Study: Free birth control leads to fewer abortions; Romney wants to cut access.

[P@triot]

Yes but Joe's point (I think) was that the internship was provided by another entity. All of us are warmed by the fires started by others. You, me, everyone.

So then you agree that JoeB. proved my point that everything is better handled by the private sector which "warms us by the fires they started"?

By the way - the company didn't hire him out of the goodness of their heart. They needed someone and he earned it. If you see what he did to earn it, it's a complete insult to claim he didn't do it by himself.

 

[candycorn]

Yes but Joe's point (I think) was that the internship was provided by another entity. All of us are warmed by the fires started by others. You, me, everyone.

So then you agree that JoeB. proved my point that everything is better handled by the private sector which "warms us by the fires they started"?

No *chuckle*. You pulled this one example and came up with "So then you agree..." Dumbfuck.

By the way - the company didn't hire him out of the goodness of their heart. They needed someone and he earned it. If you see what he did to earn it, it's a complete insult to claim he didn't do it by himself.

So then you agree that JoeB. proved you wrong that Gardner did need someone?

 

[P@triot]

As much as Mitt Romney does. Or Rick Perry; John Kerry, Tom Foley, John McCain, etc... or any federal level politician. Thats for sure. My congressman and I correspond intermittently and he recognized me at a town hall once. I was floored by that.

If you think Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, John Boehner or Mitt Romney care one shit about you, you're delusional in the extreme.

No - I don't. At all. Isn't that clear by all of my posts or are you that stupid?

The fact that NONE of them give a shit is reason enough to have SMALL, Constitutional government.

 

[candycorn]

Really? So you think Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid care about you? Seriously?

The big font is just to ensure nobody misses JoeB.'s ultra ignorant comment. It's imperative everyone see what a stupid **** he is

As much as Mitt Romney does. Or Rick Perry; John Kerry, Tom Foley, John McCain, etc... or any federal level politician. Thats for sure. My congressman and I correspond intermittently and he recognized me at a town hall once. I was floored by that.

If you think Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, John Boehner or Mitt Romney care one shit about you, you're delusional in the extreme.

Yes, there are various groupies who endorse Obama because he hugged them at fundraisers.

They think this proves he *really cares*.

They're idiots, too.

No more than those who think Romney cares about them.

 

[Inthemiddle]

As much as Mitt Romney does. Or Rick Perry; John Kerry, Tom Foley, John McCain, etc... or any federal level politician. Thats for sure. My congressman and I correspond intermittently and he recognized me at a town hall once. I was floored by that.

If you think Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, John Boehner or Mitt Romney care one shit about you, you're delusional in the extreme.

No - I don't. At all. Isn't that clear by all of my posts or are you that stupid?

The fact that NONE of them give a shit is reason enough to have SMALL, Constitutional government.

So, I guess you plan to not vote for Romney.

 

[candycorn]

As much as Mitt Romney does. Or Rick Perry; John Kerry, Tom Foley, John McCain, etc... or any federal level politician. Thats for sure. My congressman and I correspond intermittently and he recognized me at a town hall once. I was floored by that.

If you think Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, John Boehner or Mitt Romney care one shit about you, you're delusional in the extreme.

No - I don't. At all. Isn't that clear by all of my posts or are you that stupid?

You come off as a party hack who is frustrated by Obama being ahead in the polls, frustrated that your ideal for America is out of step with most people, and frustrated that you're not as smart as you think you are; hence the frequent use of profanity.

The fact that NONE of them give a shit is reason enough to have SMALL, Constitutional government.

No, it is reason enough to have more viable political parties, more choices at the ballot box, more real contenders on the debate podium, and less $$$ requirement to field a campaign that can garner support.

 

[Katzndogz]

Well, I was speaking about contraception reducing he need for abortion--hence you don't get pregnant and there is no need for abortion. Perhaps you can look up the definitions of abortion and contraception and come on back when you've enhanced your poor education. Also learn to quote whom you are responding to.

Making sound decisions reduces the need for both birth control and abortions. The alternative is to accept that human beings aren't as smart as the average housepet and start neutering everyone except for a few breeders.

Gee, and if iced tea came out of the faucet and Cardinals tickets grew on trees, the world would be a much better place too wouldn't it?

I'm not certain what you get out of going to the animal comparison....again. But the fact of the matter is that humans do not always make decisions based on rational data. The most repugnant figures are stylized by television and garner the highest ratings. Honey-Boo-Boo had higher ratings (if I recall correctly) than either acceptance speech by the presidential candidates.

Shouting at the rain to stop falling is fine..."make sound choices and that reduces the need for birth control"...duh. But when those choices aren't made; who pays. The taxpayers do. You can pay a little now (eliminating Title X funding as Mitt wants to do will save 300M a year--it costs each citizen a dollar PER YEAR) or pay a lot later in the terms of everything from public assistance to schools and yes, to prisons.

That's why permitting people to experience the consequences of their behavior is the best deterrent of all. The way to teach women responsibility is not for society to step in and make it better. Leave them alone. If they have children they can't take care of, take the children away, put them up for adoption. Sterilize the women who unfairly burden the system. You ask who pays. A reasonable question. The obvious answer is the person who made the poor decision should pay the consequences of their behavior.

There is nothing wrong with telling women to pay for their own abortions and birth control. After all, the public did nothing to get them pregnant. If there's a problem with paying for it, get the man to kick in a few bucks. After all, in the entire birth control/abortion question, men are never mentioned but they are the sole and only beneficiaries of women's inopportune conduct.

 

[candycorn]

Making sound decisions reduces the need for both birth control and abortions. The alternative is to accept that human beings aren't as smart as the average housepet and start neutering everyone except for a few breeders.

Gee, and if iced tea came out of the faucet and Cardinals tickets grew on trees, the world would be a much better place too wouldn't it?

I'm not certain what you get out of going to the animal comparison....again. But the fact of the matter is that humans do not always make decisions based on rational data. The most repugnant figures are stylized by television and garner the highest ratings. Honey-Boo-Boo had higher ratings (if I recall correctly) than either acceptance speech by the presidential candidates.

Shouting at the rain to stop falling is fine..."make sound choices and that reduces the need for birth control"...duh. But when those choices aren't made; who pays. The taxpayers do. You can pay a little now (eliminating Title X funding as Mitt wants to do will save 300M a year--it costs each citizen a dollar PER YEAR) or pay a lot later in the terms of everything from public assistance to schools and yes, to prisons.

That's why permitting people to experience the consequences of their behavior is the best deterrent of all. The way to teach women responsibility is not for society to step in and make it better. Leave them alone. If they have children they can't take care of, take the children away, put them up for adoption. Sterilize the women who unfairly burden the system. You ask who pays. A reasonable question. The obvious answer is the person who made the poor decision should pay the consequences of their behavior.

There is nothing wrong with telling women to pay for their own abortions and birth control. After all, the public did nothing to get them pregnant. If there's a problem with paying for it, get the man to kick in a few bucks. After all, in the entire birth control/abortion question, men are never mentioned but they are the sole and only beneficiaries of women's inopportune conduct.

Actually, Title X funding also pays for condoms and spermicide for qualifying men.

I see your problem; you think these things happen in the vacuum. They do not. It affects us all. Sterilization isn't going to go over too well; maybe you should ask Mitt to bring that up and start a new front in the GOP war on women.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Why do you guys keep bumping this dumbass thread?

And yes I see the irony

 

[rightwinger]

Logical fallacy. There is no link between paying for one's own birth control and criminal incidence.

There is a link between poverty and criminal incidence and, to be sure, a link between unwanted/too many pregnancies and poverty. Surely you can think beyond the next link in the chain...right?

The link between unwanted pregnancy and crime is the same, a lack of personal responsibility. It's the idea that human beings are incapable of making rational decisions. They are impelled by something beyond their control. I MUST steal. I MUST have sex. To suggest otherwise is to say that dogs are smarter and more trainable than human beings are.

Since when is having sex not a rational decision?

What is not rational is blocking access to birth control, blocking access to low cost childcare, blocking free prenatal care and then bitching when women choose abortion

 

[Quantum Windbag]

FACT: There is no such thing as "free" birth control other than you being too ugly to find a mate. Nothing in life is free, certainly not birth control, the Tax Payers actually have to pay for it and we're getting sick and tired of paying for other people's crap.

I agree; free is wrong. But it should be included in the prescription drug program.

As for "sick and tired of paying for other people's crap"; are you sick of paying for prisons that are overcrowded?

It was.

But now, thanks to Obama, I get contraception coverage even though I don't want prescription drug coverage, and it only cost me my freedom. Ain't that wonderful?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Back to the topic at hand; less contraception=more pregnancies. More pregnancies=more abortions. Why would Mitt want to cut the funding for contraception if the goal is to decrease abortions?

What the study actually said is that contraception is more effective if used properly, and they found that implants are easier to use. Does that justify forcing me to pay for a more expensive contraceptive when a simpler solution would be to drop the requirement that they be dispensed by prescription?

 

[JoeB131]

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. When Castro emptied his prisons, he sent them over on a boat. Big difference from the average citizens who have escaped on self-made rafts.

And as far as "scummy little Batista" you just can't admit when you're wrong - even when people as die-hard as you and in control admit it doesn't work!!! You're making a fool of yourself by arguing with Castro himself that it "does work" in your very uneducated, ignorant opinion..

Our biggest mistake was accepting these people in, the worst houseguests in history.

Incidently, I'll take the word of this wise man on whether our support of Batista was wrong or not.

"I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country’s policies during the Batista regime. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will even go further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear."

— U.S. President John F. Kennedy, interview with Jean Daniel, 24 October 1963[11]

Could you imagine an American president- even Obama- saying this today?

 

[shock]

Conception prevention is the first and best defense against unwanted pregnancy.
SHOCKLEY

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I could never understand conservative opposition to abortion and then fighting every possible program that would reduce the need for an abortion

I could never understand liberal support for abortion period.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a link between poverty and criminal incidence and, to be sure, a link between unwanted/too many pregnancies and poverty. Surely you can think beyond the next link in the chain...right?

The link between unwanted pregnancy and crime is the same, a lack of personal responsibility. It's the idea that human beings are incapable of making rational decisions. They are impelled by something beyond their control. I MUST steal. I MUST have sex. To suggest otherwise is to say that dogs are smarter and more trainable than human beings are.

So you deny there is a link between crime and poverty?

Yes.

 

[shock]

Conception prevention is the first and the best defense against unwanted pregnancy.
SHOCKLEY

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I just realize that good schools, good roads, clean water are more important than rich douchebags having dancing horsies...

• Fact: We spend more on education now than any point in US history, and we have worse results (so much for your theory on that - like all of your other inaccurate bullshit theories)
• Fact: We've always had clean water (more JoeB. bullshit)
• Fact: we've always had "good roads" (more JoeB. bullshit)

I just realized, the "B" in JoeB. stands for bullshit. Joe Bullshit. He's FULL of it!

Review the history of 20th Century Louisiana before the New Deal to discover why you're wrong.

They spent more on education before the New Deal in Louisiana than they do now?

 

[shock]

"and is the best"

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB. "rationale":

"Republicans are greedy"

"Republicans are stupid because they vote against their own economic interest"

So lets break this down:

If one votes against their "own economic interest" then they are in fact being selfless.

Furthermore, if JoeB. believes it is "stupid" to vote against your own economic interest, then clearly he votes for his own economic interests (after all, why would anyone do something they "know" to be stupid??!). Which means he is one greedy little ****, voting for his own economic interests while falsely calling others "greedy" (this is what's known as projecting").

This is how dumb one has to be to believe in communism/socialism/marxism like JoeB. does. How profoundly stupid does one have to be to contradict their own argument like this???

You can always tell when Poodle is losing an argument, his Fonts get bigger.

Incidently, I vote Republican most of my adult life becuase I used to buy into their horseshit that what they were doing was "good for the country". Now I see that what they've done has put the country in decline. We are a much weaker country, a poorer country than we were 32 years ago when I first voted for Reagan (whom I still think was a decent man.)

The problem is, I went for the Oky-Doke that all we needed to do is free the forces of entrepneurship and everything was fine. Today, my biggest worry is some bean-counter at corporate headquarters is going to relocate our plant to China before I can move on to something better. And that's the problem, you can't get the good morals and solid families you are all on about if you don't have the economic foundation for them.

(In the interest of full disclosure, in the 1980, 1984 and 1988 elections, I was affiliated with the Armed Forces, so it actually was in my best economic interests to vote Republican. Why I kept doing so after 1992 is the mystery to me now.)

But let's not get into what's good for the country. In Poodles world, the ills of the last 30 years are Obama's fault, as he was plotting against America since he was in college.

Let's talk about what is in the best interest of the GOP. If you keep moving the good jobs overseas and making those who work for a living more dependent on government. (Again, 40% of food stamp recipiants have at least one person in the family with a job.) are you not creating more Democrats?

Remember the long lost "Reagan Republicans". They were union member, usually Democratic trending working families that supported Reagan and then the first Bush because they stood for traditional values... The GOP kind of got it then, they don't get it now.