turbonator

Kidd Andersson > wrote in
:

> Joe wrote:
>>
>> Absolutely. And that's a great example of a sick-o mother that's
>> hurting her kids and not helping them. The father was just as much
>> at fault for not doing anything about it.
>>
>
> That's true too. Of course he could have been pussy-whipped as hell
> and she just didn't listen to him. I missed that episode so I dunno.

I thought he was pretty much brain-dead, which explains his apathy to
the situation. Interestingly, the nanny sort of woke him up to the
realization that he and his wife were screwing up their kids, so they
agreed that it might be time to "do something". Freaking' idiots,
they were.

>> Why start it to begin with? Sure, I'm the first one in line to
>> shower my kid with love and affection, but he can get that (and he
>> certainly did get that and continues to get it) without sleeping in
>> our bed.
>>
> We started it because no matter how hard we tried, Kai wouldn't
> sleep in her bed. We tried everything you can imagine and as soon as
> you put her down she would wake up screaming. My mother told me to
> let her cry herself back to sleep. I tried, and it ended up just
> making me cry too. Kai just had to be attached to me. If we put her
> in our bed for naps even if we weren't in it, she could still smell
> me and that was good for about half an hour. Then she was crying
> again. If I held her, she would sleep for hours.
> After the first few weeks of NO sleep for me trying to get her into
> her own bed, we just let her sleep with us. We kept trying
> throughout this time but it never worked.
> Eventually (at about 11 months) I got her to take naps in her bed,
> but when it was time to go down for the night, forget it.

I kind of agree with your mom. Luckily, ours didn't go through the
tantrums that yours apparently did, so we never had to get to that
point. Now that he's 16, we can't get him out of bed on the weekends
until noon.

> And as an update, since I last posted about this I have been putting
> her to bed in her own bed. I have to stay with her until she falls
> asleep but it's a start. Some time in the middle of the night she
> wakes up and crawls in bed with me, but you have to start somewhere.

Indeed. Good that she's learning..

>> I guess on that point we'll agree to disagree. Don't get me wrong
>> - it's fine to all pile in once in a while, but I don't believe in
>> allowing kids to sleep with their parent(s) every night.
>>
> Lots of people have differing opinions on the family bed, just as
> everything else. Like breastfeeding a child until they're 5. Ugh.

Now _that's_ really sick.

>> Now that's a nice topic for another thread. I basically agree with
>> you, but you know that within a nanosecond someone will pop up and
>> ask who gets to determine the "line" where someone shouldn't breed.
>>
>>
> I was waiting for that to come up, actually.
>
>
> K.

Personally, I think the world would be a better place if those people
that are beyond that line (wherever it is) weren't around. But then
my wife says that's the German in me showing up...

Joe wrote:

> I kind of agree with your mom. Luckily, ours didn't go through the
> tantrums that yours apparently did, so we never had to get to that
> point. Now that he's 16, we can't get him out of bed on the weekends
> until noon.
>
I once let her cry for 20 minutes. I had to go outside while her dad
stayed with her because I couldn't handle it. Infants have no sense of
time. A minute is like eternity to them. They also have no sense of
what's real and what's not. When someone is out of their sight, they
don't understand that person will come back. Once you're gone, you cease
to exist. I couldn't handle letting her cry like that. It just made both
of us miserable.
Aside from that, she was the perfect baby. She didn't fuss, and
somewhere around 2-3 weeks old she slept straight through the night (as
long as she was with us) so I missed out on the
not-getting-any-sleep-until-they're-2 thing. She decided on her first
birthday that she didn't like bottles or formula anymore so I packed
them up and she went right on to sippy cups. I didn't have to battle her
or ween her from the bottle. She did it on her own. Same thing with
pacifiers and her blankie. She just decided she didn't need them
anymore. She always ate her vegetables and was walking by the end of 9
months.
Now, she's a backseat driver. "The light's green! Watch out, cars are
coming! They hit you and you crash! Be careful! Slow down! Mommy, wear
you seatbelt!"
Christ, it's like having my mother in the car.




>>Lots of people have differing opinions on the family bed, just as
>>everything else. Like breastfeeding a child until they're 5. Ugh.
>
>
> Now _that's_ really sick.
>

I completely agree with you there. That's a different story all by
itself. I saw a show about women who breastfed their kids until 5, 7,
and 9. 9! Talk about not wanting to let go!


> Personally, I think the world would be a better place if those people
> that are beyond that line (wherever it is) weren't around. But then
> my wife says that's the German in me showing up...

