Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

The teacher was wrong, the kid's parents are equally wrong to sue over this. Unfortunately, this is what happens with the "Everyone is a Special/Unique/Sensitive Flower" culture now.

At least the teacher apologized. The parents are posing as George and Martha Washington. The kid's acting like she's Anne Frank.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

This.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4X2AvfSTi6Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I wish this video was shown to everyone once a month from grades 6-12. I feel like it would solve a lot of our problems.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

At least the teacher apologized. The parents are posing as George and Martha Washington. The kid's acting like she's Anne Frank.

Anne Frank? The kid can talk, she can hear, and she can see. I think you mean someone else.

 

[goldy_331]

Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

Anne Frank? The kid can talk, she can hear, and she can see. I think you mean someone else.

ummmm.....what?

 

[The Rube]

Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

ummmm.....what?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TVjafyLilug" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>.

 

[SteveP]

Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

At least the teacher apologized. The parents are posing as George and Martha Washington. The kid's acting like she's Anne Frank.

the girl’s math teacher – Gaymon – took offense to her shirt, telling her that she “can’t wear a Republican shirt in a Democratic school” and that wearing the shirt was akin to being a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Gaymon then enlisted an aide to draw on Pawlucy’s shirt with a red Sharpie after she refused to take it off and allowed Pawlucy’s fellow classmates to mock her for the shirt.

Agreed the suit might be a bit much, but where I come from, that constitutes an assault. I'm pretty sure that even in Philly it is as well.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

Agreed the suit might be a bit much, but where I come from, that constitutes an assault. I'm pretty sure that even in Philly it is as well.

Call the police, then. I repeat, not everything is a BFD which requires a lawsuit. The teacher was over the line. That's what principals and superintendents and school boards are for. Not judges and juries. We should all stop enabling and approving of whiney people (left and right) looking for their 15 minutes. And our friends in the media should also respond with a polite "nein" when self-promoting types call suggesting "coverage" for a non news event. Call it the WBC rule.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

Here's why so called "hate crimes" laws are so stupid and unnecessary. Woman who pushed a guy in front of a subway train in NY charged with a hate crime, which could add 5 additional years to her sentence. Why? Her act was so cruel, so senseless, so stupid, what difference does it make what her motive was? And if her victim had been a WASP, would that have made the crime less repulsive? If it were up to me, I'd chop her into tiny pieces, stick tootpicks into the chunks and fry them in peanut oil. Serve her up as "crazy b*tch fondue."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/n...hed-onto-subway-tracks-in-queens.html?hp&_r=0

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

Everything old is new again: Rich b*tch lefty and her even more lefty "Occupr*ck" boyfriend popped in Greenwich Village with weapons and explosives. Back in '70 three worthless Weather Underground a*sholes blew themselves to bits also in Greenwich Village, assembling bombs. They left behind dozens of sticks of dynamite, ready to go pipe bombs, assembled clusters of dynamite sticks with timers attached and other "peace movement" toys.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/bombmaking_in_the_village_LoRDqNzP02SDZyfC1pLVXN

 

[DrDemento]

Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

Here's why so called "hate crimes" laws are so stupid and unnecessary. Woman who pushed a guy in front of a subway train in NY charged with a hate crime, which could add 5 additional years to her sentence. Why? Her act was so cruel, so senseless, so stupid, what difference does it make what her motive was? And if her victim had been a WASP, would that have made the crime less repulsive? If it were up to me, I'd chop her into tiny pieces, stick tootpicks into the chunks and fry them in peanut oil. Serve her up as "crazy b*tch fondue."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/n...hed-onto-subway-tracks-in-queens.html?hp&_r=0

They are working feverishly to paint her as mentally challenged. "Of course the crime was so crazy that she had to be insane to do such a thing". I agree-I could care less what reasons there were-this one is a good argument for the death penalty.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

Kansas judge decides sperm donor father is financially responsible for the resulting baby, basing the decision on the fact that the actual insemination was performed by an "unlicensed" doctor. He had signed away all rights and responsibilities to any child produced by his donation. Yet, somehow, the state wants to reach into his pocket. Seems terribly unfair. Hope this decision is reversed.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sbian-couple-despite-giving-rights-child.html

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

Kansas judge decides sperm donor father is financially responsible for the resulting baby, basing the decision on the fact that the actual insemination was performed by an "unlicensed" doctor. He had signed away all rights and responsibilities to any child produced by his donation. Yet, somehow, the state wants to reach into his pocket. Seems terribly unfair. Hope this decision is reversed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sbian-couple-despite-giving-rights-child.html

This is... stunning. You can't be held financially responsible for that.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

This is... stunning. You can't be held financially responsible for that.

