If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   New Pennsylvania bill includes provision requiring women to prove they were raped. Want to guess which party inserted the provision?   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 474
    More: Sick, Pennsylvania, Equal Pay Act, welfare benefits, Paycheck Fairness Act, Priebus tried, shiny objects, Priebus, Violence Against Women Act  
•       •       •

8713 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Oct 2012 at 1:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



474 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-25 09:28:49 AM

Lost Thought 00: At the same time, why should a child of a person on welfare be treated worse by the state than a child of someone not on welfare?


That doesn't make sense... The child of a person not on welfare isn't getting anything from the state, so they aren't getting treated better by the state.

Lost Thought 00: What's more important, helping the child or punishing the parent?


Yeah, that is the only thing I don't like... But people are stupid and see "ohh if I have another kid, I get more money to spend at Walmart!". At least, my cousin was that way, and I assume there are quite a few others like her out there (trailer park trash aren't too rare in this country). And unfortunately, it is a cycle.
 
2012-10-25 09:29:25 AM

Kome: In 31 states, a rapist can sue for custody. Seriously. Google it. This country affords more ways for a rapist to harm someone than every other crime.


This is pants on fire. Just because they did not explicitly say in the law "Rapists can't sue victims for custody, is not grounds for saying it allowed. If the law is followed, no one found guilty of rape can possibly get the child.

There is no state that will not consider being convicted by rape (or any felony) to be a HUGE black mark against someone trying wanting custody of a child. Indeed getting convicted of a sex crime puts draconian restrictions on the convicted pretty much everywhere. Equity also has a principle of Clean Hands (google it or stick it into Wikipedia) which clearly goes against any rapist. And laws for determining custody always mention things favoring the more fit parent and can you really see any court thinking that a rapist is a fit parent. Also in many places the law favors the mother and judges as a rule tend to favor the mother as well.

And since when are people in prison allowed to sue for custody of a child? If they admit to being a rapist then convicting them will be trivial and they won't get the kid. Or are you trying to say that 19 states will not allow someone who was accused, but not convicted, to sue? Well duh. Indeed if the Constitution is followed it will be 50 states. People really are supposed to be convicted to receive any sanction from the government.

No court that thinks the father is a rapist is going grant custody.


/ This being said, the Pennsylvania bill is asinine.
 
2012-10-25 09:30:13 AM

LasersHurt: LiberalConservative: LasersHurt: Brostorm: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: If you stop the fraud the money saved could be used to prevent/reduce the problems that cause the poverty.

You couldn't even name 1 cause of poverty

Are you stupid? How about having children while already being on welfare.

That's not a cause, you farkwit

Not that guy but yo actually are stupid. It is the number one cause of poverty. Poverty has become generational whether you want to believe it or not.

The point that I think you're missing is that people are already in poverty if they are on welfare. Having a child on welfare does not, therefore, "cause" poverty. It's a nitpick, but that's what the words on the table are.

Kind of a fair comment. If I had re-read more than twice before posting I may of adjusted that to "How about having children when you can't afford to support them". All square now?

Fine by me, that's a fair cop. I was being "technically correct," which is the best kind of correct, but pretty useless if you want to actually accomplish anything in discussion.


No harm done. If anything is a good reminder to myself to double-tripple check/think, and you helped clarify what I meant. So you did accomplish something.
 
2012-10-25 09:31:15 AM

machoprogrammer:
Yeah, that is the only thing I don't like... But people are stupid and see "ohh if I have another kid, I get more money to spend at Walmart!". At least, my cousin was that way, and I assume there are quite a few others like her out there (trailer park trash aren't too rare in this country). And unfortunately, it is a cycle.


So find a way to punsh people like your cousin instead and not punish children?
 
2012-10-25 09:31:49 AM

machoprogrammer: That doesn't make sense... The child of a person not on welfare isn't getting anything from the state, so they aren't getting treated better by the state.


The child of a person not currently recieving welfare would be protected by the social safety net if something goes wrong in their life. The child of a person currently on welfare is not protected. That's a difference
 
2012-10-25 09:31:59 AM

bonobo73: I see, a class based argument, which of course, makes no sense. If the environment is as bad as you say for current mother and child the why do you think it's okay for that mother to bring yet another child into that environment? How does that help?

Put it another way: why are you such a monster that you desire another kid to be placed in the living hell you describe above?


Hate to burst your bubble, but many people crying outrage here probably are completely OK with the woman getting an abortion, if she chooses, to avoid said situation.

But, if it was a god-fearing woman who didn't want to get an abortion, why shouldn't she be allowed to have the baby?
 
2012-10-25 09:36:18 AM

CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, that is the only thing I don't like... But people are stupid and see "ohh if I have another kid, I get more money to spend at Walmart!". At least, my cousin was that way, and I assume there are quite a few others like her out there (trailer park trash aren't too rare in this country). And unfortunately, it is a cycle.

So find a way to punsh people like your cousin instead and not punish children?


Name a way. Any possible solution yo will claim as hurting the children, we all know it.
 
2012-10-25 09:36:50 AM

TheMysteriousStranger: Kome: In 31 states, a rapist can sue for custody. Seriously. Google it. This country affords more ways for a rapist to harm someone than every other crime.

This is pants on fire. Just because they did not explicitly say in the law "Rapists can't sue victims for custody, is not grounds for saying it allowed. If the law is followed, no one found guilty of rape can possibly get the child.

There is no state that will not consider being convicted by rape (or any felony) to be a HUGE black mark against someone trying wanting custody of a child. Indeed getting convicted of a sex crime puts draconian restrictions on the convicted pretty much everywhere. Equity also has a principle of Clean Hands (google it or stick it into Wikipedia) which clearly goes against any rapist. And laws for determining custody always mention things favoring the more fit parent and can you really see any court thinking that a rapist is a fit parent. Also in many places the law favors the mother and judges as a rule tend to favor the mother as well.

And since when are people in prison allowed to sue for custody of a child? If they admit to being a rapist then convicting them will be trivial and they won't get the kid. Or are you trying to say that 19 states will not allow someone who was accused, but not convicted, to sue? Well duh. Indeed if the Constitution is followed it will be 50 states. People really are supposed to be convicted to receive any sanction from the government.

No court that thinks the father is a rapist is going grant custody.


/ This being said, the Pennsylvania bill is asinine.



A couple of things. 1) A rapist will eventually get out of prison. 2) Rape is mostly about power. 3) Even if the rapist doesn't win, dragging their victim through months (and hundreds of dollars) of legal BS is just another way to victimize them. 4) the rapist may not get custody, but might get visitation (maybe supervised) meaning he will be in the life of the woman he raped at least until the kid is 18. Another way to exert power over their victim.

Or they could offer to drop the custody suit if the victim recants her story.
 
2012-10-25 09:37:00 AM

kidgenius: bonobo73: I see, a class based argument, which of course, makes no sense. If the environment is as bad as you say for current mother and child the why do you think it's okay for that mother to bring yet another child into that environment? How does that help?

Put it another way: why are you such a monster that you desire another kid to be placed in the living hell you describe above?

Hate to burst your bubble, but many people crying outrage here probably are completely OK with the woman getting an abortion, if she chooses, to avoid said situation.

But, if it was a god-fearing woman who didn't want to get an abortion, why shouldn't she be allowed to have the baby?


she should be allowed to have it, she should also be allowed to pay for it
 
2012-10-25 09:39:09 AM

fracto: TheMysteriousStranger: Kome: In 31 states, a rapist can sue for custody. Seriously. Google it. This country affords more ways for a rapist to harm someone than every other crime.

This is pants on fire. Just because they did not explicitly say in the law "Rapists can't sue victims for custody, is not grounds for saying it allowed. If the law is followed, no one found guilty of rape can possibly get the child.

There is no state that will not consider being convicted by rape (or any felony) to be a HUGE black mark against someone trying wanting custody of a child. Indeed getting convicted of a sex crime puts draconian restrictions on the convicted pretty much everywhere. Equity also has a principle of Clean Hands (google it or stick it into Wikipedia) which clearly goes against any rapist. And laws for determining custody always mention things favoring the more fit parent and can you really see any court thinking that a rapist is a fit parent. Also in many places the law favors the mother and judges as a rule tend to favor the mother as well.

And since when are people in prison allowed to sue for custody of a child? If they admit to being a rapist then convicting them will be trivial and they won't get the kid. Or are you trying to say that 19 states will not allow someone who was accused, but not convicted, to sue? Well duh. Indeed if the Constitution is followed it will be 50 states. People really are supposed to be convicted to receive any sanction from the government.

No court that thinks the father is a rapist is going grant custody.


/ This being said, the Pennsylvania bill is asinine.


A couple of things. 1) A rapist will eventually get out of prison. 2) Rape is mostly about power. 3) Even if the rapist doesn't win, dragging their victim through months (and hundreds of dollars) of legal BS is just another way to victimize them. 4) the rapist may not get custody, but might get visitation (maybe supervised) meaning he will be in the life of ...


You know family court doesnt work that way right? Please show me a valid cause of action where the court accepted the rapists argument ad it went to trial PRETTY PLEASE. These scare tactics are hilarious.
 
2012-10-25 09:39:12 AM
A Republican poll showed that 6 out of 7 people involved enjoy gang rape.

What's the problem here???!!!! Move along, nothing to see.
 
2012-10-25 09:40:38 AM

Brostorm: CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, that is the only thing I don't like... But people are stupid and see "ohh if I have another kid, I get more money to spend at Walmart!". At least, my cousin was that way, and I assume there are quite a few others like her out there (trailer park trash aren't too rare in this country). And unfortunately, it is a cycle.

So find a way to punsh people like your cousin instead and not punish children?

Name a way. Any possible solution yo will claim as hurting the children, we all know it.


Gee I don't know, report the cousin so they can be charged with fraud? You see, we have this concept called fraud.
 
2012-10-25 09:41:23 AM
I think this is a way to throw more baby daddies in jail for not paying child support. So evil. Hand out benefits like candy then lock up the people trying to get them.
 
2012-10-25 09:41:31 AM

Weaver95: And people wondered why I switched to Democrat....


Actually, I think most of us wondered why an obviously cogent being could have been Republican in the first place.
 
2012-10-25 09:42:14 AM
www.panelsonpages.com
Hi. I'm a recovering crackhead, and this is my retarded sister I take care of. I'd like some welfare please.
 
2012-10-25 09:45:30 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Brostorm: The outrageous fraud program known as food stamps

Still waiting on some numbers. Any numbers.


Yep... Noticed how the request for some, you know, actual facts about welfare fraud and what percentage of that is all these folks having multiple kids to get more money got completely ignored in favor of "gut feelings" and anecdotes.

So, I wouldn't hold your breathe waiting for any facts.
 
2012-10-25 09:48:17 AM
Sticky2shoes Account created: 2012-09-30 18:14:27


All you need to know. Also, what's with all these accounts from 2005 that haven't posted in 7 years suddenly becoming active again? Is Fark selling them to the poli trolls??
 
2012-10-25 09:49:17 AM

Brostorm:

You know family court doesnt work that way right? Please show me a valid cause of action where the court accepted the rapists argument ad it went to trial PRETTY PLEASE. These scare tactics are hilarious.



Here is a pretty good article, with citations from specific cases.
 
2012-10-25 09:54:10 AM
What republican legislators may look like:

i706.photobucket.com

i706.photobucket.com

i706.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-25 09:54:19 AM

fracto: Brostorm:

You know family court doesnt work that way right? Please show me a valid cause of action where the court accepted the rapists argument ad it went to trial PRETTY PLEASE. These scare tactics are hilarious.


Here is a pretty good article, with citations from specific cases.


did you actually read any of that?
"Although there have been no studies analyzing the number of rapists who
seek custody of their rape-conceived children, anecdotal evidence demonstrates
its occurrence" from page 832.

Also, almost all of the cases that actually make it to trial involve situations where rape cannot be proved. Unless you believe that women are incapable of dishonestly nd that men should automatically be considered rapists that article means squat.
 
2012-10-25 09:54:54 AM

bonobo73: Genevieve Marie: david_gaithersburg: And we all know that PA is one of those states without access to abortions. Derp.


82% of counties in Pennsylvania have no abortion provider. 46% of women in Pennsylvania live in those counties. Pennsylvania also has mandated counseling designed to discourage abortion and a mandatory 24 hour waiting period.

That may sound like no big deal until you consider the fact that someone who requires welfare benefits and qualifies is already pretty desperately poor... so affording not one, but two days off of work, plus transporatation to another county and lodgings there is actually a pretty big burden on abortion access.

 Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/pennsylvania.html 

Gah, wish I read this before. Invalidates my "Pensylvania is not Mississippi or Texas" remark.

