Nadya Suleman - Octuplet Mom; the psychiatric conspiracy

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:35 pm

On Dateline last night, the octuplet mom gave an interview, and NBC peppered the interview with a very interesting piece on the psychology of the mother.

[font=&quot]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/29129008#29129008[/font][font=&quot] [/font]

What you see is Dr Jeff Gardere, a psychiatrist from New York, was asked to render his opinion on the matter.

From the Dateline Transcript:

Dr. Jeff Gardere is a clinical psychologist and family therapist in New York. He has never treated Nadya, but he looked at what she told us and gave his opinion:

Dr. Jeff Gardere: There is no clinical diagnosis as to someone who wants to get pregnant or have children over and over again. I think perhaps the closest thing that we can come to is some sort of an obsession where they feel what they had is never enough and they want more. We see this - sometimes cosmetic surgeries. Body dysmorphia. Where they just want more and more of the surgeries to feel better.

So guess what folks? As soon as the psychiatric community can come up with a clinical name for this "disease" of wanting to have children...the government will have a way to keep you from having too many babies...which is Eugenics...which is what they do in China....which is Globalization!!!!

Isn't it odd that singular events that basically have ZERO effect on our personal lives can act as a catalyzing agent for change.

This is like Waco all over again....the fallout from that mess was that the Government has the right to tell you, it's citizens, that you own too many guns, that you are a stockpiler of weapons.....and guess what, the number/threshold is a secret that only few agencies know.

I could list a dozen friends and relatives that come from huge families. 6, 8, 10...even 12 brothers and sisters.

Really people, on the grand scheme of things....what does her having babies have to do with anything of importance to us? But I can guarantee you this, someone is going to make it important. Granted, the woman is an idiot....but her being a jerkoff shouldn't make a damn bit of difference to my life and how I choose to live it.

Just something for ya'll to think about.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:45 pm

Well the woman is mentally retarded in some way.

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:51 pm

The only problem I have is they "we" as in the tax payers are paying to support her children. I don't think anyone that cannot afford to support their own children should not be allowed to have any. Other than that who care's if her or anyone else wants 20 children.

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:11 pm

Aw..leave the poor woman be.
It really pisses me off that the media, psychiatry, social services and every other critic under the sun has their golden opinions on the matter of 'having children'.

So what if she has 16 kids. So what it they are poor. So what if the kids don't get the opportunities that other kids may get. And who's to say what opportunities the kids will miss out on anyway. Perhaps a child with strong family values is better off than a child oriented in Western materialistic principles.

I have been warning of the perils of this psychiatric influenced world we live in for many years. Heck, eugenics was invented by psychiatrists and they have been busy pushing that goal for about 120 years or more.

In our great grandparents and grandparents day, it was not uncommon for a woman to give birth to 6-16 kids. To hell w/ the economic factors, kids can get jobs and help support the family.

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:13 pm

mnosteele52 wrote:should be allowed

There's the problem.

Prey521 · Post by **Prey521** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:14 pm

TonyT, I can't tell if you're for real, or if you're being sarcastic....but if you are for real, then I have no problem with someone that has 30 kids as long as they can support them WITHOUT government assistance. Once your decisions impact my wallet, then I have a huge problem.

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:16 pm

Burke wrote:There's the problem.

Fixed

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:16 pm

Burke wrote:There's the problem.

Funny how people that don't meet a certain social standard are quickly judged and deprived of their civil rights.

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:17 pm

mnosteele52 wrote: I don't think anyone that cannot afford to support their own children should be allowed to have any.

Backwards thinking.

Necessity is the most major cause of income increases. I could not afford children. They are all grown now and on their own, except for my 20 yr old who will be leaving soon.

As each child came along, me need for more income grew, and I produced more work and earned more money. Simple as that.

This culture today thinks that such things as 500 channel TV, 100 mb Internet, always-new-autos & other grown-up-toys are necessities and decline to give them up in order to have children.

I got news for anyone considering having kids:

You will NEVER be able to afford children. They are money pits. But they are well worth the sacrifice & investment!

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:26 pm

TonyT wrote:Aw..leave the poor woman be.

Why?

Shes not able to afford or take care of her kids, her mother has said so, wasnt there a post on here about it earlier? The woman basically has her mother doing the work and it cost her mother her house.

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:27 pm

JBrazen wrote:TonyT, I can't tell if you're for real, or if you're being sarcastic....but if you are for real, then I have no problem with someone that has 30 kids as long as they can support them WITHOUT government assistance. Once your decisions impact my wallet, then I have a huge problem.