If that's the will of the people of Kansas, let the legislature make it plain. It's hard for me to understand that the donor's liability hinges on the status of the license of the physician involved. If the rationale is "we don't want the taxpayers of Kansas to be financially on the hook for this kid," then what does Kansas propose to do about the (presumably) tens of thousands of kids born out of wedlock, in single parent "families", whose mother is on benefits up to her eyeballs?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

If that's the will of the people of Kansas, let the legislature make it plain. It seems to me to be a bit of a stretch that this guy's liability hinges on the status of the license of the physician involved. And if the rationale is "we don't want the taxpayers of Kansas to be financially on the hook for this kid," then what does Kansas propose to do about the (presumably) tens of thousands of kids born out of wedlock, in single parent "families", whose mother is on benefits up to her eyeballs?

A better question is: Why are sperm donations allowed to go to people who can't financially handle a child? It should be just as strict as adoption, if not more, since there are medical complications that can come from pregnancy and delivery. Much higher risk than adopting a child.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

A better question is: Why are sperm donations allowed to go to people who can't financially handle a child? It should be just as strict as adoption, if not more, since there are medical complications that can come from pregnancy and delivery. Much higher risk than adopting a child.

In the abstract, I agree. But getting government involved in the intimate relationships of citizens, with an eye toward "approving" a proposed pregnancy, is a non-starter. If you can apply a means test to gay couples, then there's no reason you couldn't apply it to straight couples. This is not a power that I want government to have. In the case of adoption, the child is already here and the prospective parents weren't involved. So requiring them to demonstrate their acceptability makes sense.

What is it Keanu Reeves says in "Parenthood?"

". . . you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car - hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any butt-reaming a*shole be a father."

The only thing worse, IMO, would be giving "them" the power to deny parenthood.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

In the abstract, I agree. But getting government involved in the intimate relationships of citizens, with an eye toward "approving" a proposed pregnancy, is a non-starter. If you can apply a means test to gay couples, then there's no reason you couldn't apply it to straight couples. This is not a power that I want government to have. In the case of adoption, the child is already here and the prospective parents weren't involved. So requiring them to demonstrate their acceptablility makes sense.

What was it Keanu Reeves says in "Parenthood?"

". . . you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car - hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any butt-reaming a*shole be a father."

Agree to disagree.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

Agree to disagree.

Fine by me. But do you mean to say you approve the concept of government bureaucrats intruding into the private lives of citizens to the extent that they can require certain standards be met, or a proposed pregnancy is "not approved?" And if that's the case, then you obviously have to apply punishments to people who get pregnant without prior approval of the government? And do you punish unintended pregnancies the same way?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

Fine by me. But do you mean to say you approve the concept of government bureaucrats intruding into the private lives of citizens to the extent that they can require certain standards be met, or a proposed pregnancy is "not approved?" And if that's the case, then you obviously have to apply punishments to people who get pregnant without prior approval of the government? And do you punish unintended pregnancies the same way?

Yes and no. You can't get pregnant unintentionally using artificial insemination. So that's not an issue.

I do think it's fine to check into the financial situation of donation recipients since it's clear what they intend to do with it. It's a medical procedure. There are regulations for transplants and other medical procedures, why can't there be regulations on a medical procedure that affects more than just one person?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

Yes and no. You can't get pregnant unintentionally using artificial insemination. So that's not an issue.

I do think it's fine to check into the financial situation of donation recipients since it's clear what they intend to do with it. It's a medical procedure. There are regulations for transplants and other medical procedures, why can't there be regulations on a medical procedure that affects more than just one person?

You miss my point. "Unintended pregnancies" suggest the inevitable extension of your concept that who gets pregnant, and can they afford it, is any of the government's business. I'm not aware of regulations which deny medical procedures on the basis of ability to pay. Besides, insemination is more than just "a medical procedure," as it involves our most intimate activities. Do we really want Ms. Plimsol from the "Department of Approving Pregnancies" to make these judgements? Are you aware of any government program (federal or state) which hasn't grown exponentially beyond its original narrow premise? To me, this is a verrrrry slippery slope. And what is to stop people from arranging for "illegal" sperm donations, outside the reach of government? Are we going to put those people behind bars?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

No, that's totally different. I'm not calling for pregnancy licenses for normal pregnancies. I'm talking about someone using a sperm donation for the sole purpose of getting pregnant. Completely different circumstances.