Ok, well then I'm okay with the bill -- as long as they amend it to (a) provide funding to provide access to contraception and abortion services within every county (b) revoke the mandated anti-abortion counseling and 24 hour wait period. And (c) add funding for rape awareness and prevention programs, counseling programs, self-defense courses and additional officer training.

How does that sound? Are we getting closer to sufficiently bi-partisan legislation?

/not a legislator
//plays one on Fark


Still catching up on this thread (and rapidly coming to the conclusion that I want to gay marry Genevieve Marie) but I had made a mental note to go back and attempt to disabuse you of your misconception regarding how bass ackward my home state is. Glad to see you've done the research yourself.

I can tell you that increasing access to affordable contraception and abortion services will likely never come to fruition in PA. We've subjected the rest of the country to Santorum, after all.
 
2012-10-25 09:56:17 AM
Remember there is no war on women so lay back and enjoy your rape.
 
2012-10-25 10:00:55 AM

CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, that is the only thing I don't like... But people are stupid and see "ohh if I have another kid, I get more money to spend at Walmart!". At least, my cousin was that way, and I assume there are quite a few others like her out there (trailer park trash aren't too rare in this country). And unfortunately, it is a cycle.

So find a way to punsh people like your cousin instead and not punish children?

Name a way. Any possible solution yo will claim as hurting the children, we all know it.

Gee I don't know, report the cousin so they can be charged with fraud? You see, we have this concept called fraud.


Yeah, good luck with that. Like they would do anything, considering what she did is perfectly legal (having more kids to get more state money). And even if she gets arrested, that punishes the child, since his mom is in jail, no?

Lost Thought 00: The child of a person not currently recieving welfare would be protected by the social safety net if something goes wrong in their life. The child of a person currently on welfare is not protected. That's a difference


Well, I know the religious wouldn't like it, but why even have the child if you can't afford it? In my ideal world, abortions would be free due to universal healthcare.
 
2012-10-25 10:01:34 AM

MsStatement: bonobo73: Genevieve Marie: david_gaithersburg: And we all know that PA is one of those states without access to abortions. Derp.


82% of counties in Pennsylvania have no abortion provider. 46% of women in Pennsylvania live in those counties. Pennsylvania also has mandated counseling designed to discourage abortion and a mandatory 24 hour waiting period.

That may sound like no big deal until you consider the fact that someone who requires welfare benefits and qualifies is already pretty desperately poor... so affording not one, but two days off of work, plus transporatation to another county and lodgings there is actually a pretty big burden on abortion access.

 Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/pennsylvania.html 

Gah, wish I read this before. Invalidates my "Pensylvania is not Mississippi or Texas" remark.

Ok, well then I'm okay with the bill -- as long as they amend it to (a) provide funding to provide access to contraception and abortion services within every county (b) revoke the mandated anti-abortion counseling and 24 hour wait period. And (c) add funding for rape awareness and prevention programs, counseling programs, self-defense courses and additional officer training.

How does that sound? Are we getting closer to sufficiently bi-partisan legislation?

/not a legislator
//plays one on Fark

Still catching up on this thread (and rapidly coming to the conclusion that I want to gay marry Genevieve Marie) but I had made a mental note to go back and attempt to disabuse you of your misconception regarding how bass ackward my home state is. Glad to see you've done the research yourself.

I can tell you that increasing access to affordable contraception and abortion services will likely never come to fruition in PA. We've subjected the rest of the country to Santorum, after all.


gross.
 
2012-10-25 10:03:31 AM

Fart_Machine: Remember there is no war on women so lay back and enjoy your rape planned by God.

 

Forgot best part.
 
2012-10-25 10:03:39 AM

machoprogrammer:
Yeah, good luck with that. Like they would do anything, considering what she did is perfectly legal (having more kids to get more state money). And even if she gets arrested, that punishes the child, since his mom is in jail, no?


So then its not actually fraud. Again, incentivise her not to have kids, not to be on welfare, but now the kid exists. Don't punish it.
 
2012-10-25 10:04:17 AM
I understand what they're getting at here. Currently in PA, as it is in NJ, if you're on welfare & have another kid, you lose your welfare (the kids still keep theirs). If you end up pregnant by rape, there was no provision for you. You were still kicked off the rolls.

This is giving those women an exception. If they kept the baby and reported the rape or incest to police, they keep their welfare. They only have to show they identified their attacker if they knew who it was (like in cases of incest, I guess).

HOWEVER, just how many farking women who get raped are keeping their babies? And, judging from the typically low numbers of rapes that are reported anyway, this is a bullshiat law. Next step is to further reduce access to abortion and then the legislation can point at this law and say, "Look, we care. We even made a provision for them!" And, of course, there's the implication that only women on welfare get raped or are victims of incest.
 
2012-10-25 10:04:30 AM
I never thought I'd see the day where it looks like rape will be legal long before marijuana. Life is a strange thing.
 
2012-10-25 10:05:22 AM

MyRandomName: With all the videos of acorn telling people how to game the system is filing a report when a rape really does occur so awful?


Not that I think you give half a shiat because you're about as vile as they come, but for anybody reading this it could be beneficial to point out the fact that rape victims often feel ashamed of their victimization, depressed, feel as though they're to blame and avoid reporting a rape as either a coping mechanism, because they're afraid of reprisal or because the abuser is a friend or family member and they feel conflicted about getting that person in trouble.

But, yea, I'm sure adding a pile of bureaucratic bullshiat on top of all that emotional baggage won't have any negative impact on rape victims at all. What's a little extra mental stress on a crime victim's head when you could also be punishing women who had sex consensually, right?

God, you and your kind are terrible, vicious and cruel human beings...
 
2012-10-25 10:06:28 AM
Tack forced wearing of this
2.bp.blogspot.com
on to the bill and be done with it.
 
2012-10-25 10:06:30 AM

CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, good luck with that. Like they would do anything, considering what she did is perfectly legal (having more kids to get more state money). And even if she gets arrested, that punishes the child, since his mom is in jail, no?


So then its not actually fraud. Again, incentivise her not to have kids, not to be on welfare, but now the kid exists. Don't punish it.


exactly, you are the problem. If she cant care for her kids it should be seen as the abuse it is.
 
2012-10-25 10:08:33 AM

Aldon: Fart_Machine: Remember there is no war on women so lay back and enjoy your rape planned by God. 

Forgot best part.


Forever.
 
2012-10-25 10:09:28 AM

Brostorm: CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, good luck with that. Like they would do anything, considering what she did is perfectly legal (having more kids to get more state money). And even if she gets arrested, that punishes the child, since his mom is in jail, no?


So then its not actually fraud. Again, incentivise her not to have kids, not to be on welfare, but now the kid exists. Don't punish it.

exactly, you are the problem. If she cant care for her kids it should be seen as the abuse it is.


If she is an unfit parent then that's entirely different and I support her children being taken away if that results in what is best for the child.
 
2012-10-25 10:10:50 AM

machoprogrammer: CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, that is the only thing I don't like... But people are stupid and see "ohh if I have another kid, I get more money to spend at Walmart!". At least, my cousin was that way, and I assume there are quite a few others like her out there (trailer park trash aren't too rare in this country). And unfortunately, it is a cycle.

So find a way to punsh people like your cousin instead and not punish children?

Name a way. Any possible solution yo will claim as hurting the children, we all know it.

Gee I don't know, report the cousin so they can be charged with fraud? You see, we have this concept called fraud.

Yeah, good luck with that. Like they would do anything, considering what she did is perfectly legal (having more kids to get more state money). And even if she gets arrested, that punishes the child, since his mom is in jail, no?

Lost Thought 00: The child of a person not currently recieving welfare would be protected by the social safety net if something goes wrong in their life. The child of a person currently on welfare is not protected. That's a difference

Well, I know the religious wouldn't like it, but why even have the child if you can't afford it? In my ideal world, abortions would be free due to universal healthcare.


Just kill children you can't afford. That's one solution. The final solution. The handicapped and elderly are expensive too.
 
2012-10-25 10:11:00 AM

CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, good luck with that. Like they would do anything, considering what she did is perfectly legal (having more kids to get more state money). And even if she gets arrested, that punishes the child, since his mom is in jail, no?


So then its not actually fraud. Again, incentivise her not to have kids, not to be on welfare, but now the kid exists. Don't punish it.

exactly, you are the problem. If she cant care for her kids it should be seen as the abuse it is.

If she is an unfit parent then that's entirely different and I support her children being taken away if that results in what is best for the child.


having children y cannot afford by definition makes you an unfit parent. The fact that your ability even feed your children relies on the state is a problem. When you decide to have more children while already being in this situation, you have just make the argument that you are unfit stronger.
 
2012-10-25 10:12:43 AM

Brostorm: CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, good luck with that. Like they would do anything, considering what she did is perfectly legal (having more kids to get more state money). And even if she gets arrested, that punishes the child, since his mom is in jail, no?


So then its not actually fraud. Again, incentivise her not to have kids, not to be on welfare, but now the kid exists. Don't punish it.

exactly, you are the problem. If she cant care for her kids it should be seen as the abuse it is.

If she is an unfit parent then that's entirely different and I support her children being taken away if that results in what is best for the child.

having children y cannot afford by definition makes you an unfit parent. The fact that your ability even feed your children relies on the state is a problem. When you decide to have more children while already being in this situation, you have just make the argument that you are unfit stronger.


Cuz all pregnancies are planned
 
2012-10-25 10:14:40 AM

CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, good luck with that. Like they would do anything, considering what she did is perfectly legal (having more kids to get more state money). And even if she gets arrested, that punishes the child, since his mom is in jail, no?


So then its not actually fraud. Again, incentivise her not to have kids, not to be on welfare, but now the kid exists. Don't punish it.

exactly, you are the problem. If she cant care for her kids it should be seen as the abuse it is.

If she is an unfit parent then that's entirely different and I support her children being taken away if that results in what is best for the child.

having children y cannot afford by definition makes you an unfit parent. The fact that your ability even feed your children relies on the state is a problem. When you decide to have more children while already being in this situation, you have just make the argument that you are unfit stronger.

Cuz all pregnancies are planned


cuz birf control is hard. Cuz taking responsibility for your actions is hard. Cuz realizing the link between more money=more kids is hard. Cuz crying "what about the children" is so damn easy
 
2012-10-25 10:14:53 AM

CPennypacker: So then its not actually fraud. Again, incentivise her not to have kids, not to be on welfare, but now the kid exists. Don't punish it.


This is what I am proposing:

If you are on welfare, and you get pregnant while on welfare, the amount you receive does not go up...

This means that if you have 3 kids, then go on welfare, you get the 3 kids amount. If you have 2 kids and are on welfare and you get pregnant, you don't get the 3 kids benefit, you still get 2.

The incentive to not having kids then is you don't get more money for having more kids. Kids are expensive.

badhatharry: Just kill children you can't afford. That's one solution. The final solution. The handicapped and elderly are expensive too.


Well, people have abortions because they can't afford the kids every day. Or is abortion the same as killing kids now? I thought life began at birth, not conception?
 
2012-10-25 10:14:54 AM
Republicans love rape. There's no avoiding the blatantly obvious at this point. They worship rape. They idolize it. Rape is the manifestation of everything Republicans hold dear in life.
 
2012-10-25 10:15:43 AM

Brostorm: CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, good luck with that. Like they would do anything, considering what she did is perfectly legal (having more kids to get more state money). And even if she gets arrested, that punishes the child, since his mom is in jail, no?


So then its not actually fraud. Again, incentivise her not to have kids, not to be on welfare, but now the kid exists. Don't punish it.

exactly, you are the problem. If she cant care for her kids it should be seen as the abuse it is.

If she is an unfit parent then that's entirely different and I support her children being taken away if that results in what is best for the child.

having children y cannot afford by definition makes you an unfit parent. The fact that your ability even feed your children relies on the state is a problem. When you decide to have more children while already being in this situation, you have just make the argument that you are unfit stronger.

Cuz all pregnancies are planned

cuz birf control is hard. Cuz taking responsibility for your actions is hard. Cuz realizing the link between more money=more kids is hard. Cuz crying "what about the children" is so damn easy


No, but it can be expensive and/or hard to get. Why are you so intellectually dishonest? It actually hurts me physically how intellectually dishonest you are.
 
2012-10-25 10:17:29 AM

machoprogrammer:
This is what I am proposing:

If you are on welfare, and you get pregnant while on welfare, the amount you receive does not go up...

This means that if you have 3 kids, then go on welfare, you get the 3 kids amount. If you have 2 kids and are on welfare and you get pregnant, you don't get the 3 kids benefit, you still get 2.

The incentive to not having kids then is you don't get more money for having more kids. Kids are expensive.


How about instead we make it stupid easy both in terms of effort and financially to not have kids in the first place.
 
2012-10-25 10:18:59 AM

CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: Brostorm: CPennypacker: machoprogrammer:
Yeah, good luck with that. Like they would do anything, considering what she did is perfectly legal (having more kids to get more state money). And even if she gets arrested, that punishes the child, since his mom is in jail, no?


So then its not actually fraud. Again, incentivise her not to have kids, not to be on welfare, but now the kid exists. Don't punish it.

exactly, you are the problem. If she cant care for her kids it should be seen as the abuse it is.

If she is an unfit parent then that's entirely different and I support her children being taken away if that results in what is best for the child.

having children y cannot afford by definition makes you an unfit parent. The fact that your ability even feed your children relies on the state is a problem. When you decide to have more children while already being in this situation, you have just make the argument that you are unfit stronger.

Cuz all pregnancies are planned

cuz birf control is hard. Cuz taking responsibility for your actions is hard. Cuz realizing the link between more money=more kids is hard. Cuz crying "what about the children" is so damn easy

No, but it can be expensive and/or hard to get. Why are you so intellectually dishonest? It actually hurts me physically how intellectually dishonest you are.


You can get free condoms ALL OVER THE PLACE. If you are poor you can get free birth control through medicaid or planned parenthood or any of the other thousands of sources. It is a complete and ridiculous lie that birth control is rare or expensive . Hell college GIVE them away too.
 
2012-10-25 10:19:01 AM

Brostorm: cuz birf control is hard.


DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD!
 
2012-10-25 10:19:05 AM

Brostorm: cuz birf control is hard. Cuz taking responsibility for your actions is hard. Cuz realizing the link between more money=more kids is hard. Cuz crying "what about the children" is so damn easy


Supporting your claim that "people on welfare getting more money because they cant keep it in their pants is a HUGE problem." with numbers is hard, apparently.
 
2012-10-25 10:20:21 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Brostorm: cuz birf control is hard.

DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD!


citation needed. Im not even a republican nor do I think planned parenthood should be defunded.
 
2012-10-25 10:20:30 AM

Brostorm: cuz birf control is hard. Cuz taking responsibility for your actions is hard.


I've recently been told by a Republican representative that when God wants a child born, he'll rape the fark out of a woman to get it done.
 
2012-10-25 10:22:33 AM

Brostorm: You can get free condoms ALL OVER THE PLACE. If you are poor you can get free birth control through medicaid or planned parenthood or any of the other thousands of sources. It is a complete and ridiculous lie that birth control is rare or expensive . Hell college GIVE them away too.


I don't understand, there is an EASY way to not have to pay less for poor kids and still pay the same for each kid and that is for there to be LESS kids. Don't you think something like a free IUD would result in less pregnancies than free rubbers? Then they could hump all they want all day long and all you paid for was a little copper T.
 
2012-10-25 10:24:43 AM

CPennypacker: Brostorm: You can get free condoms ALL OVER THE PLACE. If you are poor you can get free birth control through medicaid or planned parenthood or any of the other thousands of sources. It is a complete and ridiculous lie that birth control is rare or expensive . Hell college GIVE them away too.

I don't understand, there is an EASY way to not have to pay less for poor kids and still pay the same for each kid and that is for there to be LESS kids. Don't you think something like a free IUD would result in less pregnancies than free rubbers? Then they could hump all they want all day long and all you paid for was a little copper T.


Im for free tubal ligation and free IUD. It will cost much less in the long run. The claim that birth control is rare or expensive is still full of crap.
 
2012-10-25 10:25:20 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Republicans love rape. There's no avoiding the blatantly obvious at this point. They worship rape. They idolize it. Rape is the manifestation of everything Republicans hold dear in life.


As always, they have a backwards, archaic way of looking at it. They probably don't see it as a real issue, because they think most cases are false accusations anyway. Their mindset is easily understood if you erase all the progress women have made over the last several decades and think of women more like children than equals.
 
2012-10-25 10:26:07 AM

Brostorm: citation needed.


The guy who won't back up any of his own claims with citations demands citations from everybody else. We should definitely take this guy Very Seriously.
 
Displayed 50 of 474 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report