I'm not being sarcastic. I an NOT condoning welfare system at all though.

However, the amount dollars (yours and my taxes) of welfare this woman will receive is petty compared to the govt money spent by incompetent criminal politicians who were elected to office by the decisions of my fellow Americans.

No intention to turn this into a political thread, just pointing out that the decisions of others have an affect upon us all, and the decision to have more kids is peanuts compared to the cost to us in dollars as the result of decisions to vote for Congressman Joe or Bill or Bob who push bills and laws that take away our rights and waste more of our tax dollars.

I rather see my tax dollars spent of food for kids than spent on pharmeceitical research, weaponry, 10,000 dollar hammers and whatnot.

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:29 pm

You guys kill me, my gosh, if you are on welfare and living off the government what gives you the right to have 16 children? This is why we are in the mess we are in right now, this type thinking..... "I'll just live off the government, they will support me, that's their job, why should I have to work?" This isn't a 100 years ago when you had 16 children so they could all work on your own farm and support your own family. They didn't mooch off the government 100 years ago and bring society as whole down, they contributed to society with the larger families.

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:29 pm

YARDofSTUF wrote:Why?

Shes not able to afford or take care of her kids, her mother has said so, wasnt there a post on here about it earlier? The woman basically has her mother doing the work and it cost her mother her house.

And the mother should have kept her mouth shut too insead of airing her problems to the world. Nature would have taken its course...survival of the fittest and all that!

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:31 pm

JBrazen wrote:TonyT, I can't tell if you're for real, or if you're being sarcastic....but if you are for real, then I have no problem with someone that has 30 kids as long as they can support them WITHOUT government assistance. Once your decisions impact my wallet, then I have a huge problem.

what about the mothers that take government assistance with one child?

Are we seriously entertaining the argument that there is a golden number of children that make up the perfect little family?

This is NOT the issue or why I posted this thread. This thread is about how things that are socially unacceptable are now being classified as diseases. Just like in our schools, we have rowdy kids....that we now are forced to drug and sedate so that it's not too much strain on the teacher.

Allow me to paint you a little picture/scenario

Let's say that you have 4 kids. Evey thing in your little world is just peachy...until one day you find yourself on hard times. Maybe it's because your wife gets breast cancer and the medical bills pile up as a result because it's more aggressive than most cancers. Let's say that you lose your job because you were taking too much time off from work to care for your sick wife and to help manage the 4 kids.

Well now you are down and out, in debt up to your ass, and need to take government assistance so that your kids can eat while you manage to keep a roof over their heads.

So you go to apply for aid and low and behold, you are denied. Why? Because it seems that maybe your wife was mentally ill and had some sort of obsession with having children in such a short period of time....so in the best interests of the state and of the children, we should strip you of two children so that it will be easier for you to cope...maybe when you get back on your feet, we'll give the kids back to you.

Sounds fair to me, how about you?

If you ant to allow the psychiatric community to classify the child making process as a mental illness...go right ahead.

I can't wait for the Brave New World!!!!

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:32 pm

mnosteele52 wrote:You guys kill me, my gosh, if you are on welfare and living off the government what gives you the right to have 16 children? This is why we are in the mess we are in right now, this type thinking..... "I'll just live off the government, they will support me, that's their job, why should I have to work?" This isn't a 100 years ago when you had 16 children so they could all work on your own farm and support your own family. They didn't mooch off the government 100 years ago and bring society as whole down, they contributed to society with the larger families.

I don't disagree at all with what you said.

But there are not thousands of mothers having 16 kids. This is a rare occurrance. The media:
1. distorts the facts.
2. creates sensationalism.
3. spins a story into a web of political social issues.
4. neither is pro or con.
5. is bought & paid for well in advance of any news like this they publish.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:33 pm

mnosteele52 wrote:You guys kill me, my gosh, if you are on welfare and living off the government what gives you the right to have 16 children? This is why we are in the mess we are in right now, this type thinking..... "I'll just live off the government, they will support me, that's their job, why should I have to work?" This isn't a 100 years ago when you had 16 children so they could all work on your own farm and support your own family. They didn't mooch off the government 100 years ago and bring society as whole down, they contributed to society with the larger families.

Craig, we are not saying that at all. There are bigger fish to fry in this debate. In this country, you are ALLOWED to be an idiot. No one is rushing to go have 16 kids because of this idiot woman. But the psychiatric community is rushing real damn quick on to their next money making pill...the anti-I want to have kids pill!!!

