KRC Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 No moreso than you are seeing the rediculousness of your arguments... How can anyone compalin about funding womens health programs by a government with NO fiscal responsibility at all? A government spending billions in Iraq and giving out tax breaks during a time or war and raising the debt limit to a staggering $9 trillion - and you call for fiscal responsibility over condoms for $8.99? That's rich..... 633644[/snapback] Cutting spending = bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 We are not trying to fix the problems of the world. We are trying to get a condom to woman who is going to have sex and who can't afford to raise the child that might result or pay for the medical treatment needed if she catches a disease. Pennywise and pound foolish. Are you also against vaccines for the poor? Let 'em get small pox I say. 633595[/snapback] You are actually comparing vaccinating little kids with supplying free birth control and vd clinics for people who supposedly won't be able to afford condoms for themselves?! If you really can't afford the condom or the kid, don't have sex! You seem to forget that option. I know, you can't deny the poor anything just because they can't afford it...I can't afford to do a lot of the things that I enjoy, should you be forced to pay for that too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 One woman's condom is another man's war in Iraq, oli company handout or tax break for the top 1%... 633631[/snapback] I see we're all the way back to Soundbites 101. "Tax break for the top 1%?" I must have missed the news on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 I see we're all the way back to Soundbites 101. "Tax break for the top 1%?" I must have missed the news on that one. 633656[/snapback] Nosepick!! Flightsuit!! Haliburton!! No Blood For Oil!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 One woman's condom is another man's war in Iraq, oli company handout or tax break for the top 1%... 633631[/snapback] Tax breaks are not the same as welfare! With a tax break, you are allowing someone to keep more of their hard earned money. With welfare you are taking a workers money and giving it to someone else. Sex is not necessary to live, if you can't afford to do it safely, don't do it. This is just part of a much bigger problem with handouts in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Tax breaks are not the same as welfare! With a tax break, you are allowing someone to keep more of their hard earned money. With welfare you are taking a workers money and giving it to someone else. Sex is not necessary to live, if you can't afford to do it safely, don't do it. This is just part of a much bigger problem with handouts in this country. 633669[/snapback] Just follow the next logical step. Since there are those who feel that sex is a fundamental right, we need to increase taxes so that we can have government provided brothels for those poor who do not have significant other's in their lives. They should not be deprived of sex, just because they are poor and are not involved with someone. BTW, still waiting for the fermenter check from the gubment. I got some brewin' to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 8.99 dollars for a 12 pack!! that's awfully expensive!! at least 3 times the price it costs here! now i know where that anger comes from, the root of that hawkish american attitude, that need to show its power to the rest of the world... when it costs that much to make love you don't do it as often as you should!! 633203[/snapback] How many millions has the nation of France killed throughout their existence? How many colonies? How many breakings on the wheel? How many burnings at the stake? Ah, I remember you - history does not matter, you said - very convenient for you. In it's entire existence, America wouldn't account for a tenth of a percent of the butchery perpertrated by the occupants bounded by the Rhine, Pyrenees, and the Atlantic. Go sell some more nuclear technology to those who would visit world war on this globe and shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Ok all...this should be an easy BS/hypocrisy test for Mick. He seems to be against cutting spending here because overall, its bad for society, especially the poor. So Mick...tell us....whats your feelings on Govt. spending on and participation with faith-based charitable initiatives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 No moreso than you are seeing the rediculousness of your arguments... How can anyone compalin about funding womens health programs by a government with NO fiscal responsibility at all? A government spending billions in Iraq and giving out tax breaks during a time or war and raising the debt limit to a staggering $9 trillion - and you call for fiscal responsibility over condoms for $8.99? That's rich..... 633644[/snapback] The Missouri government has a $9T debt? No wonder they don't want to shell out $8.99 a pop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 One woman's condom is another man's war in Iraq, oli company handout or tax break for the top 1%... 