OT: Brady's got nothing on Henry

[pats-blue]

LOL, my favorite argument "Studies show". If you look closely at those "studies", I think there are quite a few more factors to be considered rather than simply being from a single parent household. And I find "illegitimate" to be such a dated and offensive word.

Nine out of ten dentists say that a baby born to a parent with Bridget Moynihan and Tom Brady's background is unlikely to fall victim to poverty and crime.

Amen!

I like how this IDIOT calls me an idiot and tells me I don't know the law. Hint bone head I am a cop and know the law inside and out thank you very much. ( I also know what is enforcable and what is not and NO fornication law is even remotely enforcable and there by we could argue symantics all day but for all practical purposes it isn't against the law if the law can't be applied in a court which none of those laws CAN.)

I also see the effects of good parent, bad parents, single mothers, single fathers, bad marriages, bad divorces 1000 time more than you ever will so my experience is way better than your "studies" BS.

B*C is 100% right there are many more factors than "illegitimacy" that contribute to "bad" kids and have a MUCH greater effect...but I don't have the time to explain them to an ignorant closeminded person like yourself.

Examples of your stupidity abound in this thread where you say one thing and then say..."show me where I said that"! No one has made up squat in this thread, you just need to read what you write and your glaring stupidity and irrational arguments are there for all to see...or is it just the ENTIRE message board that is irrational and you are the only one that makes sense. Open your eyes!

As far as this statement, "Thank you for demonstrating yourself to be precisely the type of idiot that is all too prevalent in today's world. "

Hey bucko, I would gladly stack up my time on this earth to anyone but especially to you viewing your lack of understanding and be quite confident I would come out someone that people would hold up as a standard above most as an example of a great human being. I'm done in this thread because you are simply a lunitic.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

The following is pure speculation...

Take the Wayback Machine and journey if you will back to January 2002. Brady makes that infamous deal with The Dark One , time and space are altered and the Tuck Rule is invoked. Phase Two gives Brady the SB MVP and the Lombardi. Lest some among you think that's all, flash forward to fall 2006 when in payment The Dark One's Spawn is conceived with the perfect cover story, It's Brady's Baby! Transiting spacetime forward 30 years...well it's too terrible to describe.

This thread is ended.

 

[Deus Irae]

Amen!

I like how this IDIOT calls me an idiot and tells me I don't know the law. Hint bone head I am a cop and know the law inside and out thank you very much. ( I also know what is enforcable and what is not and NO fornication law is even remotely enforcable and there by we could argue symantics all day but for all practical purposes it isn't against the law if the law can't be applied in a court which none of those laws CAN.)

Probably because, among all your other invalid points, you made the incorrect claim that what was done didn't violate any laws when it did and is easily researchable. I'm going out on a limb on that by using the obvious truth and common sense, I know.... If it helps any, I fully understand that it's a lot of law in that area and that it would have taken actually knowing at least a smidge about the history of this area of law to have known about those laws. However, when you follow that up by calling me a 'morality cop' when you know essentially nothing about me, that makes you an idiot. What then provides the cherry on top of that sundae is when you make the claim in this post that YOU are a cop as if it has morphed from being bad (morality cop) to good (pats-blue cop).

I also see the effects of good parent, bad parents, single mothers, single fathers, bad marriages, bad divorces 1000 time more than you ever will so my experience is way better than your "studies" BS.

Really? Somehow one policeman who doesn't know the laws of the nation has a better perspective than all the nationwide studies? You must be something special!

B*C is 100% right there are many more factors than "illegitimacy" that contribute to "bad" kids and have a MUCH greater effect...but I don't have the time to explain them to an ignorant closeminded person like yourself.

