No bid contracts? Deja Vu all over again

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I understand the risks are greater. I guess I don't get questioning why someone would or wouldn't have a child. Maybe they wanted another one.

Well, with what we now know about the risks, I think it's stupid for any woman to have her 5th child at age 43. She took a stupid gamble(and lost.) This is an excellent reason to question her decision making. It was a very poor decision she made. I think it was stupid. This was 2007/8. O.K., I don't know when your sibling was born, but in 2007/8 it was obviously a huge known risk for Sarah to have a 5th child at age 43. It's an excellent example of stupidity.

[Mortimer]

Steven H. Crist.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

As I have said, I can't stand Palin, but you're reaching.

Reaching? ....Any woman that has her 5th child at 43 is is gambling big time.

[Mortimer]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Reaching? ....Any woman that has her 5th child at 43 is is gambling big time.

Has an irrevocable opinion about everything.

Reinforcing the az.zhole axiom.


Wok good.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Reaching? ....Any woman that has her 5th child at 43 is is gambling big time.

but her gene pool wins regardless. and she already has a 17 yr old breeder.

1,000 years from now everyone will oppose both abortion and contraception. it's natural selection.

[Mortimer]

Fillies up 3-1...by the way.

[hi_im_god]

risk be damned.

i'm looking for applicants to bear me 43 children over the next 5 years.

pm if interested.

[Mortimer]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Reaching? ....Any woman that has her 5th child at 43 is is gambling big time.

^^^^ Mouth suing brain for lack of support.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

You're missing the point, badly. There are risks with any pregnancy. Sure, in the situation Palin was in she was at risk more than others, but who cares? They made a decision and are living with it. Why the hell do you care who has kids and at what age?

Yeah, I don't think it's kool to make Down Syndrome kids.You don't seem to mind. The more the merrier. This could for sure have been avoided. This is not random. To specifically answer your question, what she did is make a very poor decision. They say she is qualified and capable to possibly be President(and be responsible to make difficult important decisions.) I don't want somebody this stupid making any decisions about our country. Like it or not, having a 5th child at age 43 is incredibly stupid. She wants to be V.P. of the United States. Her decisions are being looked at, and this decision was a very stupid one. She fails to show the judgment necessary for this job. You want to overlook a decision this butt ignorant, then be my guest.

[Mortimer]

This message is hidden because Mortimer is on your ignore list.

Well no it's not.

[Mortimer]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Yeah, I don't think it's kool to make Down Syndrome kids.You don't seem to mind. The more the merrier. This could for sure have been avoided. This is not random. To specifically answer your question, what she did is make a very poor decision. They say she is qualified and capable to possibly be President(and be responsible to make difficult important decisions.) I don't want somebody this stupid making any decisions about our country. Like it or not, having a 5th child at age 43 is incredibly stupid. She wants to be V.P. of the United States. Her decisions are being looked at, and this decision was a very stupid one. She fails to show the judgment necessary for this job. You want to overlook a decision this butt ignorant, then be my guest.

^^^^ Mom was 46 when she gave birth to him.

[Mortimer]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I think that's the most ironic part of this whole thing. SCUDS, who without a doubt has some sort of imbalance whether it be mental, chemical, etc doesn't want Down Syndrome babies born.

I laughed.

I couldn't resist.


And he wants to be a MLB manager.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

What am I overlooking? I just hope you never have a child with a disability or whatever.

You're unable to see she made a decision that resulted in unnecessarily bringing a Down Syndrome Child into the world. She's running for an important spot in our Government. All her decisions need to be looked at for quality, and this is a pathetic decision. You're incapable of seeing it as a bad decision, but the results are undeniably poor. DUH!! Keep thinking it's a good decision for a 43 year old to have a 5th child. I'm sure the Catholic Church will agree, and encourage 47 year olds to pump out an extra. Both you and them can then ignore the fact you encouraged the production of a Down Syndrome Child. Your last sentence is that you hope I never have a child with a disability or whatever, but through the whole evening you've encouraged older women(who have given birth multiple times) to have children that have a high chance of being handicapped. You've done nothing but back her poor decision all night long. Even when the punishment (for taking the risk )is directly in front of you, you still encourage them to take the risk. Then you refuse to take responsibility for the result. Somehow, I am called a nut because I dare call a decision (with awful results) a stupid decision. People get cancer from smoking cigarettes. Down Syndrome kids often get produced by woman in their 40's with previous births. Both stupid, and both preventable.

[Mortimer]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

You're unable to see she made a decision that resulted in unnecessarily bringing a Down Syndrome Child into the world. She's running for an important spot in our Government. All her decisions need to be looked at for quality, and this is a pathetic decision. You're incapable of seeing it as a bad decision, but the results are undeniably poor. DUH!! Keep thinking it's a good decision for a 43 year old to have a 5th child. I'm sure the Catholic Church will agree, and encourage 47 year olds to pump out an extra. Both you and them can then ignore the fact you encouraged the production of a Down Syndrome Child. Your last sentence is that you hope I never have a child with a disability or whatever, but through the whole evening you've encouraged older women(who have given birth multiple times) to have children that have a high chance of being handicapped. You've done nothing but back her poor decision all night long. Even when the punishment (for taking the risk )is directly in front of you, you still encourage them to take the risk. Then you refuse to take responsibility for the result. Somehow, I am called a nut because I dare call a decision (with awful results) a stupid decision. People get cancer from smoking cigarettes. Down Syndrome kids often get produced by woman in their 40's with previous births. Both stupid, and both preventable.

This guy's gotta be a riot at anti abortion rallies.

[Mortimer]

This message is hidden because Mortimer is on your ignore list. He mainly comes here to talk about other posters on the site. To Mortimer, the subjects being written about are not nearly as important as who is doing the writing. To him, that's the subject.

I hate to be a poopie...but this creature is doorknob dumb.

Easy prey.



For those of you having trouble following along at home...it's not you--it's him.





I imagine by tomorrow his signature will grow by 5 paragraphs along with a plethora of specific exemplars.






Don't ya know.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmHbE...eature=related

Sarah Palin's been seen driving around town with a new man....Some guy named "KING."

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

You're unable to see she made a decision that resulted in unnecessarily bringing a Down Syndrome Child into the world. She's running for an important spot in our Government. All her decisions need to be looked at for quality, and this is a pathetic decision. You're incapable of seeing it as a bad decision, but the results are undeniably poor. DUH!! Keep thinking it's a good decision for a 43 year old to have a 5th child. I'm sure the Catholic Church will agree, and encourage 47 year olds to pump out an extra. Both you and them can then ignore the fact you encouraged the production of a Down Syndrome Child. Your last sentence is that you hope I never have a child with a disability or whatever, but through the whole evening you've encouraged older women(who have given birth multiple times) to have children that have a high chance of being handicapped. You've done nothing but back her poor decision all night long. Even when the punishment (for taking the risk )is directly in front of you, you still encourage them to take the risk. Then you refuse to take responsibility for the result. Somehow, I am called a nut because I dare call a decision (with awful results) a stupid decision. People get cancer from smoking cigarettes. Down Syndrome kids often get produced by woman in their 40's with previous births. Both stupid, and both preventable.

kids=punishment? interesting.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

kids=punishment? interesting.

I'm sure she wasn't hoping for a D.S. baby. Yes, when a 43 year old makes the choice to have a 5th child, then they are gambling. Some are gunna be punished for ignoring the odds. A lot of people want to adopt, but I haven't heard many say they want a D.S. child (instead of a healthy child.) Tons of ads for pets, but 3 legged dog isn't a popular breed(yet.) Given a situation, people will accept almost anything in a week or two. Whether it be a death, or a terminal illness. Whatever it is. People accept it, and try to move on. So, they've accepted their punishment, and moved on. They didn't have to have this take place. They could of been responsible enough to stop having kids after 40. She is trying to sell herself as smart. That was stupid.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

I'm sure she wasn't hoping for a D.S. baby. Yes, when a 43 year old makes the choice to have a 5th child, then they are gambling. Some are gunna be punished for ignoring the odds. A lot of people want to adopt, but I haven't heard many say they want a D.S. child (instead of a healthy child.) Tons of ads for pets, but 3 legged dog isn't a popular breed(yet.) Given a situation, people will accept almost anything in a week or two. Whether it be a death, or a terminal illness. Whatever it is. People accept it, and try to move on. So, they've accepted their punishment, and moved on. They didn't have to have this take place. They could of been responsible enough to stop having kids after 40. She is trying to sell herself as smart. That was stupid.

She didn't have the kid in the first place.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

You're unable to see she made a decision that resulted in unnecessarily bringing a Down Syndrome Child into the world. She's running for an important spot in our Government. All her decisions need to be looked at for quality, and this is a pathetic decision. You're incapable of seeing it as a bad decision, but the results are undeniably poor. DUH!! Keep thinking it's a good decision for a 43 year old to have a 5th child. I'm sure the Catholic Church will agree, and encourage 47 year olds to pump out an extra. Both you and them can then ignore the fact you encouraged the production of a Down Syndrome Child. Your last sentence is that you hope I never have a child with a disability or whatever, but through the whole evening you've encouraged older women(who have given birth multiple times) to have children that have a high chance of being handicapped. You've done nothing but back her poor decision all night long. Even when the punishment (for taking the risk )is directly in front of you, you still encourage them to take the risk. Then you refuse to take responsibility for the result. Somehow, I am called a nut because I dare call a decision (with awful results) a stupid decision. People get cancer from smoking cigarettes. Down Syndrome kids often get produced by woman in their 40's with previous births. Both stupid, and both preventable.

so, you're operating under the assumption that the pregnancy was sought and planned? maybe it wasn't. women that age often mistake premenopause with menopause, and think they're past the age of childbearing-and then, whoops. or there's the fact that birth control doesn't always work. i met a woman a few months ago that was about 7 months alon-she had her tubes tied about 10 years ago. her doc said it was one in a million that she got pregnant, as obviously the 'disconnnect' reconnected-which has been known to happen.
now, my kids have given me moments over the years, but not once did i ever consider anything i had to deal with as being punishment for having had them. children certainly aren't perfect-and of course some kids have more difficulties than others, such as the case will be with the palins youngest.
but it's certainly obvious that you don't have kids, and haven't a clue about what would make a mother decide to have, or keep a child-regardless of circumstances, or whether it would be easy or not.