to mature too quickly. I don't know why you're being so pissy and spouting off all the " I don't care about your opinion" mess, I'm empathizing with you as I was in similar straights as a kid. There is nothing wrong with a kid getting a job and helping out if they want to, but the fact is that YOU made those kids, You put them on this earth and, YOU are a grown ass man who should be able to handle his business without his kids having to handle it for him. BTW, an 18 year old is an adult.
My 7 year old does chores and makes an allowance which is HIS money to do with as he wishes. He buys his toys, the pair of cowboy boots he MUST have, the video game he's waited forever to come out and, he knows how to save his money. Later if he wants $150 designer jeans and the latest designer shoes he'll have to get a job to afford his luxuries, but his nessesities are his parent's responsibility until he is legally an adult.
If you believe doing what is best for your children should be secondary to their desires, what more can I say? I think that what we have here is a failure to communicate. I think some simply fail to understand the points I am making, and read too much into this. I assure you that I have not, and never will abuse my children in any way, and am by no means raising the children I have sacrificed so much for as "forced labor" for my own gain. I put my family before myself, and I always have. All my decisions are for the good of my family, including the decision to insist my children contribute.
I do not "force" my children to work, but I have the right to demand they do, and offer consequences if they do not. This is not "wrong," and helps rather than harms them....
I don't think there is a failure to communicate but rather a difference in raising and backgrounds. I do not believe that doing what's best is secondary to to my children's desires, quite to the contrary. I believe that my children putting their full attention on their studies is paramount to a successful future. A summer job is one thing, if my son and daughters want to get jobs to pay for their fun over school breaks that's fine and I would encourage it. You know what they say about idle hands. However, my rent, my bills and, the family nessesities are the responsibility of the head of the house which is me.

reply from: nancyu

you really should get help for that habitual lying.
Yeah, really Nancyu. The post is right out there for everyone to see. And it's hard to misinterpret. You basically did say that you'd have more kids so they could help pay the bills.
I'm sure you worked very hard at misinterpreting it. Kudos to you.
Yuuki and BossMomma, queens of lies and slander.

reply from: nancyu

Just thought I'd bump these threads of BossMomma's attempts at slander. I stand behind everything I've said in this post.

reply from: Yuuki

It's not slander. She quotes your words, which condemn you. Sorry.

reply from: nancyu

They don't condemn me at all. They only show that she doesn't like me.
The only one you need to be sorry for is yourself. You don't even know who you are...

reply from: BossMomma

They don't condemn me at all. They only show that she doesn't like me.
The only one you need to be sorry for is yourself. You don't even know who you are...
I don't like or dislike you, I'm totally indifferent and couldn't give a damn about you if I tried. However you asked for proof of your statement that you'd have children just to supplement your income and I provided it. Get over it you lazy, selfish, lying crap sack.

reply from: sander

Oh come on, BM and Yukki....only an idiot would believe you two haven't twisted what Nancy has said.
It's an insult to anyone's intelligence to say otherwise. Sheesh....

reply from: Shenanigans

While I'm all for big families and want one myself once I can get me a husband, I did see a thing on TV once about people who had 15 kids or something, and they basically fed them from cans of bakedbeans and spaggetti. There's nothing wrong with those foods, but to have them three times a day 7 times a week is a bit much.
Of course, the mother didn't work, adn the father had a low paying job and both had no education.
Probably not the best plug for the pro-life ethic.

reply from: Shenanigans

Another brain fart - wouldnt such a thought, having heaps of kids to pay more bills be really forward thinking? Unless you plan on running some kind of sweat shop creche, you'd have to wait at least 15 years to see any income. You might as well adopt a bunch of kids from foster and start with already grown up kids. And you just know all that time in Juvie or the system would make them good and muscular, and not adverse to a hard day's labour for a few ciggies.
OR you could get them from China, those Asians know how to put in the hard slog.

reply from: Yuuki

Oh it's been twisted a little - but not by much. Not hardly at all. The interpretation is almost verbatim the actual words Nancyu said herself. And as far as twisting words go, you all are the experts on that.

reply from: Yuuki

They don't condemn me at all. They only show that she doesn't like me.
The only one you need to be sorry for is yourself. You don't even know who you are...
THIS SENTENCE IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. This is the sentence we are talking about Nancyu. But you're great at twisting what I'm saying on other topics, twisting to make me look like a baby killer, so let's just twist and make you look like an awful mother.