Hmmm..... how about something for the supposed law enforcer in you:

A large majority of teenage criminals are from broken and single-parent households; many teenage boys are growing up without fathers as moral guides and role models. The Survey of Youth in Custody reports that some 70 percent of offenders did not live with both parents while growing up, and more than half reported that a family member had served time in prison. Another study found that 75 percent of teenage criminals came from single-parent homes. These numbers are consistent with surveys of adult offenders in state prisons. Only 43 percent of these inmates grew up in homes with both parents.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_199501/ai_n8723569

Examples of your stupidity abound in this thread where you say one thing and then say..."show me where I said that"! No one has made up squat in this thread, you just need to read what you write and your glaring stupidity and irrational arguments are there for all to see...or is it just the ENTIRE message board that is irrational and you are the only one that makes sense. Open your eyes!

Nobody has shown me where I said something that I questioned saying. Thats because words are taken and twisted. I never said, for example, that you had to be married or you weren't a good person, which is what one person attributed to me. Oh, wait.... that was you making that false claim. Shocking!

As far as this statement, "Thank you for demonstrating yourself to be precisely the type of idiot that is all too prevalent in today's world. "

Hey bucko, I would gladly stack up my time on this earth to anyone but especially to you viewing your lack of understanding and be quite confident I would come out someone that people would hold up as a standard above most as an example of a great human being. I'm done in this thread because you are simply a lunitic.

Will it be with more claims that there aren't any laws that were broken, or will your claim be that since it was a different state, they didn't count? At least that argument would have some validity.

Will it be with more non-examples of things I didn't say?

Will it be with more distortions about what I did say?

Seriously, I'm intrigued.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

That is your opinion and, under the horror show that passes for modern Constitutional interpretation by the 9 unelected tyrants in black robes, you may be correct. However, that's not what Pats-Blue argued.

Actually, it's not my opinion. It is the opinion, long upheld, of every superior court in this country that's tried a case involving the enforcement of puritan laws still on the books.

Oh, and if you don't know why the framers of the constitution purposefully made supreme court justice an appointed position, then you shouldn't have passed U.S. History, and thus, not given a high school diploma.

It should be pretty clear that the "wrong" in question is fathering a child out of wedlock, particularly, when it comes to Brady, in the context of claiming to be a role model. I've pointed it out about seemingly a thousand times.

Uh, no, it's not clear that "fathering a child out of wedlock" is wrong. In fact, it's a ridiculous assertion that shows how biased your narrow-minded view of things are. I say ridiculous, because it shows your complete lack of regard for logic and reason when applying your moral judgement.

What is it about "out of wedlock" that makes it wrong? If a committed couple raises a child together without ever getting married, is that wrong? If a couple is married, has a child, but then live apart, still legally married, but with only one of them raising the child, is that suddenly ok because the child isn't "out of wedlock?"

If Brady had married Bridget Moynahan when she became pregnant, and then divorced her last Saturday, after the child had been born, would that make the situation ok, because the child was born in wedlock?

It should be obvious by now that the "wedlock" part of the equation isn't a deciding factor. If you think Brady deserves condemnation for something, you should be able to point to some one thing he did that was itself actually wrong.

Specifically, in the timeline of events I provided earlier, find me the moment at which Brady did something actually wrong. You can't. Because in every situation he was presented with, so far as we know, he acted honorably and morally.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Deus Irae- Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that single women or men should be able to adopt children?

 

[Deus Irae]

Actually, it's not my opinion. It is the opinion, long upheld, of every superior court in this country that's tried a case involving the enforcement of puritan laws still on the books.

Oh, and if you don't know why the framers of the constitution purposefully made supreme court justice an appointed position, then you shouldn't have passed U.S. History, and thus, not given a high school diploma.

Actually, if you don't know why the Supreme Court Justices weren't originally empowered to make rulings on the matters such as that being discussed here, you are the one in need of a refresher course. You are entitled to your opinion, and the modern court has tended to side with your notions. I'm not about to get into U.S. Constitutional law with you. Again, the enforceability of the law under the modern Supreme Court was not what pats-blue argued.

