"Young and ambitious"...

User Forum Topic
Submitted by SD Squatter on June 10, 2013 - 3:37pm

You have to admire this reproductive strategy. Afterall other less successful individuals of his species will be taxed by the government to support his offspring:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

I'm not sure what this will do to the genome, but I guess it's the new form of evolution...

Submitted by davelj on June 10, 2013 - 4:58pm.

This guy is the archetypal Pied Piper leading us toward Idiocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy). Anyone having children today should realize what kind of society they're tossing their kids into. Personally I find the whole situation sad, on the one hand, and yet enormously entertaining on the other (as I'm not going to produce any humans to leave behind).

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 10, 2013 - 5:06pm.

Dave: That movie should be required viewing in this country. Hilariously funny and incredibly sad, all at the same time.

Of course, having a chopper-riding, machine gun-toting Prez whose name includes "Mountain Dew" would be pretty awesome.

Along with "Monday Night Rehabilitation".

Submitted by CA renter on June 11, 2013 - 6:30pm.

Wow, watching that is definitely an Idiocracy moment!

He does NOT "love" women, and he certainly does NOT "love" his children. He loves sex, and expects everyone else to pay for it.

Submitted by SD Squatter on June 12, 2013 - 11:58am.

CA renter wrote:
Wow, watching that is definitely an Idiocracy moment!

He does NOT "love" women, and he certainly does NOT "love" his children. He loves sex, and expects everyone else to pay for it.

"You can't knock no man for loving women"
:)

Submitted by no_such_reality on June 12, 2013 - 2:44pm.

CA renter wrote:
Wow, watching that is definitely an Idiocracy moment!

He does NOT "love" women, and he certainly does NOT "love" his children. He loves sex, and expects everyone else to pay for it.

No CAR, my gut tells me the women involved knew exactly what they were doing.

Submitted by UCGal on June 12, 2013 - 2:51pm.

I have a very good friend who's FOB (father of baby) is like this guy. She fell for the lines and smooth talk... And he was super attentive and said all the right things. He was there for her during the pregnancy... but was a no-show, literally, when it came time to come home from the hospital.

FWIW - she's not a push-over, tramp, or someone who slept around. In the 20 years I've known this friend, she's never had a boyfriend. And this was her one "serious" relationship. She's a good, church going, woman. Not a tramp. The guy's lines were very smooth.

Periodically, he'd pop back into her life - she'd allows her daughter to see him, but never fell for his charm again. Her daughter learned at a tender age that the dad promised wonderful things - but didn't deliver.

The best of my knowledge - this guy (friends baby-daddy) had 16 kids with 5 women. My friend was the only one smart enough to recognize what he was and not fall for it a second/third/or more time. The guy in the article is similar (although a grander scale) - 14 moms, 22 kids.

My friend did everything legal to try and get child support : had his wages garnished, his tax refund diverted, etc. But he'd quit his job as soon as he started getting garnished... So she collected only a few thousand in child support over the 18 years he owed. Plus she was competing for his limited income with 4 other moms. So mostly she worked hard, built a good network of friends around her to help her with the tough road of being a single mom. (I'm proud to have been part of the network.) She and her daughter are amazing people... despite the idiot FOB.

Her daughter is now a senior at Temple University...

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 12, 2013 - 3:35pm.

no_such_reality wrote:
CA renter wrote:
Wow, watching that is definitely an Idiocracy moment!

He does NOT "love" women, and he certainly does NOT "love" his children. He loves sex, and expects everyone else to pay for it.

No CAR, my gut tells me the women involved knew exactly what they were doing.

NSR: Not to beat the personal responsibility drum too hard, but, yeah, I'd agree with you.

I've got friends in local law enforcement that tell me about how kids growing up in this environment learn very early about "the system": how it works and how to work it.

Your tax dollars hard at work...

Submitted by SK in CV on June 12, 2013 - 3:40pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
no_such_reality wrote:
CA renter wrote:
Wow, watching that is definitely an Idiocracy moment!

He does NOT "love" women, and he certainly does NOT "love" his children. He loves sex, and expects everyone else to pay for it.

No CAR, my gut tells me the women involved knew exactly what they were doing.

NSR: Not to beat the personal responsibility drum too hard, but, yeah, I'd agree with you.

I've got friends in local law enforcement that tell me about how kids growing up in this environment learn very early about "the system": how it works and how to work it.

Your tax dollars hard at work...

You guys have to be f'ing kidding me. A woman WANTS to have a baby with a guy whose had multiple kids by multiple women and has no relationship with any of them? Because that's what "knowing what they're getting into" would mean.

I understand the whole "poor women have babies just to collect welfare" BS. But wanting to have a baby with a schmuck that you know will never be able to pay for any child rearing costs? Not a chance.

Submitted by no_such_reality on June 12, 2013 - 3:56pm.

What I'm saying is they wanted to have a baby. I seriously doubt many were accidents.

As for whether they believed smooth lines, wanted to believe smooth lines, or just didn't care, who knows. Whether or not they wanted him there, whether or not they care, who knows and frankly, I've seen that said, many don't care if the dad is around.

In the end, they wanted a baby. 22 accidents didn't happen.

Do they have the kid to get welfare. No. Do they have the kid and know welfare will provide? Yes.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 12, 2013 - 3:58pm.

no_such_reality wrote:
What I'm saying is they wanted to have a baby. I seriously doubt many were accidents.

As for whether they believed smooth lines, wanted to believe smooth lines, or just didn't care, who knows. Whether or not they wanted him there, whether or not they care, who knows and frankly, I've seen that said, many don't care if the dad is around.

In the end, they wanted a baby. 22 accidents didn't happen.

Do they have the kid to get welfare. No. Do they have the kid and know welfare will provide? Yes.

+1. Well put and spot on.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 12, 2013 - 4:08pm.

SK in CV wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
no_such_reality wrote:
CA renter wrote:
Wow, watching that is definitely an Idiocracy moment!

He does NOT "love" women, and he certainly does NOT "love" his children. He loves sex, and expects everyone else to pay for it.

No CAR, my gut tells me the women involved knew exactly what they were doing.

NSR: Not to beat the personal responsibility drum too hard, but, yeah, I'd agree with you.

I've got friends in local law enforcement that tell me about how kids growing up in this environment learn very early about "the system": how it works and how to work it.

Your tax dollars hard at work...

You guys have to be f'ing kidding me. A woman WANTS to have a baby with a guy whose had multiple kids by multiple women and has no relationship with any of them? Because that's what "knowing what they're getting into" would mean.

I understand the whole "poor women have babies just to collect welfare" BS. But wanting to have a baby with a schmuck that you know will never be able to pay for any child rearing costs? Not a chance.

SK: And yet you have out-of-wedlock births in some black communities approaching 70%. How to explain the statistical significance of that?

Submitted by SK in CV on June 12, 2013 - 4:33pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

SK: And yet you have out-of-wedlock births in some black communities approaching 70%. How to explain the statistical significance of that?

Maybe they wanted to have babies. No chance they wanted to have babies with this guy, "knowing what they were getting into".

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 12, 2013 - 8:02pm.

How about providing free birth control to lower "accidents." No questions asked free abortions could help women who got impregnated but aren't ready to become mothers.

That would drastically lower social costs.

Submitted by no_such_reality on June 12, 2013 - 9:11pm.

SK in CV wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

SK: And yet you have out-of-wedlock births in some black communities approaching 70%. How to explain the statistical significance of that?

Maybe they wanted to have babies. No chance they wanted to have babies with this guy, "knowing what they were getting into".

22 babies say you're wrong.

With only 14 mothers, at least 8 of them are number 2 or higher.

Submitted by CA renter on June 13, 2013 - 1:35am.

no_such_reality wrote:
SK in CV wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

SK: And yet you have out-of-wedlock births in some black communities approaching 70%. How to explain the statistical significance of that?

Maybe they wanted to have babies. No chance they wanted to have babies with this guy, "knowing what they were getting into".

22 babies say you're wrong.

With only 14 mothers, at least 8 of them are number 2 or higher.

I've also known a man like this -- 14 kids *that he knew of,* with multiple women, some of the kids were in foster care. Only spoke with him briefly, as he was visiting some of his kids in the foster home (a friend of mine was the foster mom), but it sounded like some of the women didn't know about the other women and children, and this was even by his own account. This is NOT uncommon with these types of men.

Having been on the female side of these things (never fell for it, but that's because I'm especially skeptical and inquisitive), there are an awful lot of men out there who don't even tell their new "woman" that they are married, much less that they have kids. They will often flat-out deny it for months or years. While it might be difficult for responsible men to comprehend this, it does happen more often than you'd like to think.

It's entirely possible that these women believed they were "the one" for him, and that they were going to get married and live "happily ever after." It's almost certain that he told them this at every point in the relationship...until the baby arrived. Once in awhile, he might have fancied a woman enough to keep up the ruse for another baby or more.

You'd be stunned by how well some men can keep secrets like this. Oftentimes, they don't even know about these babies themselves until many years later when they're found and pursued for child support.

I do not necessarily believe that these women were trying to "scam the system" by having babies with a deadbeat. That's a really painful, difficult way to go about doing it, IMHO.

Submitted by no_such_reality on June 13, 2013 - 9:39am.

I've met people like that guy too. I don't find them particularly smooth. Bold face liars, yes, smooth, no.

I've also known women that fall for schmucks like that guy in the video. Everybody knew he was a schmuck and a liar. I suspect she really did too, but she was accept virtual any halfassed lie as a rationale for his behavior. She wanted to believe.

I've also know confidence men like Madoff, literally sitting in Fed prison now having swindled millions. Not really smooth either. Again, pretty bold face liar. He played their greed and somewhat ignorance. But I've seen some of the promises and the BS meter went right off.

The common thread is they want to believe. The liars aren't particularly good.

Submitted by sdduuuude on June 13, 2013 - 1:58pm.

I'd summarize this the same way I summarize whether or not bankers or borrowers were to blame for all the bad loans: It takes two to Tango.

Submitted by sdduuuude on June 13, 2013 - 2:56pm.

... or horizontal Mombo, in this case

Submitted by CA renter on June 13, 2013 - 3:28pm.

no_such_reality wrote:
I've met people like that guy too. I don't find them particularly smooth. Bold face liars, yes, smooth, no.

I've also known women that fall for schmucks like that guy in the video. Everybody knew he was a schmuck and a liar. I suspect she really did too, but she was accept virtual any halfassed lie as a rationale for his behavior. She wanted to believe.

I've also know confidence men like Madoff, literally sitting in Fed prison now having swindled millions. Not really smooth either. Again, pretty bold face liar. He played their greed and somewhat ignorance. But I've seen some of the promises and the BS meter went right off.

The common thread is they want to believe. The liars aren't particularly good.

In some cases they are very, very good liars. You're right about some people being painfully naive when it's obvious someone is a scammer, but I've known times when whole families and communities have been duped. Not sure that's what's happened here, since the idiot in this video seems pretty darn proud of his "accomplishments" and should have been easy to spot; OTOH, others can be surprisingly believable when they pretend to be upstanding, decent people.

Another anecdote: I once worked with a woman who was married with kids and whose MIL lived with them in their home. She came to find out that her husband of quite a few years had another entire family not far away (with kids about the same age as hers), and the woman who was supposed to be her husband's mother was just some woman he had met and invited to live with them.

Submitted by davelj on June 17, 2013 - 11:33am.

UCGal wrote:

FWIW - she's not a push-over, tramp, or someone who slept around. In the 20 years I've known this friend, she's never had a boyfriend. And this was her one "serious" relationship. She's a good, church going, woman. Not a tramp. The guy's lines were very smooth.

I know this wasn't the point of your post, but... it should be blindingly obvious that "good" and "church going" have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Going to church is a social hobby, not unlike hunting or gambling in terms of the percentage of participants that are "good" or "bad."

"Tramp" - like "slut" - is a pejorative term used by certain men to keep "their" women from expressing their sexuality and, likewise, by uptight women to label other women who might be a threat to their domestic tranquility. Which is why there's no real comparable term for men who engage in the same activities - it's acceptable. I thought Piggington, of all places, had crawled out of the previous century.

Anyhow, I doubt there's much correlation between "church going" and having babies out of wedlock. Some of the highest rates of church attendance are in rural areas and inner cities... where there are also high rates of out of wedlock births.

Just sayin'...

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 17, 2013 - 1:16pm.

Dave: I'm Catholic. We're still trying to get out of the 16th century.

Kidding aside, I grew up inside a culture that was the epitome of hypocrisy. People who were hugely judgmental and yet were drunks, drug abusers and philanderers.

My dad always cautioned that, as soon as someone started spouting off about their piety, check to make sure you still have your watch and wallet.

And don't even get me started about the Mormon girls I knew in high school...

Submitted by UCGal on June 18, 2013 - 8:32am.

davelj wrote:
UCGal wrote:

FWIW - she's not a push-over, tramp, or someone who slept around. In the 20 years I've known this friend, she's never had a boyfriend. And this was her one "serious" relationship. She's a good, church going, woman. Not a tramp. The guy's lines were very smooth.

I know this wasn't the point of your post, but... it should be blindingly obvious that "good" and "church going" have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Going to church is a social hobby, not unlike hunting or gambling in terms of the percentage of participants that are "good" or "bad."

"Tramp" - like "slut" - is a pejorative term used by certain men to keep "their" women from expressing their sexuality and, likewise, by uptight women to label other women who might be a threat to their domestic tranquility. Which is why there's no real comparable term for men who engage in the same activities - it's acceptable. I thought Piggington, of all places, had crawled out of the previous century.

Anyhow, I doubt there's much correlation between "church going" and having babies out of wedlock. Some of the highest rates of church attendance are in rural areas and inner cities... where there are also high rates of out of wedlock births.

Just sayin'...


Dave - valid point. Very valid.

I'm not religious, she is. And she lives her beliefs more than most... She has guilt about the "sin" that brought her daughter into the world.
Maybe uptight about sex would have been a better description. But, for her, her religious values are what she uses as the reason not to have sex.

Not saying it's right or wrong, rational or irrational, etc. - this is just who she is. She's been celibate outside of this one relationship.

The other comments about guys like this being smooth liars, fits this FOB.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.