"Phil #3" wrote in message link.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

"Phil #3" wrote in message k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

"Phil #3" wrote in message k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

"Phil #3" wrote in message ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

"Phil #3" wrote in message k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

"Phil #3" wrote in message .net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...en-Beaten.html

''We looked at all the facts, and the facts at this point do not point to what was first being alleged,''
prosecutor Bob Donohoo said."


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jan06/389054.asp

snip


But we're talking THIS post. So, what issues did you have with the information I provided in THIS post?


The information was that she had 14 children and was pregnant, now she's 'only' got 11 and isn't pregnant. What
difference does it make if it's 11 or 111, the state is paying for her choices and you seem to want to defend her, as
you do all CPs, that's all.

The information is that she worked full time, and at times worked double shifts to support her family.

What's your problem with large families, anyway? Staunch Catholics do it all the time.




There's more wrong with the situation than is right with it. In this day and age, having 11 children is a bit
extreme and almost a guarantee that the state is financing her choice to have them.

Perhaps so - but again, since there are no facts to back up the assertion, it would be disingenuous to be making
the accusation.

There are none so blind....

As those who love to make accusations and allegations without the data to back them up?

It was YOUR information, duh.

My accusations? Not likely.



Phil #3