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:35 pm

mnosteele52 wrote:You guys kill me, my gosh, if you are on welfare and living off the government what gives you the right to have 16 children? This is why we are in the mess we are in right now, this type thinking..... "I'll just live off the government, they will support me, that's their job, why should I have to work?" This isn't a 100 years ago when you had 16 children so they could all work on your own farm and support your own family. They didn't mooch off the government 100 years ago and bring society as whole down, they contributed to society with the larger families.

That's not why we're in the mess we're in by any means.

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:38 pm

If you ant to allow the psychiatric community to classify the child making process as a mental illness...go right ahead.

They already do to some degree.

In your scenario above, social services already has the power & authority to step in "in the best interest" of all concerned. Let's say kid # 4 arrived at school and it was discovered he has not been taking his red pills. Unless mom & dad comply the kids WILL be taken away. It happens every day.

(fyi, 70+ % of kids in Wash DC public schools are on psyche drugs & get their meds daily at school)

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:38 pm

mnosteele52 wrote:You guys kill me, my gosh, if you are on welfare and living off the government what gives you the right to have 16 children?

Let's analyze this a bit deeper....and let's be civil because I want to make a point here.

Let's adjust the above scenario and let's hear your answer.

I'll simply change it to this:

Craig, what gives you the right to have 16 children?

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:41 pm

TonyT wrote:They already do to some degree.

In your scenario above, social services already has the power & authority to step in "in the best interest" of all concerned. Let's say kid # 4 arrived at school and it was discovered he has not been taking his red pills. Unless mom & dad comply the kids WILL be taken away. It happens every day.

(fyi, 70+ % of kids in Wash DC public schools are on psyche drugs & get their meds daily at school)

Tony, I have been in agreement with you for many years now. I haven't forgotten any of our past conversations and am still a believer.

Don't we have drug free school zones for a reason???? Think about it.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:46 pm

TonyT wrote:You will NEVER be able to afford children. They are money pits. But they are well worth the sacrifice & investment!

Not everyone can just make more moeny when they need to and some do plan financially ahead of time.

And our society isn't really a survival of the fittest type.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:46 pm

mnosteele52 wrote:You guys kill me, my gosh, if you are on welfare and living off the government what gives you the right to have 16 children? This is why we are in the mess we are in right now, this type thinking..... "I'll just live off the government, they will support me, that's their job, why should I have to work?" This isn't a 100 years ago when you had 16 children so they could all work on your own farm and support your own family. They didn't mooch off the government 100 years ago and bring society as whole down, they contributed to society with the larger families.

No it's not even close to why we are in the mess we are in. That's a worn cliche'. Let's make a new thread for that one. We can title it the huge failure of supply side ecomonics and the blunderheaded system of letting Wall Street who has our best interests in mind when it comes to money.

I dont agree with anyone having kids to get bucks from system but there is a FAR lager picture than "hey it's my money so screw em" syndrome.

That money if used properly, will feed and help clothe those kids. They will be going to school with all our kids and grand kids. You want them to go naked and starving? By the way, starving kids turn into pretty good thieves. It's been a part of society for thousands of years. Sure we should just go back to the days of David Copperfield, right?

Is your line of thinking extended to the new widow who has 4 kids and just lost a husband in Iraq? What's the difference? You are still letting those kids at your pocket book and either way you look at it, none of them ask to get into the circumstances they are in.

The fact is that welfare under Johnson's "Great Society" has pretty much been watered down to little of what it once was and for the most part, I'd agree with that.

I get tired of hearing the samo samo for the talk radio crowd who have NEVER had a tough day in most of their lives. "It's MY money". Yeah right.

Paft · Post by **Paft** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:05 pm

UOD wrote:Really people, on the grand scheme of things....what does her having babies have to do with anything of importance to us?

You mean aside from helping overpopulate the planet and drain the natural resources? If we assume, on average, that every child born will produce two children (around average worldwide) then this women has produced 28 grandchildren, 56 great-grandchildren, and 112 great-great grandchildren. That is 210 people this woman produced in her first three generations! And that is assuming that her kids don't pick up that having a ton of babies is good and desireable and have a ton themselves.

There are way too many people on this planet already. The natural resources are being drained, and exponential growth of humanity isn't helping. This woman, and women like her who have loads of babies, are the direct cause of the future wars that our kids and grandkids will have to fight over the ever-dwindling resources.

That's why we care. That's why it's important.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:06 pm

downhill wrote:I get tired of hearing the samo samo for the talk radio crowd who have NEVER had a tough day in most of their lives. "It's MY money". Yeah right.

