Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: No squeaky squeakies for you ! Court orders man to have no more kids !

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    No squeaky squeakies for you ! Court orders man to have no more kids !

    http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-court-oks...104418604.html

    Congrats Ohioans ! You have a few new idiots as judges !!

    An Ohio appeals court has upheld a judge's order that a deadbeat father can't have more kids until he pays his back child support.


    Really, I understand their reasoning ... like I could understand Hitler's gassing of the jews ... I don't agree with either.

  2. #2
    Regular Member katenka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Richmond
    Posts
    13
    Dude's got 4 kids and apparently can't afford them, so why let him have more o.O
    Butttt we don't know whether he is in full custody of them, or what the whole background story is...
    Last edited by katenka; 05-19-2014 at 03:35 PM.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by katenka View Post
    Dude's got 4 kids and apparently can't afford them, so why let him have more o.O
    Butttt we don't know whether he is in full custody of them, or what the whole background story is...
    Hey, he does not have these kids spontaneously, right?

  4. #4
    Regular Member Gallowmere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    220
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Hey, he does not have these kids spontaneously, right?
    That's very true, but when a guy has dropped that many seeds that he can't (or won't) afford to take care of, it shows a bit of a pattern. Granted, a court order against procreation is just absurd on it's face, but just as we can all agree that there are some people who should never be allowed to possess firearms, I am sure that we can agree that some people shouldn't be responsible for the care of children (either physically or fiscally) either. Now, given that we don't know the entire story here, I find it rather difficult to lean in either direction. Again, the ruling is absurd, but something tells me that there's more to it.
    "Now, why believe in anything they praise,
    When one hand holds them the victor,
    While the other holds the shovel to their graves?"
    ~~~Claudio Sanchez

  5. #5
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Gallowmere View Post
    That's very true, but when a guy has dropped that many seeds that he can't (or won't) afford to take care of, it shows a bit of a pattern. Granted, a court order against procreation is just absurd on it's face, but just as we can all agree that there are some people who should never be allowed to possess firearms, I am sure that we can agree that some people shouldn't be responsible for the care of children (either physically or fiscally) either. Now, given that we don't know the entire story here, I find it rather difficult to lean in either direction. Again, the ruling is absurd, but something tells me that there's more to it.
    Child support is absurd on it's face.

    She can have an abortion, choose to never notify you of pregnant status, deny visitation, etc and you're the one stuck paying the bill when she was just as active in the reproductive process as he was?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Gallowmere View Post
    That's very true, but when a guy has dropped that many seeds that he can't (or won't) afford to take care of, it shows a bit of a pattern. Granted, a court order against procreation is just absurd on it's face, but just as we can all agree that there are some people who should never be allowed to possess firearms, I am sure that we can agree that some people shouldn't be responsible for the care of children (either physically or fiscally) either. Now, given that we don't know the entire story here, I find it rather difficult to lean in either direction. Again, the ruling is absurd, but something tells me that there's more to it.
    I don't know if I would agree that some people should not legally be allowed to possess guns. Sure, some are idiots who I would not trust with a gun ... but they can still own them. Like anything else. How many people have caused issues with saws?

  7. #7
    Regular Member Gallowmere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    220
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Child support is absurd on it's face.

    She can have an abortion, choose to never notify you of pregnant status, deny visitation, etc and you're the one stuck paying the bill when she was just as active in the reproductive process as he was?
    I do agree with you 100% there. "What's good for the goose" and all of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I don't know if I would agree that some people should not legally be allowed to possess guns. Sure, some are idiots who I would not trust with a gun ... but they can still own them. Like anything else. How many people have caused issues with saws?
    On the gun ownership: I am talking specifically about people who have proven that they have malicious intent toward other humans, even when unprovoked. You know, those people we carry guns to defend ourselves against. I may, or may not be talking about people on both sides of the law enforcement system here as well. /whistle
    "Now, why believe in anything they praise,
    When one hand holds them the victor,
    While the other holds the shovel to their graves?"
    ~~~Claudio Sanchez

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Gallowmere View Post

    On the gun ownership: I am talking specifically about people who have proven that they have malicious intent toward other humans, even when unprovoked. You know, those people we carry guns to defend ourselves against. I may, or may not be talking about people on both sides of the law enforcement system here as well. /whistle
    These "dangerous" people in prison or are freemen? If free, they are free to own.

    Dangerous people (those who injured others w/o cause) should be in prison. If they served their time and are let go then I would say that they have "paid their debt" and can go onto resuming a normal life that would include owning guns.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Gallowmere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    220
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Dangerous people (those who injured others w/o cause) should be in prison. If they served their time and are let go then I would say that they have "paid their debt" and can go onto resuming a normal life that would include owning guns.
    Should, is the operative word in your first sentence. Refer to the end of my previous post if an example is needed. Something about sky colored lines.
    "Now, why believe in anything they praise,
    When one hand holds them the victor,
    While the other holds the shovel to their graves?"
    ~~~Claudio Sanchez

  10. #10
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    These "dangerous" people in prison or are freemen? If free, they are free to own.

    Dangerous people (those who injured others w/o cause) should be in prison. If they served their time and are let go then I would say that they have "paid their debt" and can go onto resuming a normal life that would include owning guns.
    Instead they get elected and claim to represent you and I.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  11. #11
    Regular Member Gallowmere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    220
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Instead they get elected and claim to represent you and I.
    That too. Blue lines and lots of green folds tend to make otherwise heinous crimes, come across as fairly pedestrian.
    "Now, why believe in anything they praise,
    When one hand holds them the victor,
    While the other holds the shovel to their graves?"
    ~~~Claudio Sanchez

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Gallowmere View Post
    Should, is the operative word in your first sentence. Refer to the end of my previous post if an example is needed. Something about sky colored lines.
    Well, they are in my eyes. As a jurist this is my guiding light.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •