US moves further and further to a GOP Nanny State

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Uh, so they want to pay for more pregnancies, unwanted kids, and abortions? Idiots.

Personally, I'd make birth control mandatory for anyone on welfare, quite the opposite of these religious thugs.

I wouldn't make it mandatory, but you'd think the smartest and financially soundest thing would be to provide the birth control.

I'd only make it mandatory because I think its stupid for people to be having kids they can't afford on the taxpayers' dime. I wouldn't ask them to abstain, like some people in this thread. 😉

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Uh, so they want to pay for more pregnancies, unwanted kids, and abortions? Idiots.

Personally, I'd make birth control mandatory for anyone on welfare, quite the opposite of these religious thugs.

I wouldn't make it mandatory, but you'd think the smartest and financially soundest thing would be to provide the birth control.

But, but Jeebus wouldn't get to skim his take from the general fund if we don't enforce the poor to go to "counseling" at their local place of worship.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Condor
Freedom means that the taxpayer has to pay for birth control? No wonder you libs want more taxation. The Chinese pay for birth control at thye government level. Are you saying that we should do like that?

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooo... China does it so it MUST be bad!!! hahahahah, you're priceless, old man. Where are your shoes made? :laugh:

And the obligatory: The taxpayer pays for your stupid fvcking war and less than a majority agrees with it!

 

[imported_Condor]

The lighting here in P&N is awfully dim with only the liberals turned on!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Condor
Freedom means that the taxpayer has to pay for birth control? No wonder you libs want more taxation. The Chinese pay for birth control at thye government level. Are you saying that we should do like that?

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooo... China does it so it MUST be bad!!! hahahahah, you're priceless, old man. Where are your shoes made? :laugh:

I got to be an old man by not being stupid. You gonna make it?

 

[Starbuck1975]

But the proposal?s sponsor, Republican Rep. Susan Phillips of Kansas City, said contraceptive services were an inappropriate use of tax dollars. ?If doctors want to give contraception privately or personally, they can,? Phillips said. ?But we don?t need to pay for contraception with taxpayer funds.?

I would rather my tax dollars go to contraception as opposed to paying for abortions or raising welfare families.

Readily available contraception seems like a viable and reasonable compromise to the abortion/welfare debate, as reducing unwanted pregnancies BEFORE they occur will limit the amount of tax dollars wasted on the termination of unwanted pregnancies or supporting households incapable of sustaining a healthy family environment.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Condor
Freedom means that the taxpayer has to pay for birth control? No wonder you libs want more taxation. The Chinese pay for birth control at thye government level. Are you saying that we should do like that?

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooo... China does it so it MUST be bad!!! hahahahah, you're priceless, old man. Where are your shoes made? :laugh:

I got to be an old man by not being stupid. You gonna make it?

Yeah, by not signing up to fight in a corporatist war.... :thumbsup:

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

But the proposal?s sponsor, Republican Rep. Susan Phillips of Kansas City, said contraceptive services were an inappropriate use of tax dollars. ?If doctors want to give contraception privately or personally, they can,? Phillips said. ?But we don?t need to pay for contraception with taxpayer funds.?

I would rather my tax dollars go to contraception as opposed to paying for abortions or raising welfare families.

Readily available contraception seems like a viable and reasonable compromise to the abortion/welfare debate, as reducing unwanted pregnancies BEFORE they occur will limit the amount of tax dollars wasted on the termination of unwanted pregnancies or supporting households incapable of sustaining a healthy family environment.

Agree. :thumbsup:

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Condor
Freedom means that the taxpayer has to pay for birth control? No wonder you libs want more taxation. The Chinese pay for birth control at thye government level. Are you saying that we should do like that?

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooo... China does it so it MUST be bad!!! hahahahah, you're priceless, old man. Where are your shoes made? :laugh:

And the obligatory: The taxpayer pays for your stupid fvcking war and less than a majority agrees with it!

I knew you libs really wanted forced sterilization! The last poll that I saw had a 60% majority supporting the war. For the ignorant, anything over 50% is a majority.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Condor
Freedom means that the taxpayer has to pay for birth control? No wonder you libs want more taxation. The Chinese pay for birth control at thye government level. Are you saying that we should do like that?

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooo... China does it so it MUST be bad!!! hahahahah, you're priceless, old man. Where are your shoes made? :laugh:

And the obligatory: The taxpayer pays for your stupid fvcking war and less than a majority agrees with it!

I knew you libs really wanted forced sterilization! The last poll that I saw had a 60% majority supporting the war. For the ignorant, anything over 50% is a majority.

Cough up a link Condor, you know the routine. And your local bingo club in alabama doesent count and by war we mean the current one, not ww1.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Condor
Freedom means that the taxpayer has to pay for birth control? No wonder you libs want more taxation. The Chinese pay for birth control at thye government level. Are you saying that we should do like that?

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooo... China does it so it MUST be bad!!! hahahahah, you're priceless, old man. Where are your shoes made? :laugh:

And the obligatory: The taxpayer pays for your stupid fvcking war and less than a majority agrees with it!

I knew you libs really wanted forced sterilization! The last poll that I saw had a 60% majority supporting the war. For the ignorant, anything over 50% is a majority.

Cough up a link Condor, you know the routine. And your local bingo club in alabama doesent count and by war we mean the current one, not ww1.

It's spelled "Google". Just for the libs that don't know yet.Here is a link to your source of unbiased information:

Steeps source

Heres another:
Steeps Source

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Condor
The lighting here in P&N is awfully dim with only the liberals turned on!

Thanks soooooo much for adding the birdbrain contingent to a thread that was seriously wanting

 

[dahunan]

$400,000,000,000 --- spent in Iraq.. and when was the last time they attacked us?

^^^^^^^^^^ That is White Collar Crime at its finest^^^^^^^^^^

Our prisons swell with the results of children born into low income families and to single parents and into POVERTY

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Condor
Freedom means that the taxpayer has to pay for birth control? No wonder you libs want more taxation. The Chinese pay for birth control at thye government level. Are you saying that we should do like that?

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooo... China does it so it MUST be bad!!! hahahahah, you're priceless, old man. Where are your shoes made? :laugh:

And the obligatory: The taxpayer pays for your stupid fvcking war and less than a majority agrees with it!

I knew you libs really wanted forced sterilization! The last poll that I saw had a 60% majority supporting the war. For the ignorant, anything over 50% is a majority.

Cough up a link Condor, you know the routine. And your local bingo club in alabama doesent count and by war we mean the current one, not ww1.

It's spelled "Google". Just for the libs that don't know yet.Here is a link to your source of unbiased information:

Steeps source

Heres another:
Steeps Source

For you it is called Fox News... DUH! They are the only ones who would vote 60% AND KEEP PAYING FOR IT

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: dahunan
$400,000,000,000 --- spent in Iraq.. and when was the last time they attacked us?

^^^^^^^^^^ That is White Collar Crime at its finest^^^^^^^^^^

Our prisons swell with the results of children born into low income families and to single parents and into POVERTY

And forty years of liberal BS must have fixed that, right? Nope, worse now than before the great liberal revolution. The only difference is that there a lot more liberals in the millionaires club now than before.

 

[imported_Condor]

This is fun, but I have cherry wood to route, sand and stain. Later.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: dahunan
$400,000,000,000 --- spent in Iraq.. and when was the last time they attacked us?

^^^^^^^^^^ That is White Collar Crime at its finest^^^^^^^^^^

Our prisons swell with the results of children born into low income families and to single parents and into POVERTY

And forty years of liberal BS must have fixed that, right? Nope, worse now than before the great liberal revolution. The only difference is that there a lot more liberals in the millionaires club now than before.

So, you are ignoring the facts and choosing to support Boy George because you hate liberals, right?

 

[dahunan]

Peace :laugh:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Train
Since when does freedom require other people to pay for something they dont agree with? IMO this is similar to those who complain when churches get perks from the govt.

the govt paying for peoples BC pills is more of a nanny state than not paying for them.

They arent banning BC pills, they just arent using tax dollars to pay for them. The girls still has the freedom to take them all she wants. Just not using tax dollars.

Sorry. This has nothing to do with funding choices and everything to do with ideology. The operative phrase:

The Missouri House voted Wednesday to ban state funding of contraceptives for low-income women and to prohibit state-funded programs from referring those women to other programs.

Please explain why state-funded programs may not even REFER women to programs that offer contraception services?

The answer is that the state of Missouri wants uppity poor women kept in their place, barefoot and pregnant. None of this sex for pleasure nonsense, and let men lead the family.

Teh winnar!!

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: BDawg
We'll just tell them to abstain. That'll fix the problem.

Okay, so the ideal is, we don't fund contraceptives. We ban abortions. We cut welfare. What next, debtor's prison or boy's town for the unwanted babies that the poor can't afford?

The starving children of the poor could just form roving gangs that would rape, pillage, and murder the other people. Of course, the victims would end up being the poor people in their local neighborhoods and not the upper middle class and the wealthy in the well-to-do areas, though it certainly would be entertaining if they decided to essentially wage guerilla warfare and went after the upper classes.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Train
Since when does freedom require other people to pay for something they dont agree with? IMO this is similar to those who complain when churches get perks from the govt.

the govt paying for peoples BC pills is more of a nanny state than not paying for them.

They arent banning BC pills, they just arent using tax dollars to pay for them. The girls still has the freedom to take them all she wants. Just not using tax dollars.

The problem is that the end result will be a net decrease in the amount of freedom. It's penny-wise and pound foolish. The small savings on birth control and abortion costs today will result in much larger costs later--such as the costs of public education, welfare, medicaid, police, prisons, the criminal justice system, the non-economic costs of crime, roads (increased population), environmental costs (increased population), real estate (increased population).

Even if you had real laissez-faire capitalism the latter costs would still far outweigh the costs of prevention.

It's similar to how having pure capitalism in a nation whose economy has merged with third world nations (via global labor wage arbitrage) would result in dictatorship and loss of freedom as a result of a lack of employment mobility. Take for example, the company that forced its employees to stop smoking in their homes; employers could literally dictate everything about their employees (Slaves? Indentured servants?) lives.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: shira
The answer is that the state of Missouri wants uppity poor women kept in their place, barefoot and pregnant. None of this sex for pleasure nonsense, and let men lead the family.

I think it's simpler than that. The people in the state are just religious retards.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: shira
The answer is that the state of Missouri wants uppity poor women kept in their place, barefoot and pregnant. None of this sex for pleasure nonsense, and let men lead the family.

I think it's simpler than that. The people in the state are just religious retards.

I live in Missouri...


SOOOOOO tempting.... must resist...... MUST REEESIISSST!

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: CondorFreedom means that the taxpayer has to pay for birth control? No wonder you libs want more taxation. The Chinese pay for birth control at thye government level. Are you saying that we should do like that?

What you religious nutjobs don't understand is that the small investment and cost up-front will result in tremendous costs savings (and thus increased freedom) in the future.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooo... China does it so it MUST be bad!!! hahahahah, you're priceless, old man. Where are your shoes made? :laugh:

This is the real irony. 100 years from now the U.S. and China might very well be reversed (which is my prediction). America will be impoverished and overpopulated wheras the more intelligent Chinese will have reigned in their population problem and will be enjoying first world status.