reply from: Cecilia

how many times have i read prolifers say that if we did not have legal abortion our economy would be better than it is now, with all those breadwinners alive.
i think nancy is just being honest. people have kids for all selfish reasons. she is just humble enough to be honest.

reply from: Yuuki

It's amazing that I'm going to have kids to love them, no matter what their sexualities end up being, or their physical abilities, or mental abilities... I'm a rare breed it seems.

reply from: sander

It's amazing that I'm going to have kids to love them, no matter what their sexualities end up being, or their physical abilities, or mental abilities... I'm a rare breed it seems.
After you're done patting yourself on the back, go look up the definition of twisting words, which is paramount to telling lies.
Nancy's words are being twisted to torment her because BM and you don't like her....try being intellectually honest, it goes a long way.

reply from: BossMomma

No, it's just too hard for those without intelligence to call a thing what it is.

reply from: BossMomma

While I'm all for big families and want one myself once I can get me a husband, I did see a thing on TV once about people who had 15 kids or something, and they basically fed them from cans of bakedbeans and spaggetti. There's nothing wrong with those foods, but to have them three times a day 7 times a week is a bit much.
Of course, the mother didn't work, adn the father had a low paying job and both had no education.
Probably not the best plug for the pro-life ethic.
I didn't post the above statement, Nancy did.

reply from: faithman

while we quibble and bicker, womb child die like this....http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby1.html

reply from: yoda

Personally, I think Nancy can use this thread as a badge of honor. When people try so desperately to hang some trivial lilttle thing on you, that means you must be squeaky clean. And as far as I can tell from her posts, she is.
And an uncompromising champion of the unborn..... which is a lot more than I can say about her attackers.

reply from: Yuuki

It's amazing that I'm going to have kids to love them, no matter what their sexualities end up being, or their physical abilities, or mental abilities... I'm a rare breed it seems.
After you're done patting yourself on the back, go look up the definition of twisting words, which is paramount to telling lies.
Nancy's words are being twisted to torment her because BM and you don't like her....try being intellectually honest, it goes a long way.
Yes, we are telling half-truths about her. You want to know why? Because we're sick and tired of her doing it to us. We don't know what to do anymore. She's twisted our words since almost day one, been vile-mouthed and rude to all of us. We're sick of her. Why on earth would we want to be nice to her?
I honestly wouldn't care if it was dropped. Whatever. As long as SHE dropped her attacks on US. I am not an archivist. I don't hold on to links to old posts where so and so said something incriminating or hypocritical. I don't have the desire to do that. That's not why I'm here. So I'd really just prefer it if we all dropped all of our attacks on each other, because quite frank I have trouble keeping them straight. I've never been the catty type who could remember what Shirley said about Marissa three years ago. And I really, REALLY don't care. That is neither here nor now.
I can hardly remember what I'VE posted in the past, which is why I seem clueless when people claim I've said things. My opinions are constantly changing and growing, so why on earth would I even care what I said a month ago except to perhaps laugh at it? And you expect me to remember what YOU said? Or what I said about you, or vice versa? Puhlease. I have more important things to do than remember your catty comments or something I said in the heat of the moment in response to your catty comments.
Right now, I want to have a civil *****ing conversation for once. Can you all accomplish that without shooting hot air out of your behinds for five minutes? It's why I made that topic about the philosophy. I wanted intelligent conversation with a pro-lifer about it. And I'm going to hold out until I get one.

reply from: Faramir

That's about the most honest and humble statement I've ever seen here. And funny too.

reply from: sander

You don't know what to do anymore? Are you kidding, yukki....here, let me help....DON'T read her posts or stay the heck off this site.
There....how easy was that.
You want to have a civil (insert vile swear word) conversation while at the same time accusing us of shooting hot air out of private parts....
Girl, you need to scoot, this place is too much for you...bye-bye.

reply from: sander

Completely agree.
It's the uncompromising part that gets most of them squirming and spewing nonsense....then swearing and talking about body parts...go figure.

reply from: carolemarie

WHATEVER
Nancy is delibertly rude and spiteful to other people and is getting some back.
Still, I think we should just ignore her hateful rantings, and respond to her as she should do to others...in other words, Nancy's bad behavior is no excuse to sink to her level....