633631[/snapback] (Hand goes up) Excuse me, isn't this a State issue we're talking about here? I never realized that Missouri was providing oil company handouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Just follow the next logical step. Since there are those who feel that sex is a fundamental right, we need to increase taxes so that we can have government provided brothels for those poor who do not have significant other's in their lives. They should not be deprived of sex, just because they are poor and are not involved with someone. BTW, still waiting for the fermenter check from the gubment. I got some brewin' to do. 633672[/snapback] Look, if you want to argue that your desire for a beer fermenter is the same thing as providing poor women with birth control and family planning programs then this isn't even a reasonable discussion any more. Just look at the "reasoning" in this thread. "The poor deserve what they get because they've done something along the way that makes them poor". "The poor are lazy and should work two jobs to buy their birth control pills and condoms". "The poor shouldn't be having sex if they can't afford it". bull sh--. We're talking about funding necessary heathcare programs for people who can't afford the cost of those programs themselves. We're talking about birth control pills and family planning. Not only is it short-sighted and stupid to propose that these are frivolous programs, it is dangerously negligent in the long run for society as a whole. You are eliminating the singlemost effective way of preventing unwanted pregnancies in a segment of society that needs that prevention the most. You are eliminating the very tools that that segment of society needs to practice the personal responsibility that you all preach about constantly. Abstinence programs do not work. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Look, if you want to argue that your desire for a beer fermenter is the same thing as providing poor women with birth control and family planning programs then this isn't even a reasonable discussion any more. Just look at the "reasoning" in this thread. "The poor deserve what they get because they've done something along the way that makes them poor". "The poor are lazy and should work two jobs to buy their birth control pills and condoms". "The poor shouldn't be having sex if they can't afford it". bull sh--. We're talking about funding necessary heathcare programs for people who can't afford the cost of those programs themselves. We're talking about birth control pills and family planning. Not only is it short-sighted and stupid to propose that these are frivolous programs, it is dangerously negligent in the long run for society as a whole. You are eliminating the singlemost effective way of preventing unwanted pregnancies in a segment of society that needs that prevention the most. You are eliminating the very tools that that segment of society needs to practice the personal responsibility that you all preach about constantly. Abstinence programs do not work. Period. 633718[/snapback] Here is all the family planning that someone too poor to buy birth control needs...Don't have kids! Not a whole lot of planning there huh? Lot's of people go extended periods of time without having sex. Just because it is not the easiest solution doesn't mean it's not the right solution. I know everyone is a victim in your world, but many poor people do deserve to be poor. You want to skip school to smoke and drink and hang out? Fine, but don't expect the workers of this country to support you when you parents kick you out. You want to dress and speak like you favorite rapper? fine, but don't complain when the only job you can get is fast food minimum wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 (Hand goes up) Excuse me, isn't this a State issue we're talking about here? I never realized that Missouri was providing oil company handouts. 633711[/snapback] I also didn't know that they were giving tax cuts to the top 1% either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Abstinence programs do not work. Period. 633718[/snapback] Sterilization does, and it'd be a hell of alot cheaper than supporting welfare babies or buying a lifetime supply of condoms or BC pills. Whaddaya say, huh? Let's REALLY make people be able to avoid all personal responsibility! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Look, if you want to argue that your desire for a beer fermenter is the same thing as providing poor women with birth control and family planning programs then this isn't even a reasonable discussion any more. Just look at the "reasoning" in this thread. "The poor deserve what they get because they've done something along the way that makes them poor". "The poor are lazy and should work two jobs to buy their birth control pills and condoms". "The poor shouldn't be having sex if they can't afford it". bull sh--. We're talking about funding necessary heathcare programs for people who can't afford the cost of those programs themselves. We're talking about birth control pills and family planning. Not only is it short-sighted and stupid to propose that these are frivolous programs, it is dangerously negligent in the long run for society as a whole. You are eliminating the singlemost effective way of preventing unwanted pregnancies in a segment of society that needs that prevention the most. You are eliminating the very tools that that segment of society needs to practice the personal responsibility that you all preach about constantly. Abstinence programs do not work. Period. 633718[/snapback] ...because it is the government's responsibility to protect people from themselves. Here is a thought. Charities do far better work (and much more efficiently) than the government ever could. If you want family planning or free birth control, etc, donate to that charity. Stop taking money out of my pocket to fund it. Privatizing these services is a good thing. Look at Katrina. The charities (especially, those evil faith-based charities) were on site providing relief faster than any government agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 We're talking about funding necessary heathcare programs for people who can't afford the cost of those programs themselves. We're talking about birth control pills and family planning. Not only is it short-sighted and stupid to propose that these are frivolous programs, it is dangerously negligent in the long run for society as a whole. You are eliminating the singlemost effective way of preventing unwanted pregnancies in a segment of society that needs that prevention the most. You are eliminating the very tools that that segment of society needs to practice the personal responsibility that you all preach about constantly. Abstinence programs do not work. Period. Opinion as Fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Sterilization does, and it'd be a hell of alot cheaper than supporting welfare babies or buying a lifetime supply of condoms or BC pills. Whaddaya say, huh? Let's REALLY make people be able to avoid all personal responsibility! 633751[/snapback] I was a serious advocate of that for a while, back when welfare was totally out of control. I don't think that is an answer now, as at least the idea is that welfare is a parachute until better times. To me, our society should be advanced enough to reach out and help it's citizens when it's justified, and temporarily. This shouldn't become a lifestyle under any set of excuses, justifications or plain bull sh--. This is some political agenda crap, pure and simple. People who don't want babies take precautions. People who don't give a sh--, don't. Legislation is not going to change that. In spite of the Northeastern liberals once again wringing their hands, it seems the religious right agenda has lost a lot of momentum, I don't know that it ever had any outside of TV. To my outspoken liberal friends (I'm not saying democrat), come up with some workable ideas on to steer the country in a better way, and you'll get your people elected. You haven't done that since...when? Also, it doesn't end on November whatever. Hold them to it. I'm not a big domestic person, but I've been very disappointed in whatever is supposed to pass for a Bush domestic policy. I don't know that I've seen one. I'm still a fan of the foreign policy, should have happened 15 years ago. We can poke fun at the wording in the NSS, but the basic principles are very sound. This last month is a brilliant example of how political interests can work against the execution of sound ideas. In short. People are going to screw, especially when they don't have enough TV channels. I can't believe the stuff I'm seeing coming out of the Federal Government - I don't even want to think about the crap going on in State. This is also a state issue. If the majority in the state don't like it, they can do something about it. One way or another. Depends on how important this is to the people of Missouri. Not my problem. I haven't blown up Missouri, yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 This is also a state issue. If the majority in the state don't like it, they can do something about it. He He BiB made a 'funny.' He He Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 ...because it is the government's responsibility to protect people from themselves. Here is a thought. Charities do far better work (and much more efficiently) than the government ever could. If you want family planning or free birth control, etc, donate to that charity. Stop taking money out of my pocket to fund it. Privatizing these services is a good thing. Look at Katrina. The charities (especially, those evil faith-based charities) were on site providing relief faster than any government agency. 633769[/snapback] The Church is responsible for the lack of program funding already in Missouri, as per the article. So, let's allow them to handle all the family planning and birth control programs? The programs that they asked the legislature to deny funding for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 The Church is responsible for the lack of program funding already in Missouri, as per the article. So, let's allow them to handle all the family planning and birth control programs? 633802[/snapback] Where do you see that? The only reference to any religious organization is last two sentences of the article: The Missouri Catholic Conference also opposed the birth control funding. "State taxpayers should not be required to subsidize activities they believe are immoral or unethical, relating to contraceptives or abortions," said Larry Weber, executive director of the state Catholic Conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts