• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

US moves further and further to a GOP Nanny State

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: bthorny
I think spending tax dollars on birth control for people who can't afford it is an efficient way of spending our money because it will cost the state more later....
Click to expand...

I have an even more radical idea--pay poor women to get sterilized. If we offered to pay poor women $10,000 to have their tubes tied, it would probably be an awesome deal.

One woman became so disgusted with the prevalance of drug addicts having (literally) litters of crack babies that she started an organization that offers to pay crackheads to get sterilized. My hat's off to her.
 
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
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.
Click to expand...

Funny how with taxpayer birth control being a new thing in the past few years, that never happened. Not even in 1600's England.
Click to expand...

Hard to say. Certainly the poor have turned upon themselves (high crime rates in the inner cities), so that part has come to pass.

As for the other part about the poor going after the upper classes, it did happen in France during the French Revolution and perhaps it could be argued that it also happened in Russia when the Czars were overthrown. But yes, surprisingly the gangs just end up going after each other and other poor people. I think it's because they aren't organized into a single political contingent (which would recognize the value of plundering the upper classes) and also because the middle and upper classes are more likely to protect against the poor. That last factor--the knowledge that the upper classes would thump them--prevents the poor from revolting. Otherwise, I don't see any reason why criminal gangs wouldn't loot the suburbs.

 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
LOL, who relies on state funding for birth control to begin with? That's right, welfare moms. So what they've effectively done is take welfare moms off contraception.
I hope Missouri taxpayers have vaseline ready for the aftermath in the not too distant future. 😀 It's only fair they pay for the stupidity of the politicians they themselves elected 🙂
Click to expand...

End welfare. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
You'd love that, wouldn't you?


What do you propose for a replacement?
Click to expand...
Private charities, who did a better job before welfare than welfare does now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd want to rely on a church if I ever lost my job. :roll:
Click to expand...

Goodwill is a church? United Way is a church? Masons are a church? Rotary clubs are churches? Lions clubs are churches? Kiwanis is a church? Red Cross is a church?

I could go on and on here... :roll::roll:
Click to expand...


Uhhh Kiwanis Club is not a church, granted they do charity work and help out the community, but they are not a church by any means, I would know I've been to the meetings and helped out the club myself. Many family friends of mine are Kiwanis members and my father was also the president of the local chapter. Again, it is not a church.
 
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
What the hell are you talking about? Slave owner? LOL
Click to expand...
No amount of LOL's can cover up the fact that you don't understand what I'm saying because you simply won't face your own cruelty. Which is why you disguise it as compassion.
Click to expand...
What kind of logic is that? Getting women who can't afford their own healthcare off birth control is compassionate? To whom? Them or their kids? Or maybe it's compassionate to you and your rightwing ideology.
Click to expand...
And what kind of logic is that? Who is taking anyone off birth control? No one. You just think people are slaves who only receive what government forces on them. I'm actually NOT a rightwinger, but I know that's what is considered compassionate to your twisted socialist ideology.
Click to expand...
Well the OP is about subsistituting Jesus for condoms, so The first half of your statement is wrong; is it maybe possible you came in here to be a cocky and belligerent, rather than to actually 'argue'? I mean at some point you must have known what the topic was, right?
Click to expand...
Vic thinks any type of entitlement program creates "slaves" to the "welfare state". He's a corporatist extremist masquerading as a Libertarian. Although, from what I've seen and read, most people who term themselves hard-core Libertarians or something similar are part of the lunatic fringe.

Vic doesn't understand that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and that no social programs provided by a government is not a feasible solution.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
What the hell are you talking about? Slave owner? LOL
Click to expand...
No amount of LOL's can cover up the fact that you don't understand what I'm saying because you simply won't face your own cruelty. Which is why you disguise it as compassion.
Click to expand...
What kind of logic is that? Getting women who can't afford their own healthcare off birth control is compassionate? To whom? Them or their kids? Or maybe it's compassionate to you and your rightwing ideology.
Click to expand...
And what kind of logic is that? Who is taking anyone off birth control? No one. You just think people are slaves who only receive what government forces on them. I'm actually NOT a rightwinger, but I know that's what is considered compassionate to your twisted socialist ideology.
Click to expand...
Well the OP is about subsistituting Jesus for condoms, so The first half of your statement is wrong; is it maybe possible you came in here to be a cocky and belligerent, rather than to actually 'argue'? I mean at some point you must have known what the topic was, right?
Click to expand...
Vic thinks any type of entitlement program creates "slaves" to the "welfare state". He's a corporatist extremist masquerading as a Libertarian. Although, from what I've seen and read, most people who term themselves hard-core Libertarians or something similar are part of the lunatic fringe.

Vic doesn't understand that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and that no social programs provided by a government is not a feasible solution.
Click to expand...

Exactly, thank about it in terms of investment.
 
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
What the hell are you talking about? Slave owner? LOL
Click to expand...
No amount of LOL's can cover up the fact that you don't understand what I'm saying because you simply won't face your own cruelty. Which is why you disguise it as compassion.
Click to expand...

What kind of logic is that? Getting women who can't afford their own healthcare off birth control is compassionate? To whom? Them or their kids? Or maybe it's compassionate to you and your rightwing ideology.
Click to expand...

And what kind of logic is that? Who is taking anyone off birth control? No one. You just think people are slaves who only receive what government forces on them. I'm actually NOT a rightwinger, but I know that's what is considered compassionate to your twisted socialist ideology.
Click to expand...
Well the OP is about subsistituting Jesus for condoms, so The first half of your statement is wrong; is it maybe possible you came in here to be a cocky and belligerent, rather than to actually 'argue'? I mean at some point you must have known what the topic was, right?
Click to expand...
Funny, the word "Jesus" isn't anywhere in the OP. I'd say the topic of your post here is that you're full of sh!t. :roll:
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
What the hell are you talking about? Slave owner? LOL
Click to expand...
No amount of LOL's can cover up the fact that you don't understand what I'm saying because you simply won't face your own cruelty. Which is why you disguise it as compassion.
Click to expand...
What kind of logic is that? Getting women who can't afford their own healthcare off birth control is compassionate? To whom? Them or their kids? Or maybe it's compassionate to you and your rightwing ideology.
Click to expand...
And what kind of logic is that? Who is taking anyone off birth control? No one. You just think people are slaves who only receive what government forces on them. I'm actually NOT a rightwinger, but I know that's what is considered compassionate to your twisted socialist ideology.
Click to expand...
Well the OP is about subsistituting Jesus for condoms, so The first half of your statement is wrong; is it maybe possible you came in here to be a cocky and belligerent, rather than to actually 'argue'? I mean at some point you must have known what the topic was, right?
Click to expand...
Vic thinks any type of entitlement program creates "slaves" to the "welfare state". He's a corporatist extremist masquerading as a Libertarian. Although, from what I've seen and read, most people who term themselves hard-core Libertarians or something similar are part of the lunatic fringe.

Vic doesn't understand that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and that no social programs provided by a government is not a feasible solution.
Click to expand...
<conjur mode>
Conjur doesn't understand that forcing people to give against their will creates class hatred and distrust. He's a authoritarian government nut-sucking communist masquerading as a Democrat. Although, from what I've seen and read, the entire Democratic party is heading towards that lunatic fringe, which is why they can't win elections anymore.

Conjur doesn't understand that his desire to fsck over rich people and bring down the entire US economy will only create violence and suffering and do absolute zero to help poor people or prevent any harm.
</conjur mode>

Bleh, that felt nasty.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: senseamp
LOL, who relies on state funding for birth control to begin with? That's right, welfare moms. So what they've effectively done is take welfare moms off contraception.
I hope Missouri taxpayers have vaseline ready for the aftermath in the not too distant future. 😀 It's only fair they pay for the stupidity of the politicians they themselves elected 🙂
Click to expand...
There are many people on Medicaid or state version of medicaid that are not welfare moms. You see, minimum wage and jobs paying just barely above minimum wage (like most part-time jobs) also offer no benefits. These people (more and more single parents, esp. single women) have no health insurance and are eligible for Medicaid programs.

But, go ahead and stick with the ridiculous stereotyping.
Click to expand...
Regardless if you call them welfare moms or not, the point is they rely on public assistance now, even without the additional child. So if they can't spare money for health insurance now, I think it's safe to say they don't have money to spare to raise another kid, so they will rely on more government assistance.
Click to expand...
Another thought occurred to me.

There are plenty of younger girls that must take birth control pills to control painful menstruation cycles. I suppose any girls living in home where they're on Medicaid must now endure physical pain and miss school several times a year.

BTW, I see Vic has no problem with his tax dollars going to fund illegal invasions/occupations and setting up a welfare state and subsidizing Iraqis but heaven forbid we look to helping out AMERICANS.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
BTW, I see Vic has no problem with his tax dollars going to fund illegal invasions/occupations and setting up a welfare state and subsidizing Iraqis but heaven forbid we look to helping out AMERICANS.
Click to expand...
Excuse me? A search of the archives here could easily prove that I was strongly against the war in Iraq and everything going on there while you still believed in the WMD's. Nice try, you lose.
 
Class hatred becasue the poor poor rich people cant get over on the rest of us lol.

It's the rich that screw everyone over who cause the problems in the first place, bring the wealth addicted rich to be accountable like everyone else and problem solved.

There is no societal benefit of having to look up someones ass who has you by the nuts.

Keep believing you can get a piece of their action, the rich didnt get that way by sharing.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: conjur
BTW, I see Vic has no problem with his tax dollars going to fund illegal invasions/occupations and setting up a welfare state and subsidizing Iraqis but heaven forbid we look to helping out AMERICANS.
Click to expand...
Excuse me? A search of the archives here could easily prove that I was strongly against the war in Iraq and everything going on there while you still believed in the WMD's. Nice try, you lose.
Click to expand...
Were you complaining of your tax dollars going over to Iraq? You've been awfully quiet on that aspect of things of late.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: conjur
BTW, I see Vic has no problem with his tax dollars going to fund illegal invasions/occupations and setting up a welfare state and subsidizing Iraqis but heaven forbid we look to helping out AMERICANS.
Click to expand...
Excuse me? A search of the archives here could easily prove that I was strongly against the war in Iraq and everything going on there while you still believed in the WMD's. Nice try, you lose.
Click to expand...
Were you complaining of your tax dollars going over to Iraq? You've been awfully quiet on that aspect of things of late.
Click to expand...
My primary reason for being against the war in Iraq from the very beginning was because it was a waste of tax dollars. I am strongly opposed to corporate subsidies, which is really all that this war is about. Quiet? There's no point in closing the barn door after the horse has already gotten out. I complained BEFORE the war started. Now that the mess has been made the only thing left is to clean it up. Your complaining now is like crying over spilt milk.

Is there a reason you're changing the subject here? Can't argue on topic perhaps?
 
Hey, you're the one that selectively edited that last post of mine.


But, like I've said before, Vic. You fit the profile of the lunatic Libertarians to a 't'.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Hey, you're the one that selectively edited that last post of mine.


But, like I've said before, Vic. You fit the profile of the lunatic Libertarians to a 't'.
Click to expand...
And you fit the profile of a disgruntled loser to a 't'.
 
Originally posted by: Vic

Funny, the word "Jesus" isn't anywhere in the OP. I'd say the topic of your post here is that you're full of sh!t. :roll:
Click to expand...
Don't hold back - tell me how you really feel!

Of course you're completely wrong as usual, the government's great plan is to re-direct spending from a useful program to one that pleases social conservatives, the large majority of whom are not only religious, but base their desire to control the lives of others on their faith.

This is a plan that will make everyone - the poor, taxpayers, everyone, worse off than they were before, doesn't even pretend to save a dime in spending, and will cost a great deal later in other social programs, and it's being done for one reason; some people think Jesus doesn't like condoms.

Now, you could claim to support the program because you despise all entitlements, but that would be completely dishonest, because the money is all being redirected to other, less useful entitlements.
 
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Vic

Funny, the word "Jesus" isn't anywhere in the OP. I'd say the topic of your post here is that you're full of sh!t. :roll:
Click to expand...
Don't hold back - tell me how you really feel!

Of course you're completely wrong as usual, the government's great plan is to re-direct spending from a useful program to one that pleases social conservatives, the large majority of whom are not only religious, but base their desire to control the lives of others on their faith.

This is a plan that will make everyone - the poor, taxpayers, everyone, worse off than they were before, doesn't even pretend to save a dime in spending, and will cost a great deal later in other social programs, and it's being done for one reason; some people think Jesus doesn't like condoms.

Now, you could claim to support the program because you despise all entitlements, but that would be completely dishonest, because the money is all being redirected to other, less useful entitlements.
Click to expand...
Slippery slope?
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Vic

Funny, the word "Jesus" isn't anywhere in the OP. I'd say the topic of your post here is that you're full of sh!t. :roll:
Click to expand...
Don't hold back - tell me how you really feel!

Of course you're completely wrong as usual, the government's great plan is to re-direct spending from a useful program to one that pleases social conservatives, the large majority of whom are not only religious, but base their desire to control the lives of others on their faith.

This is a plan that will make everyone - the poor, taxpayers, everyone, worse off than they were before, doesn't even pretend to save a dime in spending, and will cost a great deal later in other social programs, and it's being done for one reason; some people think Jesus doesn't like condoms.

Now, you could claim to support the program because you despise all entitlements, but that would be completely dishonest, because the money is all being redirected to other, less useful entitlements.
Click to expand...
Slippery slope?
Click to expand...

Methinks you're not using the correct definition of slippery slope.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Methinks you're not using the correct definition of slippery slope.
Click to expand...
You used the future tense throughout.
Click to expand...

Alright, the problme of slippery slope isn't technically a logical fallacy; slippery slope is a valid 'cascade-style' argument, it's just difficult to execute without some place that includes a 'leap' which does not follow from its predecessor, which is why most slippery-slope arguments fail.

In this case, not paying for birth control for people who do not have a great deal of disposable income is certain to lead to more unprotected sex, which is certain to lead to more pregnancies, which (unless abortions are publicly funded and highly accessible) is certain to lead to more births into poor families. This will certainly increase the burden on social programs for the poor, education, and other services; birth control is [i[so cheap[/i] compared to these services, that the net effect has to be an increase in social costs, even if this change was a pure funding cut, which it is not.

I wouldn't necessarily have framed this as a slippery slope argument, but if you'd like to do so, it's a pretty good one.
 
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The real question is 'why does conjur hate America?'
Click to expand...
Being able to see and willing to point out what is wrong is more patriotic then any of you zealots could ever dream to be.

 
Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The real question is 'why does conjur hate America?'
Click to expand...
Being able to see and willing to point out what is wrong is more patriotic then any of you zealots could ever dream to be.
Click to expand...

I think Charlie's post was made in jest, reasonably sure about this.

Edit.

And I agree wholeheartedly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top