Umm.. all of my family is German (everyone got blonde hair and blue eyes
except me, with dark brown/green, go figure) and my Finnish fiance' (who
happens to be blonde/gray) tells me the same thing. "Boy, that German's
really starting to come out in you!" I firmly believe that sometimes the
natural selection process needs a little help.
Lord help this county's population when I get through with the police
academy! LOL!

K.

Spike wrote:

>
> And as far as who gets to decide who breeds and who doesn't.... China
> has been doing that for quite some time, combined with the one child
> per family law. If something happens to that child, technically, the
> couple is not permitted to "replace" it by having another. It is done
> though. That's a problem with girls in China having no value compared
> to boys, so if the first born is a girl, it is not uncommon to
> terminate her life with out notice to authorities about the birth, and
> immediately trying for a boy.
>
> I would guess, that as the ability to recognize genes and genetic
> influence, we'll start seeing the parents as the ones who start the
> ball rolling by genetically selecting what the child will be and what
> attributes it will have. As the population begins to be extreme, the
> government will likely step in and make what individuals have made a
> normal practice, commonplace.
>
> That id IF a disease or major war doesn't come along to greatly reduce
> populations. I once read what the ratio was, for each male lost, to
> the number of generations reduced (1:4, 1:8, something like that).
>
> Fortunately, I don't expect to be around that long.
>

We had a discussion about his (started by me) in my last class. Boy do
people get offended easy! Hehe.
Actually, I think there should be population controls for certain
people. We are over-populated in certain areas in America (my area is
one of them) and it's only getting worse. Drug addicts, for instance,
with no hope of reform or refusal to reform. Junkies popping out 6 or 10
sick babies that go up for adoption or just stay in the foster system
forever. When those people make the choice for drugs over children, in
my mind, they've lost their right to have them. I say mandatory birth
control for the whole lot of 'em, but that's just my opinion. Any people
with severe mental handicaps. There was a blind and deaf woman who had
the comprehension of an infant in a care home around here who was raped
by a janitor. She got pregnant and had the baby not of her own will, but
by the will of the guardian appointed for her. That poor girl had NO
idea what was happening to her and being blind and deaf it's not like
anyone could explain it to her. How sad.

This is of course soley my opinion and yeah yeah yeah, everyone can save
the crap about violating their rights but to me, the junkies violate
their own rights and the handicapped are given rights through guardians.
It's the guardians that decide what rights to exercise. If I was a
guardian of someone like that, I especially would want them to be unable
to get pregnant because that would be in their best interest. Again,
just my opinion.

K.

I don't have a problem with mandatory birth control for those segments
of the population. Like the Welfare Mothers who pop out kid after kid,
and each one has a different father (and they never married). Junkies,
etc.
I DO NOT advocate such drastic measures based on race, creed, etc.
I DO NOT advocate the 1939 Nazi type procedures.

After all, balance their rights against the rights of the vast
majority who pay the taxes which support all those unemployed single
parents, the kids, mentally ill, and the dregs of society (alcoholics,
skid row bums, homeless, junkies, etc). It's not our kids. Why should
we have to support them? Don't we have enough trouble supporting our
own kids?

That's no to say that there are not exceptions. Nor to say that we
can't help a good person who needs it. But the rest.... Many of which
are on Social Security benefits because the parents have taught the
kids to fail school tests on purpose to qualify under the learning
disabilities program.

When I was in the service, we had a female arrive from technical
school who was pregnant and unmarried. She had the kid. Then she got
pregnant by one of her co-workers and had an abortion. Then she got
pregnant by another co-worker and went in for an abortion. This time
around, she was told if she even got pregnant again, she would be
courts martialed and booted out of the service. That would have cost
her all the benefits, like medical, that covered her and the kid she
did have. I think she opted to have her tubes tied. I know she
remained in for a career.

No problem making similar mandates. After kid #X, no added bennies AND
they sign a "voluntary tubes tied agreement" or lose some of the
benefits they already have. And the fathers.... after fathering more
than X kids... it's tube cutting time for him.

Japan, many years ago did something which worked pretty good. The
normal TV family was comprised of mom, dad, and three kids. The
government got the advertisers to help by changing that to mom, dad,
and one kid. The people began to accept that as the perfect family,
and patterned themselves after it. The population growth not only hit
ZERO, it actually began to decline. They did hit a snag when industry
suddenly found themselves with our a middle level. They had old
workers and new workers, but not any in the middle years. So, the
older ones had to continue working until the new ones reached past the
middle years. And believe it or not, Americans are no different
regarding patterning themselves after what they see as the ideal
lifestyle.



On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:36:41 -0400, Kidd Andersson
> wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>
>>
>> And as far as who gets to decide who breeds and who doesn't.... China
>> has been doing that for quite some time, combined with the one child
>> per family law. If something happens to that child, technically, the
>> couple is not permitted to "replace" it by having another. It is done
>> though. That's a problem with girls in China having no value compared
>> to boys, so if the first born is a girl, it is not uncommon to
>> terminate her life with out notice to authorities about the birth, and
>> immediately trying for a boy.
>>
>> I would guess, that as the ability to recognize genes and genetic
>> influence, we'll start seeing the parents as the ones who start the
>> ball rolling by genetically selecting what the child will be and what
>> attributes it will have. As the population begins to be extreme, the
>> government will likely step in and make what individuals have made a
>> normal practice, commonplace.
>>
>> That id IF a disease or major war doesn't come along to greatly reduce
>> populations. I once read what the ratio was, for each male lost, to
>> the number of generations reduced (1:4, 1:8, something like that).
>>
>> Fortunately, I don't expect to be around that long.
>>
>
>We had a discussion about his (started by me) in my last class. Boy do
>people get offended easy! Hehe.
>Actually, I think there should be population controls for certain
>people. We are over-populated in certain areas in America (my area is
>one of them) and it's only getting worse. Drug addicts, for instance,
>with no hope of reform or refusal to reform. Junkies popping out 6 or 10
>sick babies that go up for adoption or just stay in the foster system
>forever. When those people make the choice for drugs over children, in
>my mind, they've lost their right to have them. I say mandatory birth
>control for the whole lot of 'em, but that's just my opinion. Any people
>with severe mental handicaps. There was a blind and deaf woman who had
>the comprehension of an infant in a care home around here who was raped
>by a janitor. She got pregnant and had the baby not of her own will, but
>by the will of the guardian appointed for her. That poor girl had NO
>idea what was happening to her and being blind and deaf it's not like
>anyone could explain it to her. How sad.
>
>This is of course soley my opinion and yeah yeah yeah, everyone can save
>the crap about violating their rights but to me, the junkies violate
>their own rights and the handicapped are given rights through guardians.
>It's the guardians that decide what rights to exercise. If I was a
>guardian of someone like that, I especially would want them to be unable
>to get pregnant because that would be in their best interest. Again,
>just my opinion.
>
>K.

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address

Spike wrote:

> I don't have a problem with mandatory birth control for those segments
> of the population. Like the Welfare Mothers who pop out kid after kid,
> and each one has a different father (and they never married). Junkies,
> etc.
> I DO NOT advocate such drastic measures based on race, creed, etc.
> I DO NOT advocate the 1939 Nazi type procedures.

I'm with you there. I don't think killing people based on race or
religion is right AT ALL. That's just... well... stupid and I still fail
to see how it made any sense to anyone in the first place.
I'm not saying we should do anything like that even to the scuz of our
society though I don't think anyone would miss them.

>
> After all, balance their rights against the rights of the vast
> majority who pay the taxes which support all those unemployed single
> parents, the kids, mentally ill, and the dregs of society (alcoholics,
> skid row bums, homeless, junkies, etc). It's not our kids. Why should
> we have to support them? Don't we have enough trouble supporting our
> own kids?

Exactly! I'm struggling to pay for school, 4 cars, regular bills and a 3
year old on my own (aside from the laughable 50 a week her dad gives me
since he got served with CS papers) so why am I paying for other
people's kids?? If I want to go give a homeless guy $5, that's my
perogative but don't force me to support other people when I'm having a
hard enough time supporting myself as it is.
>
> That's no to say that there are not exceptions. Nor to say that we
> can't help a good person who needs it. But the rest.... Many of which
> are on Social Security benefits because the parents have taught the
> kids to fail school tests on purpose to qualify under the learning
> disabilities program.

There has to be some kind of filter to get through this because it
****es me off. I know a woman who just keeps squeezing out kids because
she knows the more kids she has, the more money she'll get from food
stamps and medicaid. What kind of farked up thinking is that?! At the
moment she's up to 6 with one on the way. She makes me sick.


>
> No problem making similar mandates. After kid #X, no added bennies AND
> they sign a "voluntary tubes tied agreement" or lose some of the
> benefits they already have. And the fathers.... after fathering more
> than X kids... it's tube cutting time for him.

I agree but everyone screams "That's a violation of their rights. Nobody
can tell me how many kids to have!"
I think once you cross your "right" over into tax payers money, you lose
that right. If you aren't supporting them on your own, screw ya. You
don't deserve jack ****.


> Japan, many years ago did something which worked pretty good. The
> normal TV family was comprised of mom, dad, and three kids. The
> government got the advertisers to help by changing that to mom, dad,
> and one kid. The people began to accept that as the perfect family,
> and patterned themselves after it. The population growth not only hit
> ZERO, it actually began to decline. They did hit a snag when industry
> suddenly found themselves with our a middle level. They had old
> workers and new workers, but not any in the middle years. So, the
> older ones had to continue working until the new ones reached past the
> middle years. And believe it or not, Americans are no different
> regarding patterning themselves after what they see as the ideal
> lifestyle.

Mom, Dad, and 2.5 kids. I'm from a family of mixed numbers. We either
have 1 or 2, or we have 5-9. The only in between-er is my sister who got
her tubes tied after the surprise of #3 they weren't prepared for at the
time.
I'm one of 9. We were spread out fairly decent in age so there were
never more than 3 kids home at one time. The only welfare my parents got
was the "welfare" from Grandma and Grandpa who were the only reason we
even got to have Christmas. Us younger kids wore hand-me-downs from the
olders. Grandma got us a Nintendo for Christmas one year but aside from
that, we didn't get spoiled at all (well, I did when I was the last in
the house. ). Everything we had, mom made it for us or it was second
(or 3rd or 4th) hand. We had a garden about 80 yards in length that had
every vegetable you could imagine and some fruits. We got our meat from
my uncle who has a cattle ranch. Dad put fruit trees in the back yard.
We did what we had to just to survive, but that type of work ethic has
disappeared. It's just easier to collect on the government checks I guess.
This world has come to be a little too fast paced for it's own good if
you ask me. People have forgotten what it's like to do for themselves.

K.

>
> Accept Jesus Christ as Your Savior and Receive a Free Wireless Phone!
> http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1199/phone.html
>


Who knew repentance had such a great reward? *snicker*

K.

yeah but do your minutes roll over?

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:22:45 -0400, Kidd Andersson
> wrote:

>
>>
>> Accept Jesus Christ as Your Savior and Receive a Free Wireless Phone!
>> http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1199/phone.html
>>
>
>
>Who knew repentance had such a great reward? *snicker*
>
>K.

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 14:37:58 -0500, Taffy Davenport Gaines Crockett
rg> wrote:

>Blasphemy!

Is it not blasphemy to disobey God? To act in opposition to what God
has commanded? have you yourself not just done so? Let us review...

>God & George W Bush want you to pump out as many babies as possible!

Show me where either GWB or God have said that... I do think both
have come out against murdering anyone, although even God allowed for
killing in war. I guess God also allowed that human sacrifice was
accepted if God commanded it. Has not God said "Thou shalt not bear
false witness?" Have you not just done so? Have you not born false
witness against GWB AND God?
>
>Birth control is abortion and a sin, and anyone "spilling seed" is a
>sinner as well.

Birth control is NOT abortion, but abortion is a form of birth
control. There is this birth control system called "abstinence". Shows
how much you know.

As I recall, the passage is spilling "seed upon the ground"... and
other places are not even mention.

Since these are reputed to be God's devine inspired words in script,
and since God didn't mention any other specific place where "spilling
seed" was prohibited, then I would venture to say nowhere else
applies. God knows I can't read God's mind and so knows I would need
either a more generalized passage, or more restrictions listed.
>
>How are we to continue to provide the endless troops needed about the
>world to force them to accept the true religion (Baptist) without
>endless procreation?

We're battling religious extremists, and here we have evidence of
religious extremism. You will, of course, need to show where our
troops are directed to convert all the so called heathens to become
Baptists. Especially when those troops are comprised of many religions
in addition to Baptists, including non-Christians.
>
>You are both sinning anti-Christians.

And now we come to the crux of the problem.

One need not be an anti-Christian in order to be a sinner. Many
Christians, including Baptists, are sinners. God has said this is
known about man, and that God will forgive those sinners who seek
God's forgiveness. Is this not so?

Since only God, and not you, knows what is in our hearts, you really
do not know that we are sinners. Thus, without true knowledge, you
have borne false witness against us, for you have nothing to support
what you have claimed against us.

Now, did not the God of the Baptists say, "Judge ye not least ye be
judged"? Is not the God of the Baptists the only one who has the
authority to judge? Since you have just judged us, does that not give
you the same authority as God?

And did not the God of the Baptists say, "Thou shalt have no other
gods before Me?" Have you not, by judging, set yourself up as the
equal of God and therefore, in essence, proclaimed yourself a god and
thus placed yourself before the God of the Baptists by usurping God's
authority to judge?

Have you not, in this simple post, set yourself up, not as the
reciter, but as the interpreter of God's Word. What gives you the
authority to speak for God? To determine what God thinks, says, and
does? To limit God's authority by acting in God's stead? To take the
authority God has said is God's alone?

Have you not in this simple post, majorly disobeyed God on several
levels?

Should I go on?

Have you not, by your own pronouncements, condemned yourself to hell
in accordance with God's Holy writ? Just as those who violate God's
commandments not to kill, and not to judge, then go forth and kill,
bomb, burn abortion clinics in God's name. Is it not by God's
authority that the people who work in such places will be judged?

Does not the Bible of the Baptists say that God will judge all in the
end times. How do you think God will judge you for your judgment of
others, for your usurping God's authority with your own? Do you
honestly believe you have such right? Do you honestly believe that you
are the equal of God?
>
>REPENT!

You say to me "REPENT!"? Should you not yourself repent having, by
your own tongue, usurped God's authority and thereby violated God's
Holy Word? Have you not borne false witness? Have you not judged? Have
you not essentially held yourself out as a god before God?

Perhaps not. And you'll note that I have not judged you. I have simply
asked questions of you. It is not for me to judge, is it? Judging I
leave to God. And God's judgment of my faith and beliefs I leave to
God. God, not you, will determine what is in my heart and whether or
not I am permitted into Heaven.

Finally, if you think you are the equal of God, and have the authority
to usurp God's authority, then why don't you step forth and stop the
wars, and heal the sick, and cure all the rest of the ills which
plague the human race?
>
>Accept Jesus Christ as Your Savior and Receive a Free Wireless Phone!
>http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1199/phone.html
>
>
>

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address

Spike wrote:


>
>>God & George W Bush want you to pump out as many babies as possible!
>
>
> Show me where either GWB or God have said that...

Genesis 1:22
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply

Kidd Andersson > wrote in
:

> Joe wrote:
>
>> I kind of agree with your mom. Luckily, ours didn't go through the
>> tantrums that yours apparently did, so we never had to get to that
>> point. Now that he's 16, we can't get him out of bed on the
>> weekends until noon.
>>
> I once let her cry for 20 minutes. I had to go outside while her dad
> stayed with her because I couldn't handle it. Infants have no sense
> of time. A minute is like eternity to them. They also have no sense
> of what's real and what's not. When someone is out of their sight,
> they don't understand that person will come back. Once you're gone,
> you cease to exist. I couldn't handle letting her cry like that. It
> just made both of us miserable.
> Aside from that, she was the perfect baby. She didn't fuss, and
> somewhere around 2-3 weeks old she slept straight through the night
> (as long as she was with us) so I missed out on the
> not-getting-any-sleep-until-they're-2 thing. She decided on her
> first birthday that she didn't like bottles or formula anymore so I
> packed them up and she went right on to sippy cups. I didn't have to
> battle her or ween her from the bottle. She did it on her own. Same
> thing with pacifiers and her blankie. She just decided she didn't
> need them anymore. She always ate her vegetables and was walking by
> the end of 9 months.
> Now, she's a backseat driver. "The light's green! Watch out, cars
> are coming! They hit you and you crash! Be careful! Slow down!
> Mommy, wear you seatbelt!"
> Christ, it's like having my mother in the car.

LOL! So where's she getting all that - from TV?

>>>Lots of people have differing opinions on the family bed, just as
>>>everything else. Like breastfeeding a child until they're 5. Ugh.
>>
>>
>> Now _that's_ really sick.
>>
>
> I completely agree with you there. That's a different story all by
> itself. I saw a show about women who breastfed their kids until 5,
> 7, and 9. 9! Talk about not wanting to let go!

Those mothers are the ones that shouldn't be allowed to have kids.
Can you imagine the mental state of those kids? Sad.

>> Personally, I think the world would be a better place if those
>> people that are beyond that line (wherever it is) weren't around.
>> But then my wife says that's the German in me showing up...
>
> Umm.. all of my family is German (everyone got blonde hair and blue
> eyes except me, with dark brown/green, go figure) and my Finnish
> fiance' (who happens to be blonde/gray) tells me the same thing.
> "Boy, that German's really starting to come out in you!" I firmly
> believe that sometimes the natural selection process needs a little
> help. Lord help this county's population when I get through with the
> police academy! LOL!
>
> K.

I'm half German and half Italian. Got some wonderful cooking growing
up. Best of luck with the police academy - we need more people with
your attitude IMO.

As for "drawing the line" to decide who should breed, I think you and
I should draw it.