OK right wingers. I need you to treat me like a 6yr old!!(pt 1)

[Seawytch]

Have another out-of-wedlock baby and your monthly "pay" increases. Now there's some real incentive for taking responsibility for one's life and offspring.

So you want to punish women who have abortions AND punish women who have too many children?

This Law Was Based on a Racist Stereotype. Now It Punishes Thousands of Families for Being Poor. 

 

[Seawytch]

Ah, you think being gay is a choice. You're obviously bisexual.

Oh, that lame argument? Most of you freaks that chose to be abnormal homos simply can't be proud of what you chose to be.

I agree that saying sexual orientation being a choice is lame, but you brought it up. If you believe being gay is a choice then you must have chosen. You obviously found yourself attracted to both men and women and chose one. I never had that choice. From my earliest memories I was attracted to women. My first crush was at about age five I guess...I fell in love with Julie Andrews.

That's the false assumption you freaks have. It's because you're ashamed of what you are. You confuse choices with options and equating them as if they're the same.

I'm not confused at all, but you seem to be. You are the one claiming sexual orientation is a choice. The only logical conclusion would be that you feel you chose. I didn't. Again, the only logical conclusion to that is that you're bisexual and I'm not.

If you think options and the actual choice are the same, you're confused.

Again, I'm not confused...I know I didn't make a choice while you seem to think you did. You're bi, I'm gay. Simple really.

 

[WinterBorn]

OK. I need some one to explain exactly how liberal policies destroyed families.

I heard a claim that public assistance chase the male parent out of the home--how exactly?

I really need some clarity on this claim. Is there some special rule to receiving that penalizes families with both parents? Is there some other argument?

Serious replies, please

Families might stay together if they are economically dependent on the male bread winner since the female is left to raising the kids the male is left to bring in the money. The traditional family structure really doesn't exist anymore but if you think of the family unit as that then welfare may end that economic dependence on the male. She then leaves when she realizes that their is another option than staying with him.

So you think the answer is making women dependent on a man??

That is sad.

 

[blastoff]

Have another out-of-wedlock baby and your monthly "pay" increases. Now there's some real incentive for taking responsibility for one's life and offspring.

So you want to punish women who have abortions AND punish women who have too many children?

This Law Was Based on a Racist Stereotype. Now It Punishes Thousands of Families for Being Poor.

Didn't say anything about punishing, just commented on the state of the system.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Oh, that lame argument? Most of you freaks that chose to be abnormal homos simply can't be proud of what you chose to be.

I agree that saying sexual orientation being a choice is lame, but you brought it up. If you believe being gay is a choice then you must have chosen. You obviously found yourself attracted to both men and women and chose one. I never had that choice. From my earliest memories I was attracted to women. My first crush was at about age five I guess...I fell in love with Julie Andrews.

That's the false assumption you freaks have. It's because you're ashamed of what you are. You confuse choices with options and equating them as if they're the same.

I'm not confused at all, but you seem to be. You are the one claiming sexual orientation is a choice. The only logical conclusion would be that you feel you chose. I didn't. Again, the only logical conclusion to that is that you're bisexual and I'm not.

If you think options and the actual choice are the same, you're confused.

Again, I'm not confused...I know I didn't make a choice while you seem to think you did. You're bi, I'm gay. Simple really.

Hey seawytch, I have been thinking a lot about me attacking you in this thread.. And I feel I was unfair to you.

Listen I have no problem with two loving parents either straight or gay.

I forgot through my life I had a few lesbo friends and they were always cool people, I mean really good friends.

My entire problem is liberalism and single mothers. I can't stand that.

Again I am sorry for attacking you in this thread, trying to cut you down

Sincerly

Bear513

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

OK. I need some one to explain exactly how liberal policies destroyed families.

I heard a claim that public assistance chase the male parent out of the home--how exactly?

I really need some clarity on this claim. Is there some special rule to receiving that penalizes families with both parents? Is there some other argument?

Serious replies, please

Look up the laws that determine eligibility for assistance then get back to us. Then you MIGHT understand

 

[P@triot]

OK. I need some one to explain exactly how liberal policies destroyed families.

It's not just families....liberal policy destroys everything.

“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” - Alexis de Tocqueville

 

[P@triot]

So you want to punish women who have abortions AND punish women who have too many children?

Why do you insist on a false narrative for everything? Nobody is proposing "punishing" women for (and I quote) "having too many children". But a rational, reasonable person would propose punishing parents (men and women) who have children that they cannot properly provide for. It's inexcusable to continue having children that one is incapable of properly providing for - and only an idiot liberal would argue otherwise.

 

[ChrisL]

Liberal policies do NOT destroy families. If those men (or women) wanted to be there for their kids, then they would be there!

 

[WinterBorn]

Liberal policies do NOT destroy families. If those men (or women) wanted to be there for their kids, then they would be there!

Funny how men who bail on their families, don't pay child support, and expect someone else to pick up the slack, are often the very ones who cry about "liberals" ruining lives.

 

[Seawytch]

So you want to punish women who have abortions AND punish women who have too many children?

Why do you insist on a false narrative for everything? Nobody is proposing "punishing" women for (and I quote) "having too many children". But a rational, reasonable person would propose punishing parents (men and women) who have children that they cannot properly provide for. It's inexcusable to continue having children that one is incapable of properly providing for - and only an idiot liberal would argue otherwise.

So how would you punish these "parents"? How are you going to stop people from having children they can't afford?

 

[P@triot]

So how would you punish these "parents"? How are you going to stop people from having children they can't afford?

Hold them accountable. If you're on the government dole and you have another child - you're required by law to show up every day to perform 10 hours of community service. Cleaning parks and highways. Repairing roads. Mowing public property. Plowing public property, etc. You don't show up - you get a prison sentence which includes working 10 hours per day on a "chain gang". Instead of paying for all of those things (as tax payers do now), the money goes to support the children that these parents can't.

This isn't rocket science.

 

[ChrisL]

So how would you punish these "parents"? How are you going to stop people from having children they can't afford?

Hold them accountable. If you're on the government dole and you have another child - you're required by law to show up every day to perform 10 hours of community service. Cleaning parks and highways. Repairing roads. Mowing public property. Plowing public property, etc. You don't show up - you get a prison sentence which includes working 10 hours per day on a "chain gang". Instead of paying for all of those things (as tax payers do now), the money goes to support the children that these parents can't.

This isn't rocket science.

What about birth control? Maybe if a person is going to collect social services for a child, they should be prevented from having more until they are no longer receiving tax payer dollars?

 

[P@triot]

So how would you punish these "parents"? How are you going to stop people from having children they can't afford?

Hold them accountable. If you're on the government dole and you have another child - you're required by law to show up every day to perform 10 hours of community service. Cleaning parks and highways. Repairing roads. Mowing public property. Plowing public property, etc. You don't show up - you get a prison sentence which includes working 10 hours per day on a "chain gang". Instead of paying for all of those things (as tax payers do now), the money goes to support the children that these parents can't.

This isn't rocket science.

What about birth control? Maybe if a person is going to collect social services for a child, they should be prevented from having more until they are no longer receiving tax payer dollars?

I would be the first to vote to have men undergo a vasectomy and women undergo a a tubal ligation if they prove not responsible enough to care for their children.

Anybody can certainly experience some unfortunate situation after having children but to continue having children while in poverty is inexcusable.

Unless, of course, that liberals will agree to restore Constitutional government. If I don't have to pay for everyone else to have a big party on my dime, I don't care how many children they have.

 

[ChrisL]

So how would you punish these "parents"? How are you going to stop people from having children they can't afford?

Hold them accountable. If you're on the government dole and you have another child - you're required by law to show up every day to perform 10 hours of community service. Cleaning parks and highways. Repairing roads. Mowing public property. Plowing public property, etc. You don't show up - you get a prison sentence which includes working 10 hours per day on a "chain gang". Instead of paying for all of those things (as tax payers do now), the money goes to support the children that these parents can't.

This isn't rocket science.

What about birth control? Maybe if a person is going to collect social services for a child, they should be prevented from having more until they are no longer receiving tax payer dollars?

I would be the first to vote to have men undergo a vasectomy and women undergo a a tubal ligation if they prove not responsible enough to care for their children.

Anybody can certainly experience some unfortunate situation after having children but to continue having children while in poverty is inexcusable.

Unless, of course, that liberals will agree to restore Constitutional government. If I don't have to pay for everyone else to have a big party on my dime, I don't care how many children they have.

Surgeries? I was thinking more on the idea of birth control. We don't want the government to force surgeries on anyone. There are risks.

 

[P@triot]

Surgeries? I was thinking more on the idea of birth control. We don't want the government to force surgeries on anyone. There are risks.

We don't want the government to force communism on anyone either. But sadly, we do. Liberals can't have it both ways. They can't have government force at the barrel of a gun when it suits them and then scream "liberty" on the rare occasion when they don't want government controlling something.

 

[ChrisL]

Surgeries? I was thinking more on the idea of birth control. We don't want the government to force surgeries on anyone. There are risks.

We don't want the government to force communism on anyone either. But sadly, we do. Liberals can't have it both ways. They can't have government force at the barrel of a gun when it suits them and then scream "liberty" on the rare occasion when they don't want government controlling something.

Using tax money to help needy families and children is NOT communism. Forcing people to undergo sterilization procedures IS.

 

[P@triot]

Surgeries? I was thinking more on the idea of birth control. We don't want the government to force surgeries on anyone. There are risks.

We don't want the government to force communism on anyone either. But sadly, we do. Liberals can't have it both ways. They can't have government force at the barrel of a gun when it suits them and then scream "liberty" on the rare occasion when they don't want government controlling something.

Using tax money to help needy families and children is NOT communism. Forcing people to undergo sterilization procedures IS.

Uh....yes it is. It's the very definition of communism. Confiscating what one has - against their will - and redistributing it to others (after keeping most for themselves) when the U.S. Constitution does not permit that is textbook communism.

 

[ChrisL]

Surgeries? I was thinking more on the idea of birth control. We don't want the government to force surgeries on anyone. There are risks.

We don't want the government to force communism on anyone either. But sadly, we do. Liberals can't have it both ways. They can't have government force at the barrel of a gun when it suits them and then scream "liberty" on the rare occasion when they don't want government controlling something.

Using tax money to help needy families and children is NOT communism. Forcing people to undergo sterilization procedures IS.

Uh....yes it is. It's the very definition of communism. Confiscating what one has - against their will - and redistributing it to others (after keeping most for themselves) when the U.S. Constitution does not permit that is textbook communism.

No it is not. Communism is an entire economic/political system.

 

[ChrisL]

Surgeries? I was thinking more on the idea of birth control. We don't want the government to force surgeries on anyone. There are risks.

We don't want the government to force communism on anyone either. But sadly, we do. Liberals can't have it both ways. They can't have government force at the barrel of a gun when it suits them and then scream "liberty" on the rare occasion when they don't want government controlling something.

Using tax money to help needy families and children is NOT communism. Forcing people to undergo sterilization procedures IS.

Uh....yes it is. It's the very definition of communism. Confiscating what one has - against their will - and redistributing it to others (after keeping most for themselves) when the U.S. Constitution does not permit that is textbook communism.

Look, your tax money is no longer "your" money once it leaves your hands. It then belongs to the government or the collective. Now, this is NOT communism. In order to have communism, the government would have to own EVERYTHING and it would be the government giving you a paycheck. There are big differences between paying TAXES and communism. Not the same thing at all.

Your tax money is not going to "come back" to you no matter if a small percentage of it goes to help poor people or not. They would just spend it elsewhere, maybe giving that percentage to a foreign nation and helping THEIR people.

So, you decide. Would you rather have your tax money go to a needy AMERICAN family/child? Or would you rather that money be spent elsewhere? I don't understand why on earth you are so against your tax money being spent here at home to help make our communities and people better, smarter, healthier, etc. It really makes you seem like a terrible person, sorry to say.