reply from: sander

And that's exactly why you went to the trouble and length of this post....just so you could ignore her and rise above it all.
Your self righteous, hypocrite slip is showing.

reply from: carolemarie

Her post are full of intential distortion and lies, as Yukki pointed out and as you tried to cover up. You are fine with your little cliques lies and distortions and then try to act all self-rightous in their behalf and it isn't fooling anyone.
What Nancy does is wrong and people get really sick of it. You are wrong to defend it.
But that doesn't mean we should twist her posts, because that is sinking to her level. Yuck.
If we want the personal attacks to cease, we can't indulge in them ourselves. That doesn't mean we can't say she is twisting the truth and being hateful! That is the truth.
Maybe you should consider taking some type of chill pill, or a midol or counting to ten before you spout off with your snippy mean spirited posts. How does being ugly help the preborn again.....enlighten us

reply from: sander

Guess you don't care how far your self righteous, hypocrite slip is showing, CM.
You can't indulge in personal attacks and then proceed to do just that. You're not a joke, you're dangerous.

reply from: Yuuki

That's about the most honest and humble statement I've ever seen here. And funny too.
Thank you Faramir!

reply from: carolemarie

Girl, I ignore most of nancy;s personal attacks at me, but I draw the line at YOU chastising anyone for calling her out on it...Yukki plainly admitted to taking it out of context because she was soooo sick of Nancy doing it. Sometimes people treat you the way you treat them. If Nancy doesn't like it being done to her, perhaps she should stop doing it to others. Perhaps you and her coharts should call her on it, at least in pm's.
FYI, I haven't attacked Nancy, I have just stated the obvious, that she does twist and post hateful comments about others on a regular basis.
And by the way, so do you.

reply from: Yuuki

Wow. I guess all people who grow frustrated should quit right? Like, people should quit their sport because it's hard. And don't bother trying hard on your homework. And teachers should quit trying to educate special needs. kids. It's too hard. They shouldn't try, according to your above logic.
You all DO shoot hot air out of your backsides when you parade around and act like you're better than everyone else. I'm not saying something "foul" according to your logic; I'm just "saying it how it is". That's the excuse given for why Faramir can call women sl*ts and Yoda can call women murderers. So I can say you're just full of hot air.
No, really I shouldn't. It is indeed my opinion, but of course I understand that it can be hurtful. That's the point. I want to hurt your feelings because mine have been hurt by you. I want you to feel the way I do. Like I've been treated like trash. Disrespected no matter what I say I do. I could say the most pro-life phrase imaginable and you all would STILL BASH IT.
It doesn't take a lot of logic to figure that out but then again, common sense isn't common these days...
Again, I'd really, really just like it if it would stop. I don't care why, I don't care who. Just stop. People on this forum deserve to be treated like human beings, not punching bags. I really don't care what your justification for being nasty is and I didn't care if you don't think you're being nasty. Many people are hurt and offended by what is said on here. That should be obvious enough.
And no, they are not hurt and offended by the message that everyone deserves life. That's why many of us are HERE and stay HERE. Because we do believe that.
I'm just so tired of the vendettas and the revenge posts and the constant dragging of each other through the mud. You're not even disagreeing with each other's viewpoints anymore, you're just thinking up new ways to discredit each other. It's tiring, it really is.
I want to talk about the glory of life and what we can do to promote its protection. I do NOT want to talk about Nancyu's personal life or Carolemarie's personal life or Bossmomma's personal life or Faithman's personal life or Augustine's or Faramir's or anyone else's lives. If they have a pertinent story to tell then fine. But I'm not going to sit here and log that file on my hardrive to use later as evidence against their character. I don't care.
Some of the things that have been said here to members have been horrific, truly horrific, and they weren't even related to abortion at all. They were only said to hurt the other person and ruin their image on this forum - and elsewhere online. That's wrong.
And the ONLY thing that has kept me here is that I am pro-life. I keep coming back in the hopes of having that intelligent, kind, thoughtful conversation about pro-life philosophy. I just see trash. I'm going to keep trying to be civil on my own - yes, I do fail on occasion, but I do believe we lead by doing.

reply from: Faramir

dangerous?
PS Sander, there was no "personal attack" there, either.

reply from: BossMomma

It's amazing that I'm going to have kids to love them, no matter what their sexualities end up being, or their physical abilities, or mental abilities... I'm a rare breed it seems.
After you're done patting yourself on the back, go look up the definition of twisting words, which is paramount to telling lies.
Nancy's words are being twisted to torment her because BM and you don't like her....try being intellectually honest, it goes a long way.
Yes, we are telling half-truths about her.
Half truth my ass, I'm just posting proof of what she said, there is no half truth. She stated that if she could have 10 more kids she would have them now to help with the bills and the house work.

reply from: Shenanigans

Who cares about homosexuality? I mean, really, over 4,000 children will die today, that is the top of my priority list.

reply from: Shenanigans

Whoops. Sorry. I knew it was Nancy, I just must of screwed up the quote function. I was altering one of those multi quote posts.

reply from: nancyu

Completely agree.
It's the uncompromising part that gets most of them squirming and spewing nonsense....then swearing and talking about body parts...go figure.
Thank you dear friends!
And for the record for those who don't know any better to believe lies:
I have 2 children (not ten- but if I had ten I'd probably be about 5x happier though it's hard to imagine that is possible)
I have had a good education (the best of which I've had and continue to acquire by coming to this forum), I graduated from a trade school, and have had 2+ years of college in addition to that. I have a very well paying job, and I don't charge my "children" rent although one of my "children" is over 18 and (graduated from High School, after dropping out and is now talking about college hooray!!) And the other is nearly 17 and planning to be an exchange student in January. (After her plans were delayed by her mean old mommy!)
And that is all I'm going to say in defense of myself, because that is not why I'm here. (I'll save this to copy and paste if necessary)
All the other stuff about being rude and spiteful to pro aborts is all TRUE!

reply from: yoda

"Pathetic" is the only word I can think of to describe the ongoing controversy this thread represents.
Kids do not come with cash, they are born naked and broke (unless they are aborted, of course). So if any poor person actually does have 10 kids, they are going to have to find some extra money somewhere to care for them. And money does not grow on trees. So if some poor woman has 10 kids, and wants to keep them all and care for them properly, she must find a way to raise money. And asking kids to pitch in and help with household expenses when you are dirt poor is NO SCANDAL! It is the way millions of American kids have been raised. It is how poor kids have been raised all over the world for centuries. And to disparage someone because they recognize that fact is incredibly elitist and snobby, IMHO.
Shame on you elitists here.

reply from: yoda

Those are about the saddest words I've read in a long time. She's being dishonest, so we're going to be liars too, to get her back?
Stand back and look at that slowly, and carefully........

reply from: yoda

Oh..... now I'm sure that hurts!
You just couldn't resist taking a little shot, could you?

reply from: yoda

But what about me saying that abortionists are baby killers?
Isn't that just "STATING THE OBVIOUS"???????
Why is it "name calling" when I do it, and "stating the obvious" when you do it?

reply from: faithman

"Pathetic" is the only word I can think of to describe the ongoing controversy this thread represents.
Kids do not come with cash, they are born naked and broke (unless they are aborted, of course). So if any poor person actually does have 10 kids, they are going to have to find some extra money somewhere to care for them. And money does not grow on trees. So if some poor woman has 10 kids, and wants to keep them all and care for them properly, she must find a way to raise money. And asking kids to pitch in and help with household expenses when you are dirt poor is NO SCANDAL! It is the way millions of American kids have been raised. It is how poor kids have been raised all over the world for centuries. And to disparage someone because they recognize that fact is incredibly elitist and snobby, IMHO.
Shame on you elitists here.
By the time I was able, I was expected to find jobs and contribute to the family, and help provide for my own needs. It made me feel more a part, and helped me to grow up taking responsibility for my own life and up keep. My brothers were expected to do the same. It was called learning how to be an adult in my house. Maybe if that tradition was brought back, we wouldn't have so many on the welfare rolls? If we didn't have a job, then our job was to find one. I never felt taken atvantage of at all. On the contrary, it made me feel pretty good to have contributed to the family group I love. One should feel good about being an asset than a liability.

reply from: sander

"Pathetic" is the only word I can think of to describe the ongoing controversy this thread represents.
Kids do not come with cash, they are born naked and broke (unless they are aborted, of course). So if any poor person actually does have 10 kids, they are going to have to find some extra money somewhere to care for them. And money does not grow on trees. So if some poor woman has 10 kids, and wants to keep them all and care for them properly, she must find a way to raise money. And asking kids to pitch in and help with household expenses when you are dirt poor is NO SCANDAL! It is the way millions of American kids have been raised. It is how poor kids have been raised all over the world for centuries. And to disparage someone because they recognize that fact is incredibly elitist and snobby, IMHO.
Shame on you elitists here.
The voice of reason on this, as you said, "pathetic" thread.
Thanks, Yoda.

reply from: sander

But what about me saying that abortionists are baby killers?
Isn't that just "STATING THE OBVIOUS"???????
Why is it "name calling" when I do it, and "stating the obvious" when you do it?
CM doesn't care when her hypocrite slip is showing, she thinks she's above criticisim.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, and she's got farty to back her up on that........

reply from: sander

She feels emboldened to act the ass, daddy warbucks, or whoever the heck he is to her, makes it all fweel bwetter....poor wittle misunderstood nimcompoop!

reply from: nancyu

"Pathetic" is the only word I can think of to describe the ongoing controversy this thread represents.
Kids do not come with cash, they are born naked and broke (unless they are aborted, of course). So if any poor person actually does have 10 kids, they are going to have to find some extra money somewhere to care for them. And money does not grow on trees. So if some poor woman has 10 kids, and wants to keep them all and care for them properly, she must find a way to raise money. And asking kids to pitch in and help with household expenses when you are dirt poor is NO SCANDAL! It is the way millions of American kids have been raised. It is how poor kids have been raised all over the world for centuries. And to disparage someone because they recognize that fact is incredibly elitist and snobby, IMHO.
Shame on you elitists here.
By the time I was able, I was expected to find jobs and contribute to the family, and help provide for my own needs. It made me feel more a part, and helped me to grow up taking responsibility for my own life and up keep. My brothers were expected to do the same. It was called learning how to be an adult in my house. Maybe if that tradition was brought back, we wouldn't have so many on the welfare rolls? If we didn't have a job, then our job was to find one. I never felt taken atvantage of at all. On the contrary, it made me feel pretty good to have contributed to the family group I love. One should feel good about being an asset than a liability.
Well said ACES! I could not agree more. I worked in the family business from about the age of 15. So did each of my siblings. I didn't feel even the tiniest bit abused.

reply from: Faramir

She feels emboldened to act the ass, daddy warbucks, or whoever the heck he is to her, makes it all fweel bwetter....poor wittle misunderstood nimcompoop!
She's endured thousands of abusive comments from you and your friends, but on the rare occasion she responds, you whine about it for ten posts like a little mouse.
Have some cheese, and then think about supporting instead of discrediting someone who does real prolife work, and doesn't just blab on the internet.

reply from: Yuuki

Those are about the saddest words I've read in a long time. She's being dishonest, so we're going to be liars too, to get her back?
Stand back and look at that slowly, and carefully........
I don't need to. I know full well it's extremely sad. And I'm glad you see this too. I would feel devastated if I found a good kid in a fight with a bully, and the good kid told me it was because he just couldn't take it anymore... Poor kid wouldn't be in the legal right for standing up for himself, but I couldn't be angry at him either.

reply from: Yuuki

Who cares about homosexuality? I mean, really, over 4,000 children will die today, that is the top of my priority list.
I do. I am an ardent defender of GLBTA rights. Abortion is your big cause, gay rights is mine.
Except that if you think about it, they are both HUMAN rights issues. We both want HUMANS to have rights.

reply from: yoda

But what about me saying that abortionists are baby killers?
Isn't that just "STATING THE OBVIOUS"???????
Why is it "name calling" when I do it, and "stating the obvious" when you do it?

reply from: faithman

But what about me saying that abortionists are baby killers?
Isn't that just "STATING THE OBVIOUS"???????
Why is it "name calling" when I do it, and "stating the obvious" when you do it?
Because you haven't killed 3, nor lied for sympathy . Get with it my man. Baby blood cuts many a deal. Get covered in it, and you can do as you please, and say what you want, and people are supposed to believe every word.

reply from: yoda

And not only that, the proaborts and "borderline prolifers" will fawn all over you and declare you queen of the forum....... what an honor!

reply from: faithman

Never figured you for a queen.

reply from: yoda

Just in case this one was missed the first and second time:
But what about me saying that abortionists are baby killers?
Isn't that just "STATING THE OBVIOUS"???????
Why is it "name calling" when I do it, and "stating the obvious" when you do it?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics