Comments by "upabittoolate" (@upabittoolate) on "O'Reilly Goes Nuts About Octuplets" video.

right or wrong doesn't matter because that's TOTALLY subjective. you & could talk about social standards 'til our faces are blue. but ultimately, we aren't principally involved. fairness? is it fair that i hit the genetics jackpot & came out handsome & brilliantly smart? nope. is it fair that some kids are born with rich parents? nope. right or wrong, it just 'is'. neither you, i, o'reilly or tremedar can dictate how other people live their lives & raise their children
1
nope, as a citizen of her state, she's entitled to public assistance. that's the LAW. it's abuse that's against the law. a discussion about 'common sense' is so fraught with error i'll just say 'common sense' is for common people. i've never aspired to be 'common'. have you? lookit, people are gonna pay taxes no matter what. our federal taxes mainly go to defense spending, admin salaries, ssi & healthcare. state goes to admin, education & infrastructure. not much really goes to general assist.
1
lmao. i loved how you handled that dude. lrdvltr actually feels stupid now.
1
very astute
1
it's not YOUR MONEY. you pay taxes & it becomes FEDERAL & STATE MONEY my friend. it's not your place to complain about whom it's spent to help. also, fertility stimulation isn't an exact science. ie, there's not slide rule, hormone dosage that generates octuplets. what's more, the fertility doctor could have very well been paid through a private research grant. this notion you have of "YOUR MONEY' is actually quite foolish. pay taxes & live your life. i sure do. nuff said
1
neither you nor i have any conclusive evidence to determine the outcome of those children's lives. i'm a smart man but i can't see into the future. i don't imagine that you are a genius or a psychic. therefore, we can talk about probability or projected outlook but not about the children's 'losing'. maybe she's abusing her rights. but it's not our place to quantify that 'abuse'. like i said, this is america. we can't dole out human rights piecemeal. it's all or nothin' or it's not america
1
it doesn't matter when she had them. what i'm saying is that you can't judge 1 instance & not judge the other. ultimately, you can't judge anyone at all. what's more, "strong parental support" is actually relative. i'll be the 1st to tell you that my grandfather was a rolling stone but she held things together mightily. that said, all other arguments dissolve
1
the sick sad truth is that she's within her rights. it can't be america only when it serves someone's own set of ethics. it's gotta always be america for all of us. i don't disagree that the woman is nuts but bellow really is wrong here. america makes room for nutty ass baby makers, cat ladies, gun nuts, regular folks & selfish ceos. you can't have 1 & shun the other
1
no, you're basing it on the opinion of her mother. that's what's called, anecdotal evidence; not fact. my father could say "James (upabittoolate) is a very gentle man". but the reality is, James (upabittoolate) has been in more than 100 fist fights in his life. James also doesn't live in chicago with his father. i may be parsing language but you're being presumptuous about how she provides for her children. unless you've observed it with your own 2 peepers, you can't speak.
1
my analogy is this: my father & mother raised me but there's a point where their expertise, credibility of opinion, reliability as a source about me, as a person, diminishes. you paraphrased an opinion & pawned it off as fact. that was a clever rhetorical tool but it wasn't very helpful. journalism is based on a lot of things & it's credibility is ALWAYS challenged. that's what makes it work. i'm saying that you can't pontificate about the kids' quality of life unless you've surveyed them.
1
this is america, she's within her rights. whether or not she's sane is really moot. if she's doing something illegal is what's critical here. as far as what taxpayers pay goes, our money is squandered on bail outs, defense expenditures & padding executive pensions. less than 3% of our tax money is going to general assistance. bellow really is a self righteous shithead
1
EXACTLY!! i don't care for o'reilly at all. conversely, i don't agree with the woman having multiple kids. BUT, i understand that in order for the american theory to be tested, we need o'reilly AND welfare moms. disgusting as he is to me, o'reilly's voice must be heard
1
how on earth could you agree with that guy on this issue?
1
???
1
"our problem"? you make me laugh. your taxes haven't been raised. quit trying to think that you're somehow entitled to judge her for living her life her way.
1
"they won't be"? who died & left you the gift of clairvoyance? my father's mother had 14 kids herself; that's how they did it in the jim crow south. incidentally, they were sharecroppers & that was how they operated. yo, it's not your or my place to determine her reasoning. this is america. we MUST make room for her even if we don't approve. otherwise 'america' means nothing
1
the caveat is that you can't present anecdotal evidence as fact then predicate your entire argument upon the aforementioned anecdote. in philosophy we called that a logical fallacy of the abnormal type. again, this isn't really about what's "right" to you or me. this is about whether or not the woman is within her rights & if she raises her kids properly. she's poor. so what? would it be okay if she were illegally rich in your estimation? see? that's where your argument loses steam
1
EXACTLY. o'reilly doesn't like big gov't but he wants the state to step in on her life.
1
really? you know how she was providing for her kids prior to this report? you're better than me. irrespective, o'reilly can't complain about big gov't then expect the state to do something. o'reilly can't talk about human rights then say that hers should be limited. otherwise, that's not america. we can do as we like as long as we don't infringe on others' rights or break the civil contract. in what america do you live?
1
i'll say this & end my piece: if she was rich & neglectful, no one would say a word. o'reilly is a self righteous dickhead who somehow thinks that human rights are to be distributed in increments instead of completely endowed, all the time. this ain't china. we can have all the kids we want. o'reilly is a hypocrite. if he were really concerned about the kid's well being, he'd put his money where his mouth is. if he wants small gov't, he can't talk about DCFS's onus in this instance
1
... again, you can't make an argument about qualitative proof being fact unless you process it yourself & the aforementioned proof is there to examine by all. journalism works because it's constantly challenged & it constantly challenges itself. agreed? i made an allusion earlier about my own father's experience. from every account, they never really knew they were poor. unless you can render evidence from THE KIDS' of neglect, poor health. malnutrition or uneducation, you can't prove your case
1
no, it's not yours. if so, show me how. until then shut up & stop whining idiot
1
yes, she's absolutely allowed. this is america. you can't talk about personal liberties if they only apply to people in an economic class. if she were a millionaire but totally neglected the necessary emotional care, no one would utter a sound. here's the deal, as long as the children's basic needs are satisfied, neither you nor i have the right to say shit. that's why this is america. sure, i think she's nutty but what i think doesn't matter 'cause it's her life, her kids.
1
if you could show me how it remains "YOUR" money after you've paid taxes, i'd be enamored
1
tell your readers again. they evidently don't see the iron & hypocrisy in o'reilly's reaction. somehow people think that the woman is digging in individual pockets which makes no sense. please school these people
1