They don't say it anymore than you mention talk radio or talking points.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:19 pm

Paft wrote:You mean aside from helping overpopulate the planet and drain the natural resources? If we assume, on average, that every child born will produce two children (around average worldwide) then this women has produced 28 grandchildren, 56 great-grandchildren, and 112 great-great grandchildren. That is 210 people this woman produced in her first three generations! And that is assuming that her kids don't pick up that having a ton of babies is good and desireable and have a ton themselves.

There are way too many people on this planet already. The natural resources are being drained, and exponential growth of humanity isn't helping. This woman, and women like her who have loads of babies, are the direct cause of the future wars that our kids and grandkids will have to fight over the ever-dwindling resources.

That's why we care. That's why it's important.

the only shortage is the one of distribution. the United States alone, could feed, and supply the planet's population with renewable clean energy for thousands of years.

the corporatocracy, the same one that enslaved you to the credit cards, controls how the current natural resources are distributed in order to maintain the self preserving establishment of debt enslavement. The current struggle for natural resources is an artificial one, in order to maintain the illusion.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:20 pm

YARDofSTUF wrote:Not everyone can just make more moeny when they need to and some do plan financially ahead of time.

And our society isn't really a survival of the fittest type.

Can you afford your Constitutional rights Al?

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:39 pm

UOD wrote:Can you afford your Constitutional rights Al?

Im on a take-them-for-granted loan

And don't call me Al.

Damn hoodlum!

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:40 pm

YARDofSTUF wrote:Im on a take-them-for-granted loan

And don't call me Al.

Damn hoodlum!

Whatever you want Al.

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:55 pm

Don't we have drug free school zones for a reason???? Think about it.

You know why they have "Drug Free School Zone" signs?
They want to eliminate the competition.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:07 pm

[quote="YARDofSTUF"]They don't say it anymore than you mention talk radio or talking points.

[/QUOTE

Your point? You never bring up the same thing?

Look I'd not bring it up if imho, hate radio was always accurate or fair.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:07 pm

TonyT wrote:You know why they have "Drug Free School Zone" signs?
They want to eliminate the competition.

Yep, the school nurse is the hired pusher.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:12 pm

downhill wrote:Your point? You never bring up the same thing?

Look I'd not bring it up if imho, hate radio was always accurate or fair.

Well my new point is learn how to quote!

Who says they all get it from talk radio? I think you give talk radio too much credit for starting some of these ideas.

I want more variety in your sources.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:13 pm

TonyT wrote:You know why they have "Drug Free School Zone" signs?
They want to eliminate the competition.

UOD wrote:Yep, the school nurse is the hired pusher.

Except they arent really the competition.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:30 pm

YARDofSTUF wrote:Except they arent really the competition.

Remember Columbine? Who prescribed the drugs that were found in Eric Harris's system? He was taking Fluvoxamine.

Fluvoxamine is widely prescribed to treat major depression, and anxiety disorders such as Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorder, Panic Disorder, Social Phobia, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.[6]
Fluvoxamine is indicated for children and adolescents with OCD.[7]

[edit] Unapproved/off-label/investigational

Fluvoxamine is also used for the treatment of children and adolescents with social phobia, separation anxiety disorder, or generalized anxiety disorder.[8]

There has been a war raging for control of children's minds.

Compliance and conformity.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:56 pm

Wonderful post but it doesnt show the competition between the drug dealers and Big Pharma and how a Drug free zone helps Big Pharma.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:01 pm

YARDofSTUF wrote:Wonderful post but it doesnt show the competition between the drug dealers and Big Pharma and how a Drug free zone helps Big Pharma.

Al, it's about the hypocrisy of it all. We have drug free school zones to shield our kids from the scourge of society while we keep them penned up like an Animal Farm, sedated & drugged in order to force compliance with the agenda.

The only drugs to be had on campus are those that are ordered by the government.

It's no wonder why kids turn to drugs....they have been introduced to the pill habit since kindergarten.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:03 pm

Oh my bad, you think drug free zones are drug free. lol

Mark · Post by **Mark** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:04 pm

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:07 pm

YARDofSTUF wrote:Oh my bad, you think drug free zones are drug free. lol

Do you even understand the conversation Al?

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:24 pm

UOD wrote:

Do you even understand the conversation Al?

Im rushing over it rather quickly because it doesn't really seem like we're talking about drug free zones of overlap of competition from drug deals and corporations, and I expect you or TonyT to go off on a tangent shortly and then this thread to be locked or filled with more clown farm vagina motivational posters. lol