Uh, no, it's not clear that "fathering a child out of wedlock" is wrong. In fact, it's a ridiculous assertion that shows how biased your narrow-minded view of things are. I say ridiculous, because it shows your complete lack of regard for logic and reason when applying your moral judgement.

No, actually, in the context of what I was responding to, it clearly is the 'wrong' being discussed. It's bad enough that pats-blue is making up comments and twisting phrases. Do you really need to add to that nonsense?

What is it about "out of wedlock" that makes it wrong? If a committed couple raises a child together without ever getting married, is that wrong? If a couple is married, has a child, but then live apart, still legally married, but with only one of them raising the child, is that suddenly ok because the child isn't "out of wedlock?"

Look, I really don't care about your opinion. I really don't, and that's not meant as a slap to you. It was never the point I was making. And I'm not going to get into the exception rules, because they are frequently done specifically to change the subject and make people who know they are behaving in a less than stellar fashion feel better about themselves.

If Brady had married Bridget Moynahan when she became pregnant, and then divorced her last Saturday, after the child had been born, would that make the situation ok, because the child was born in wedlock?

Now you want to broaden the argument to include divorce? Come on....

It should be obvious by now that the "wedlock" part of the equation isn't a deciding factor. If you think Brady deserves condemnation for something, you should be able to point to some one thing he did that was itself actually wrong.

Actually, it should be patently obvious that "wedlock" IS a deciding factor in today's American society. Furthermore, this is not exactly something new. As far back as the 1970, that radical right wing Christian conservative Daniel Patrick Moynihan <cough> was sounding the alarm.

Specifically, in the timeline of events I provided earlier, find me the moment at which Brady did something actually wrong. You can't. Because in every situation he was presented with, so far as we know, he acted honorably and morally.

Of course I can, and I did. And if you think his behavior was moral, you are arguing a morality counter to every major western religion and the vast majority of American society throughout its history.

 

[Deus Irae]

Deus Irae- Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that single women or men should be able to adopt children?

Under what circumstances? This is really a question dependent upon so many variables that it's difficult to say without having an entire moral, legal and ethical framework agreed upon.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

Actually, if you don't know why the Supreme Court Justices weren't originally empowered to make rulings on the matters such as that being discussed here, you are the one in need of a refresher course. You are entitled to your opinion, and the modern court has tended to side with your notions. I'm not about to get into U.S. Constitutional law with you. Again, the enforceability of the law under the modern Supreme Court was not what pats-blue argued.





No, actually, in the context of what I was responding to, it clearly is the 'wrong' being discussed. It's bad enough that pats-blue is making up comments and twisting phrases. Do you really need to add to that nonsense?




Look, I really don't care about your opinion. I really don't, and that's not meant as a slap to you. It was never the point I was making. And I'm not going to get into the exception rules, because they are frequently done specifically to change the subject and make people who know they are behaving in a less than stellar fashion feel better about themselves.




Now you want to broaden the argument to include divorce? Come on....



Actually, it should be patently obvious that "wedlock" IS a deciding factor in today's American society. Furthermore, this is not exactly something new. As far back as the 1970, that radical right wing Christian conservative Daniel Patrick Moynihan <cough> was sounding the alarm.


Of course I can, and I did. And if you think his behavior was moral, you are arguing a morality counter to every major western religion and the vast majority of American society throughout its history.

Uh, the very first member of "western religion," Abraham, had an out of wedlock son with his wife Sarah's handmaiden Hagar, because Sarah was infertile. So it seems as though you don't even really know what you're talking about when it comes to very institution that you use as a crutch for your narrow-mindedness.

Look, it's pretty clear that you've got nothing but your own biased notion of right and wrong to back your claim up. You believe that in order for a child to be born out of wedlock, someone must have done something wrong.

That's an infantile notion. (I mean that qualitatively, not pajoraitively.)

The rest of us are able to understand that an inoptimal situation -- one in which a child is raised by parents who are not a couple -- can, and frequently does arise out of circumstances that leave both parties blameless. Tom + Bridget's is one of those cases. Neither of them did anything wrong. They just didn't work out as a couple after three years together.

Neither of them are guilty of the same sort of negligent behavior obviously practiced by Henry -- which is the key to why the situations are different.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

Did you perhaps miss the part where I noted that there is a difference in degree, not kind? To use some hyperbole in order to make clear analogies:

If Chris Henry commits 9 murders and Tom Brady only commits 1, Tom Brady is not an innocent man.

If Chris Henry steals 9 cars and totals them while Tom Brady only steals one car and keeps it in great condition, Tom Brady is still a car thief.

If Chris Henry Knocks up 9 women without marrying them and then is shoddy in keeping up with financial support and Tom Brady knocks up 1 woman without marrying her and then pays every penny he owes in a timely manner, while visiting his child every weekend and for 12 weeks every summer, Tom Brady still knocked up a woman out of wedlock.

Chris Henry's actions don't excuse Tom Brady. Being a New England Patriot shouldn't excuse Tom Brady, either.

Sorry, I didn't bother to read through all of your pseudo intellectual blather.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

Look, let me try to make it clear. We know, from numerous studies, that illegitimacy is a major factor in crime, poverty and numerous other societal negatives. We also know that, historically, such things, in the "love'em and leave'em" vein, were kept to a bare minimum by various methods in society. Those of you wondering what I'm talking about can reflect back on the notion of the 'shotgun wedding' for one example.

My personal beliefs are irrelevant. Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would subject themselves to modern secular american marital law when modern secular contract law can do the job sufficiently well with far less hassle. However, Brady willingly took on the mantle of role model, and that comes with responsibility. He failed in that responsibility and he shouldn't be given a pass on that just because he happens to be a member of the New England Patriots and not a Bengal/Bronco/Cardinal/etc...

Mmmm k. Since he shouldn't be given a pass (whatever that's supposed to mean) how do you punish him?

Perhaps some hot oil or maybe we could pull off his nails with a pair of pliers? How about water boarding?

I ask one and all, what should Tom Brady's punishment be for fathering a child out of wedlock? How should he be dealt with to appease the moon bats.

 

[Deus Irae]

Uh, the very first member of "western religion," Abraham, had an out of wedlock son with his wife Sarah's handmaiden Hagar, because Sarah was infertile. So it seems as though you don't even really know what you're talking about when it comes to very institution that you use as a crutch for your narrow-mindedness.

Umm... if you actually know the story of Abraham, you might want to re-think using it as an example. It's not actually a "single parent" story given that Abraham married Hagar, then had the child Ishmael and raised Ishmael with his second wife, Hagar, into Ishmael's teen years. Now, if you wish to debate the merits of polygamy, we can come back to this story.

Look, it's pretty clear that you've got nothing but your own biased notion of right and wrong to back your claim up. You believe that in order for a child to be born out of wedlock, someone must have done something wrong.

Again, you attempt to marginalize me by saying that it's just my "own biased notion". In fact, it's the Christian notion, the Muslim Notion and the Jewish notion, among others. If you wish to continue with this ridiculous argument, I suggest you look to the historical laws regarding bastardy and fornication for more 'notions'. Feel free to look at other countries besides the United States while you're at it.

The rest of us are able to understand that an inoptimal situation -- one in which a child is raised by parents who are not a couple -- can, and frequently does arise out of circumstances that leave both parties blameless. Tom + Bridget's is one of those cases. Neither of them did anything wrong. They just didn't work out as a couple after three years together.

Tom Brady wasn't fully clothed and tripping over a flower pot only to land on a fully clothed Moynihan in such a manner that both sets of clothing were ripped off in the precisely necessary areas just as Tom Brady was climaxing from having a wet dream while sleepwalking.

Neither of them are guilty of the same sort of negligent behavior obviously practiced by Henry -- which is the key to why the situations are different.

No, actually, it's clear that Brady was quilty of that negligence on at least one occasion, unless there's an extremely interesting but unknown portion of the Brady/Moynihan story that none of us knows about but would have an impact upon the facts on the ground. Again, I won't speak to the women involved because they aren't involved in the comparison.

 

[Deus Irae]

Mmmm k. Since he shouldn't be given a pass (whatever that's supposed to mean) how do you punish him?

Perhaps some hot oil or maybe we could pull off his nails with a pair of pliers? How about water boarding?

I ask one and all, what should Tom Brady's punishment be for fathering a child out of wedlock? How should he be dealt with to appease the moon bats.

Who said anything about punishing him?

 

[Deus Irae]

Sorry, I didn't bother to read through all of your pseudo intellectual blather.

That's alright. I'm sure the big words would have been too much for you anyway.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

Who said anything about punishing him?

I did. When you imply someone is "getting a pass" for behavior one would think that a corollary to "getting a pass" would in fact be some kind of punishment, some kind of consequences, for said behavior. He can't exactly be getting a pass when there is no consequence.

So I ask again, what should the consequences be for Brady for fathering a child out of wedlock? What would make you happy?

Maybe he could become a fundraiser for NOW.....or something....

 

[patsox23]

So when Brady does it, it's "everyone is doing it..." and "do you expect him not to have sex, etc....".


But when Henry does it, it's a problem?

No, when Brady does it it's ONCE. When Henry does it, it's 9 kids by nine different women. Please tell me you're joking and you can actually SEE the difference.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

That's alright. I'm sure the big words would have been too much for you anyway.

No. Words laced together pointlessly in some sort of wannabe intellectual pissing contest become tiresome very, very quickly.

Big words, me like....(grunts...scratches armpits....farts....smells hand)

 

[SoonerPatriot]

No, when Brady does it it's ONCE. When Henry does it, it's 9 kids by nine different women. Please tell me you're joking and you can actually SEE the difference.

Don't bother Patsox. This is PF1996 from last winter using a different ID (same inane talking points). I can smell his stench a mile away...even through the internets.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, when Brady does it it's ONCE. When Henry does it, it's 9 kids by nine different women. Please tell me you're joking and you can actually SEE the difference.

Patsox, of course I can. There is a clear difference in degree, which I've noted time and again. Henry might as well be a cat spraying about the neighborhood for all the restraint and wisdom he's shown. I'm confident that Brady won't be as stupid and narcissistic as Henry has been.

There's not a difference in kind, however, and Brady is the one who held himself out as a role model. This was not role model behavior.

 

[Deus Irae]

Don't bother Patsox. This is PF1996 from last winter using a different ID (same inane talking points). I can smell his stench a mile away...even through the internets.

And so, you are wrong about yet another thing.....

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Under what circumstances? This is really a question dependent upon so many variables that it's difficult to say without having an entire moral, legal and ethical framework agreed upon.

A single woman 35 years old who wants to have children opts to adopt. Do you believve that should be allowed or do you think that that too is akin to
being born out of wedlock.
As for your denial of having certain beliefs, your moniker "deus irae" is a contradiction of that. The direct translation from the latin is 'wrath of G-d'.
Unless you are referring to the science fiction novel of the 70's, it is obvious that your religious and political views are very different from many people. That's the beauty of this country is that we can hold different views.
I think I'm on solid footing in saying that while no one is encouraging children born out of wedlock, we're not about to brand someone with a scarlet letter. It could have happened to anyone who engaged in premarital sex (vast majority of the population) even if they used birth control (which is not 100% effective). That having been said, it is a far cry from having one child out of wedlock (approximately 30% of all births nowadays IIRC) and fathering 9 children. ONly you have equated the two and NONE OF US know the entire story with Tom Brady and Bridget. The fact that he flew cross country to be present at the birth of his child and left the Carolina game to fly back across the country speaks well of TB.
I will stick to the view of "judge not, lest ye be judged".