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.

(ABC)   Oklahoma's Commissioner of Health is trying to legitimately rape the women of Oklahoma   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 167
    More: Sad, Oklahoma, WIC, Planned Parenthood  
•       •       •

7384 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Nov 2012 at 7:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-12 09:25:19 PM
But WIC helps pregnant women eat healthily even if they don't have other kids. This benefits the fetus so it should be all good by the fetus worshipers, er people so devoted to the sanctity of all life.
 
2012-11-12 09:25:49 PM

Silly Jesus: You said I'm an idiot. I interpret that differently than ignorant. Ignorant you can change...idiot you can't....at least how I use the term. Idiot implies a hardwired deficiency, which you say that I have...yet you are trying to figure out why when on the internet I don't just switch that off and be a non-idiot. Your potatos are cereal.


I am so freaking glad you aren't in any of my classes.

Ok, going back to ignoring you now.
 
2012-11-12 09:26:11 PM

fusillade762: Silly Jesus: Taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize those who would terminate children or those who encourage it.

Terminating them with poverty and starvation is A-OK, though.


Hunger is a heck of a motivating factor in getting a job. A check in the mailbox each month isn't. If they choose suicide through laziness / learned helplessness, so be it. We're better off without them. What exactly is society gaining by subsidizing their existence?
 
2012-11-12 09:27:08 PM

Nobodyn0se: Silly Jesus: You said I'm an idiot. I interpret that differently than ignorant. Ignorant you can change...idiot you can't....at least how I use the term. Idiot implies a hardwired deficiency, which you say that I have...yet you are trying to figure out why when on the internet I don't just switch that off and be a non-idiot. Your potatos are cereal.

I am so freaking glad you aren't in any of my classes.

Ok, going back to ignoring you now.


I'm glad I'm not either...I'm allergic to crayons.
 
2012-11-12 09:30:13 PM

Silly Jesus: I'm glad I'm not either...I'm allergic to crayons.


And books, apparently.
 
2012-11-12 09:32:01 PM

Nobodyn0se: Silly Jesus: I'm glad I'm not either...I'm allergic to crayons.

And books, apparently.


Just the coloring ones. Which one is your favorite?

Thought you were ignoring me, you silly goose.
 
2012-11-12 09:33:37 PM
I'm really surprised SJ is getting so many bites. This is some of the weakest trolling this site has seen. And this site sets some pretty low standards.
 
2012-11-12 09:34:45 PM

nmemkha: nmemkha: clowncar on fire: [derp]

Sanctity of life? You then why do people like you want children to go hungry?

You're just another hypocrite like the rest, practicing bigotry under guise of benevolence.


I explained the rational, I didn't write it myself. In theory anyone who wanted and cared to bring a child into this world would protect that child at all costs, which might include putting that child ahead of yur personal desires to insure that child was fed. If you couldn't do that- why would you bother to even make a child in the first place. Again these beliefs come from old values assuming that: one was prepared for a lifetime of responsibility when conceiving a child and that one was committed enough to care for that child. Doesn't necessarily always hold true but a little more sound in judgement then "let's hope the rubber don't break again".
 
2012-11-12 09:34:59 PM

Heraclitus: "Forgive me for noting that conservatives seem to believe that the rich will work harder if we give them more, and the poor will work harder if we give them less."


Still too pithy by half
 
2012-11-12 09:56:12 PM

clowncar on fire: nmemkha: nmemkha: clowncar on fire: [derp]

Sanctity of life? You then why do people like you want children to go hungry?

You're just another hypocrite like the rest, practicing bigotry under guise of benevolence.

I explained the rational, I didn't write it myself. In theory anyone who wanted and cared to bring a child into this world would protect that child at all costs, which might include putting that child ahead of yur personal desires to insure that child was fed. If you couldn't do that- why would you bother to even make a child in the first place. Again these beliefs come from old values assuming that: one was prepared for a lifetime of responsibility when conceiving a child and that one was committed enough to care for that child. Doesn't necessarily always hold true but a little more sound in judgement then "let's hope the rubber don't break again".


Please explain my hypocracy. I brought two daughters in the world, both who i love and do the best I can by. I'm not denying that i make mistakes from time to time as there is no true guide to parenting other than expiriencing it.

My bigotry? Seriously. Where?

My "benevolence" as you refer to it is federally mandated. I wish I could feel as happy as you giving generously to every cause that crosses my path, but the reality is, we all have our own values that we cherry pick through. I don't like funding irresponsible behavior, and if Ihave to, would prefer to be providing the material you need to put your life back together rather than just throwing cash at the problem. I don't mind subsidizing your basic needs in exchange for just few small favors in return: help your neighbor instead of preying on him. Take care of that which I so "benevolently" provide. Use those materials I provide in a responsible manner. Do this and I may just start enjoying my "benevolence" and may want to give more.

And yes, I honestly do believe that there are people out there who living up to these standards and have not been tainted by the harshness of poverty. Unfortunately for every ten of them, we get a "Obama-phone" lady pissing in the stew and poisoning its appeal.
 
2012-11-12 09:57:34 PM
A great way for me to judge how much concentrated derp is in a thread, is by how many posts disappear when I click on it. It says 109, I only see 35. That's a shiat-load of derp, right there.
 
2012-11-12 09:59:49 PM

clowncar on fire: cMy bigotry? Seriously. Where?


Bigotry against the poor.
 
2012-11-12 10:01:49 PM

Gepetto: I'm really surprised SJ is getting so many bites. This is some of the weakest trolling this site has seen. And this site sets some pretty low standards.


Perhaps SJ has had a change in heart and tactics so has taken a slide a little more toward center?
 
2012-11-12 10:01:58 PM

Silly Jesus: Nobodyn0se: Silly Jesus: I'm glad I'm not either...I'm allergic to crayons.

And books, apparently.

Just the coloring ones. Which one is your favorite?

Thought you were ignoring me, you silly goose.


The devil thought is born in your penis mind:
i18.photobucket.com

Is That So?

The Zen master Hakuin was praised by his neighbours as one living a pure life.

A beautiful Japanese girl whose parents owned a food store lived near him. Suddenly, without any warning, her parents discovered she was with child.

This made her parents angry. She would not confess who the man was, but after much harassment at last named Hakuin.

In great anger the parent went to the master. "Is that so?" was all he would say.

After the child was born it was brought to Hakuin. By this time he had lost his reputation, which did not trouble him, but he took very good care of the child. He obtained milk from his neighbours and everything else he needed.

A year later the girl-mother could stand it no longer. She told her parents the truth - the real father of the child was a young man who worked in the fishmarket.

The mother and father of the girl at once went to Hakuin to ask forgiveness, to apologize at length, and to get the child back.

Hakuin was willing. In yielding the child, all he said was: "Is that so?"
 
2012-11-12 10:02:00 PM

Coco LaFemme: A great way for me to judge how much concentrated derp is in a thread, is by how many posts disappear when I click on it. It says 109, I only see 35. That's a shiat-load of derp, right there.


Are you the person who comes into every thread and posts that same line or is that some other moron?
 
2012-11-12 10:09:07 PM

nmemkha: clowncar on fire: cMy bigotry? Seriously. Where?

Bigotry against the poor.


I was the poor for quite a few years. Not because I couldn't find a job so much as that I made a lot of wrong decisions on how I spent that paycheck. As luck would have it, I did stay on the right side of the law so I was able to get all bootstrappy and joined the military when I saw the direction my life was headed.

If you've ever been out on the streets in Tucson- you learn the difference between a decorative orange and a real one in about one bite.
 
2012-11-12 10:15:40 PM
If we really wanted to, there are ways we could work together to reduce the abortion rate in this country.

Your highest Teen pregnancy rates come from states that focus on abstinence only education. Let's get rid of that shiat, it clearly doesn't work.

We might also have to grow the fark up about sex as a country long enough to Talk openly with our children. The amount of ridiculous shiat about "shutting it down" should not be acceptable.

Also, let's show some cost projections on how much 18 years of welfare payments are worth. Make it easy for RushCo to scream about how democratic minority abortions would save the country money AND help keep a permanent republican majority.

There's middle ground here.
 
2012-11-12 10:27:04 PM

Silly Jesus: "They won't let us give people free shiat, WAAAAAH!"


You're going to pay one way or another. It's cheaper this way.
 
2012-11-12 10:32:37 PM

Ed Grubermann: clowncar on fire: Sanctity of life.

Sure. If you say so.

That being said, I in principal, agree with Silly Jesus, that those who oppose abortions on moral grounds- the conscientous objectors in the moral war as it were-- should not have to fund them.

My taxes pay for lots of things I find morally objectionable. That's the price you pay for living in a first-world country.


My bad, I had actually intended to mention the part that we all fund things we object to, but I got caught up in my next thought- which you conveniently excluded-- which was that I just don't like funding irresponsible, avoidable behavior. Had i have slipped in the part about us all funding things we object to. I probably would have not come off sounding like a twatwaffle.

But then again, had you included the rest of my post, it wouold have more than obvious that my objections with abortion would not be one of morals so much as in opposition to enabling boneheaded behavior.

I've also pointed out earlier that I would not support any law interfering with a woman's right of choice over her own health issues. This specifically is to include an unwanted pregnancy as a result of rape.
 
2012-11-12 10:39:13 PM

BarrRepublican: If we really wanted to, there are ways we could work together to reduce the abortion rate in this country.

Your highest Teen pregnancy rates come from states that focus on abstinence only education. Let's get rid of that shiat, it clearly doesn't work.

We might also have to grow the fark up about sex as a country long enough to Talk openly with our children. The amount of ridiculous shiat about "shutting it down" should not be acceptable.

Also, let's show some cost projections on how much 18 years of welfare payments are worth. Make it easy for RushCo to scream about how democratic minority abortions would save the country money AND help keep a permanent republican majority.

There's middle ground here.


You've obviously never sat through a season of "The Secret Life of a Teenager" It seems like everytime a parent has an open discussion with their child about sex, that kid is destined to become pregnant within 3 episodes.

Middle ground that seems to be working for me is: keep them feeling good about who they are, know who their friends are, and keep in touch with them when they do go out.
 
2012-11-12 10:44:28 PM
You see, Romney and his crowd don't want to ban abortion. They just want to put any clinic or health care professional associated with abortion out of business (this phrase can translate as 1. unemployed, 2. in prison, or 3. murdered).
 
2012-11-12 10:47:03 PM

clowncar on fire: BarrRepublican: If we really wanted to, there are ways we could work together to reduce the abortion rate in this country.

Your highest Teen pregnancy rates come from states that focus on abstinence only education. Let's get rid of that shiat, it clearly doesn't work.

We might also have to grow the fark up about sex as a country long enough to Talk openly with our children. The amount of ridiculous shiat about "shutting it down" should not be acceptable.

Also, let's show some cost projections on how much 18 years of welfare payments are worth. Make it easy for RushCo to scream about how democratic minority abortions would save the country money AND help keep a permanent republican majority.

There's middle ground here.

You've obviously never sat through a season of "The Secret Life of a Teenager" It seems like everytime a parent has an open discussion with their child about sex, that kid is destined to become pregnant within 3 episodes.

Middle ground that seems to be working for me is: keep them feeling good about who they are, know who their friends are, and keep in touch with them when they do go out.


You sound reasonable on this issue.

//now go away and bring back the derpitude this is Fark..
 
2012-11-12 10:51:13 PM
Don't want abortions? Then teach sex education and contraceptive use, along with easier access to contraceptives.

And knock it off with the religious shaming and shrieking about how evil, immoral, against God, etc the act of sex is. All of the opposition to sex, contraceptives, abortion, and education is religious-based, and they're afraid of losing their power and influence over people when those people view sex as normal and nothing to be ashamed of and engage in it intelligently and safely.

Also, you might want to ask God to stop killing hundreds of thousands of fertilized eggs every year by not letting them attach to the uterine wall, and stop killing thousands of fetuses every year with miscarriages and other complications.
 
2012-11-12 10:58:39 PM
People need to understand abortion is now a political issue not a moral question. Don't believe me? Here is a quote from the Republican party platform.

Through Obamacare, the current Administration has promoted the notion of abortion as healthcare. We, however, affirm the dignity of women by protecting the sanctity of human life. Numerous studies have shown that abortion endangers the health and well-being of women, and we stand firmly against it.

It's not a moral question, it's a political issue and a tool to divide people.

If you wish to discuss morals, let's talk about using abortion as a political tool to try--unsuccessfully--to win political office. I can assure you, as the Republican party is the party of Lincoln, if the Republicans could win the POTUS without banning any abortion they would do it, and if they could win it by banning all abortions they would do it; and if they could win it by banning some and leaving other abortions alone they would also do that.
 
2012-11-12 11:06:22 PM
The submitter of this thread and whoever approved it deserve each other.

/in bed
//legitimate rape
///slashie funding
 
2012-11-12 11:10:18 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Don't want abortions? Then teach sex education and contraceptive use, along with easier access to contraceptives.

And knock it off with the religious shaming and shrieking about how evil, immoral, against God, etc the act of sex is. All of the opposition to sex, contraceptives, abortion, and education is religious-based, and they're afraid of losing their power and influence over people when those people view sex as normal and nothing to be ashamed of and engage in it intelligently and safely.


if we do that can we keep the shame-on-you-for-having-a-kid-you-can't-afford stuff?
 
2012-11-12 11:22:24 PM

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: You see, Romney and his crowd don't want to ban abortion. They just want to put any clinic or health care professional associated with abortion out of business (this phrase can translate as 1. unemployed, 2. in prison, or 3. murdered).


I think you are referring the the extremis of the conservative party. I think most of us are just ok about people making responsible choices when it comes to getting or avoiding pregnancy. In Romney's case, he may not like the idea of abortion for moral reasons, but he does understand the practicality for individual reasons. People who object to his more centrist views will proclaim loudly that he was not "right" enough, when in reality, he was possibly made out to be too "right" in both his religious and fiscal beliefs that the centrist/liberal voters got spooked. That and the fact he was just did not appear all that interesting as a candidate.

My take only, not intended as an excuse for the loss.
 
2012-11-12 11:22:44 PM

Silly Jesus: fusillade762: Silly Jesus: Taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize those who would terminate children or those who encourage it.

Terminating them with poverty and starvation is A-OK, though.

Hunger is a heck of a motivating factor in getting a job. A check in the mailbox each month isn't. If they choose suicide through laziness / learned helplessness, so be it. We're better off without them. What exactly is society gaining by subsidizing their existence?


So people who can't afford food should be allowed to starve to death? Got it.
 
2012-11-12 11:23:57 PM

skullkrusher: Keizer_Ghidorah: Don't want abortions? Then teach sex education and contraceptive use, along with easier access to contraceptives.

And knock it off with the religious shaming and shrieking about how evil, immoral, against God, etc the act of sex is. All of the opposition to sex, contraceptives, abortion, and education is religious-based, and they're afraid of losing their power and influence over people when those people view sex as normal and nothing to be ashamed of and engage in it intelligently and safely.

if we do that can we keep the shame-on-you-for-having-a-kid-you-can't-afford stuff?


If they didn't use their intelligence and the easily-available contraceptives, I suppose.
 
2012-11-12 11:27:28 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: skullkrusher: Keizer_Ghidorah: Don't want abortions? Then teach sex education and contraceptive use, along with easier access to contraceptives.

And knock it off with the religious shaming and shrieking about how evil, immoral, against God, etc the act of sex is. All of the opposition to sex, contraceptives, abortion, and education is religious-based, and they're afraid of losing their power and influence over people when those people view sex as normal and nothing to be ashamed of and engage in it intelligently and safely.

if we do that can we keep the shame-on-you-for-having-a-kid-you-can't-afford stuff?

If they didn't use their intelligence and the easily-available contraceptives, I suppose.


yippee!
 
2012-11-12 11:40:50 PM

nmemkha: Silly Jesus: Taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize those who would terminate children or those who encourage it.

The cost of an abortion is tiny compared to the cost of raising an unwanted child via social services (foster care, WIC, etc.). Why do Republicans fight so hard to allow kids to be born and yet do not want to offer assistance in raising the unplanned child?


Because Jeezus.
 
2012-11-12 11:47:24 PM

fusillade762: Silly Jesus: fusillade762: Silly Jesus: Taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize those who would terminate children or those who encourage it.

Terminating them with poverty and starvation is A-OK, though.

Hunger is a heck of a motivating factor in getting a job. A check in the mailbox each month isn't. If they choose suicide through laziness / learned helplessness, so be it. We're better off without them. What exactly is society gaining by subsidizing their existence?

So people who can't afford food should be allowed to starve to death? Got it.


That, or get a job.
 
2012-11-12 11:50:45 PM

Gyrfalcon: nmemkha: Silly Jesus: Taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize those who would terminate children or those who encourage it.

The cost of an abortion is tiny compared to the cost of raising an unwanted child via social services (foster care, WIC, etc.). Why do Republicans fight so hard to allow kids to be born and yet do not want to offer assistance in raising the unplanned child?

Because Jeezus.


Hypocrites is more like it. They will scream about evil that others do, but won't lift a finger to help children in need. They have spend billions fighting abortion and gay marriage; that money could have helped a lot people.

"They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them." - Mathew 23:4
 
2012-11-12 11:55:52 PM

clowncar on fire: Karac: The Stealth Hippopotamus: How did you get there?

Oklahoma is a republican minority controlled state.
Republicans Minorities have been on a bender of trying to defund Planned Parenthood because of abortion.
Republicans Minorites are not above lying to do so.*

How did subby get there? A better question is how did you NOT get there.

*We've substituted the word "republican" for the word "minorities". Les's see if anyone can see the difference...

Seriously though. This sort of post no worse then any of the other of the racist comments posted around here so let's get our little indignant motors fired up and start calling people out on this stuff when we see it. I like you, Silly Jesus but you're sometimes like that friend that's had one too many and doesn't know when to give it a rest. Persuasion, dude. Hearts and minds.

Great thread otherwise, guys. Seems like people are listening tonight instead of slinging mud everywhere.

Cheers.


Keep playing that race card, you got nothing.
 
2012-11-13 12:02:44 AM

skullkrusher: Heraclitus: "Forgive me for noting that conservatives seem to believe that the rich will work harder if we give them more, and the poor will work harder if we give them less."

Still too pithy by half


That's Carlin isn't it?
 
2012-11-13 12:04:23 AM

Elandriel: The Stealth Hippopotamus: How did you get there?

They do a shiatty wasteful job that other people do well so they are getting their funding cut. Total dollars to the projects are not being cut, Planned Parenthood just isn't getting a cut.

For once in your life take off your blinders and regard this for exactly what it is; punishing Planned Parenthood yet again for daring to offer a federally-protected service by cutting off necessary funding for other services. Ironically, these clinics don't even offer that service, just referrals. TFA specifically says none of this is supported by actual facts, and given the gauntlet of neanderthal reasons for cutting funding to PP that have originated in these red states, I think the onus of proof now falls on the agency that has decided to purposefully withhold aid to low-income families.

Here's a better article, anyway. Pretty much supports the "They're being douches" angle.


I tip my hat to you for having some semblance of an idea of wtf the boobies/weeners was talking about
 
2012-11-13 12:07:51 AM

fusillade762: Silly Jesus: fusillade762: Silly Jesus: Taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize those who would terminate children or those who encourage it.

Terminating them with poverty and starvation is A-OK, though.

Hunger is a heck of a motivating factor in getting a job. A check in the mailbox each month isn't. If they choose suicide through laziness / learned helplessness, so be it. We're better off without them. What exactly is society gaining by subsidizing their existence?

So people who can't afford food should be allowed to starve to death? Got it.


I agree with this first part. At some point Clinton had endorsed legislation that reduced subsides for the poor. There wasn't a whole lot of name calling or gnashing of teeth: people who were able to work simply went back to work. Those who didn't alowed us a brief realistic glance at who should and shouldn't have been on the roles.

Farkers have no problem railing out educators for handing out stars for to students for remembering to breath, often referring to this as enabling entitlement behavior. Exist and you get rewarded. For those with kids, you know that even your kids recognize a certain inequality in terms of rewarding everyone in lieu of the exceptional behavior of the few. How much of a stretch is it to recognize that giving unconditional support could not but create an entitled class of people - and by entitled, I mean with the expectation of support without any strings or returned responsibility?

I do believe that there are a good sized segmant of the poor that would work if partially subsidized for the shortfall they would expirience by accepting low waged jobs: by nature most people enjoy the pride of accomplishment and reward rather than the feeling of indeptitude that would accompany living off others- for those, I might add, who have not been conditioned to to point of entitlement.

I would not personally recommend the starving them out method however- people just don't sit and die of whatever life circumstance has put them where they are. Theytend to rise up and take shiat by any means necessary when they get really hungry. There would be no "just letting them die"
 
2012-11-13 12:09:18 AM

Silly Jesus: Coco LaFemme: A great way for me to judge how much concentrated derp is in a thread, is by how many posts disappear when I click on it. It says 109, I only see 35. That's a shiat-load of derp, right there.

Are you the person who comes into every thread and posts that same line or is that some other moron?


Are you the troll who ends every posting with a question? Why do trolls do that? Why?
 
2012-11-13 12:11:45 AM

Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: Heraclitus: "Forgive me for noting that conservatives seem to believe that the rich will work harder if we give them more, and the poor will work harder if we give them less."

Still too pithy by half

That's Carlin isn't it?


don't think so but it does sound like one of his bumper stickery WOOOOHOOOO... wait this doesn't really make any sense sort of things
 
2012-11-13 12:12:31 AM

Blue_Blazer: clowncar on fire: Karac: The Stealth Hippopotamus: How did you get there?

Oklahoma is a republican minority controlled state.
Republicans Minorities have been on a bender of trying to defund Planned Parenthood because of abortion.
Republicans Minorites are not above lying to do so.*

How did subby get there? A better question is how did you NOT get there.

*We've substituted the word "republican" for the word "minorities". Les's see if anyone can see the difference...

Seriously though. This sort of post no worse then any of the other of the racist comments posted around here so let's get our little indignant motors fired up and start calling people out on this stuff when we see it. I like you, Silly Jesus but you're sometimes like that friend that's had one too many and doesn't know when to give it a rest. Persuasion, dude. Hearts and minds.

Great thread otherwise, guys. Seems like people are listening tonight instead of slinging mud everywhere.

Cheers.

Keep playing that race card, you got nothing.


best thing about the racecard is that it's a palindromed
 
2012-11-13 12:13:49 AM

clowncar on fire: fusillade762: Silly Jesus: fusillade762: Silly Jesus: Taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize those who would terminate children or those who encourage it.

Terminating them with poverty and starvation is A-OK, though.

Hunger is a heck of a motivating factor in getting a job. A check in the mailbox each month isn't. If they choose suicide through laziness / learned helplessness, so be it. We're better off without them. What exactly is society gaining by subsidizing their existence?

So people who can't afford food should be allowed to starve to death? Got it.

I agree with this first part. At some point Clinton had endorsed legislation that reduced subsides for the poor. There wasn't a whole lot of name calling or gnashing of teeth: people who were able to work simply went back to work. Those who didn't alowed us a brief realistic glance at who should and shouldn't have been on the roles.

Farkers have no problem railing out educators for handing out stars for to students for remembering to breath, often referring to this as enabling entitlement behavior. Exist and you get rewarded. For those with kids, you know that even your kids recognize a certain inequality in terms of rewarding everyone in lieu of the exceptional behavior of the few. How much of a stretch is it to recognize that giving unconditional support could not but create an entitled class of people - and by entitled, I mean with the expectation of support without any strings or returned responsibility?

I do believe that there are a good sized segmant of the poor that would work if partially subsidized for the shortfall they would expirience by accepting low waged jobs: by nature most people enjoy the pride of accomplishment and reward rather than the feeling of indeptitude that would accompany living off others- for those, I might add, who have not been conditioned to to point of entitlement.

I would not personally recommend the starving them out method however- people just don't sit and die of whatever life circumstance has put them where they are. Theytend to rise up and take shiat by any means necessary when they get really hungry. There would be no "just letting them die"


If you really want to see a significant decrease in this dependancy, you have to make jobs worth it. If I can get $600 in benefits or go work for Papa John less than 30 hours a week and make like $750 a month, what is the damn point?

Double the minimum wage, I bet that would give some people incentive to work a shiatty job.
 
2012-11-13 12:14:41 AM

clowncar on fire: How much of a stretch is it to recognize that giving unconditional support could not but create an entitled class of people - and by entitled, I mean with the expectation of support without any strings or returned responsibility?


It's just that those people don't exist. The non-disabled are primarily these:

clowncar on fire: I do believe that there are a good sized segmant of the poor that would work if partially subsidized for the shortfall they would expirience by accepting low waged jobs


So your big problem has already been solved and you're merely fighting the phantoms conjured by Fox News and the right wing.
 
2012-11-13 12:14:45 AM

Gyrfalcon: Because Jeezus.


Funny thing about that. In Jesus' day abortion was not only a well known and well established thing, it was allowed under Jewish law in certain cases. And Jesus thus would've known very well about abortion. Yet he said not a word against it. So the only valid inference is that he had no problem with the law as it pertained to abortion. Indeed the historical record shows it took a couple centuries for Christians to really come down hard on abortion. And even then there was centuries more of bickering on it here and there. Oh and there's no Biblical basis for opposing abortion either.
 
2012-11-13 12:15:27 AM

clowncar on fire: I do believe that there are a good sized segmant of the poor that would work if partially subsidized for the shortfall they would expirience by accepting low waged jobs: by nature most people enjoy the pride of accomplishment and reward rather than the feeling of indeptitude that would accompany living off others- for those, I might add, who have not been conditioned to to point of entitlement.

I would not personally recommend the starving them out method however- people just don't sit and die of whatever life circumstance has put them where they are. Theytend to rise up and take shiat by any means necessary when they get really hungry. There would be no "just letting them die"


Both of these. People would love to work, and probably prefer it. One of the infuriating things about welfare and general relief assistance isn't that it's "free money" but that it gets cut so drastically when people do return to work, and so fast. A single person gets about $600 per month on GR...but they can only make $200 per month above that. Anything more, and they lose about half their assistance IMMEDIATELY. So what incentive does a person on GR have to find a job? If you were making $800 a month, and knew if you got a job that paid you $400 a month your net income would DROP...why would you ever want to find a better job? Of course, you wouldn't. You'd stay at the same crappy $200/mo job and take your GR and hope someday you'd find that $1500/mo job that would let you get off relief without dying.

But if welfare was summarily cut off tomorrow for everyone--yeah, you'd see some heavy-duty looting and stealing. "Qu'ils mangent la brioche" didn't work too well the first time, either.
 
2012-11-13 12:16:22 AM
"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money." -George Carlin
 
2012-11-13 12:22:18 AM

Dr. Farkenstein: The submitter of this thread and whoever approved it deserve each other.

/in bed
//legitimate rape
///slashie funding


The person who submitted it, approved it, and shat all over it are all the same person. That's why he gets three links approved a day- he's doing it himself.
 
2012-11-13 12:36:09 AM

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: People need to understand abortion is now a political issue not a moral question. Don't believe me? Here is a quote from the Republican party platform.

Through Obamacare, the current Administration has promoted the notion of abortion as healthcare. We, however, affirm the dignity of women by protecting the sanctity of human life. Numerous studies have shown that abortion endangers the health and well-being of women, and we stand firmly against it.

It's not a moral question, it's a political issue and a tool to divide people.

If you wish to discuss morals, let's talk about using abortion as a political tool to try--unsuccessfully--to win political office. I can assure you, as the Republican party is the party of Lincoln, if the Republicans could win the POTUS without banning any abortion they would do it, and if they could win it by banning all abortions they would do it; and if they could win it by banning some and leaving other abortions alone they would also do that.


Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others?
 
2012-11-13 12:37:46 AM

reklamfox: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: People need to understand abortion is now a political issue not a moral question. Don't believe me? Here is a quote from the Republican party platform.

Through Obamacare, the current Administration has promoted the notion of abortion as healthcare. We, however, affirm the dignity of women by protecting the sanctity of human life. Numerous studies have shown that abortion endangers the health and well-being of women, and we stand firmly against it.

It's not a moral question, it's a political issue and a tool to divide people.

If you wish to discuss morals, let's talk about using abortion as a political tool to try--unsuccessfully--to win political office. I can assure you, as the Republican party is the party of Lincoln, if the Republicans could win the POTUS without banning any abortion they would do it, and if they could win it by banning all abortions they would do it; and if they could win it by banning some and leaving other abortions alone they would also do that.

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others?


Don't blame me. I voted for Fartkango.
 
2012-11-13 12:42:41 AM

Gyrfalcon: clowncar on fire: I do believe that there are a good sized segmant of the poor that would work if partially subsidized for the shortfall they would expirience by accepting low waged jobs: by nature most people enjoy the pride of accomplishment and reward rather than the feeling of indeptitude that would accompany living off others- for those, I might add, who have not been conditioned to to point of entitlement.

I would not personally recommend the starving them out method however- people just don't sit and die of whatever life circumstance has put them where they are. Theytend to rise up and take shiat by any means necessary when they get really hungry. There would be no "just letting them die"

Both of these. People would love to work, and probably prefer it. One of the infuriating things about welfare and general relief assistance isn't that it's "free money" but that it gets cut so drastically when people do return to work, and so fast. A single person gets about $600 per month on GR...but they can only make $200 per month above that. Anything more, and they lose about half their assistance IMMEDIATELY. So what incentive does a person on GR have to find a job? If you were making $800 a month, and knew if you got a job that paid you $400 a month your net income would DROP...why would you ever want to find a better job? Of course, you wouldn't. You'd stay at the same crappy $200/mo job and take your GR and hope someday you'd find that $1500/mo job that would let you get off relief without dying.

But if welfare was summarily cut off tomorrow for everyone--yeah, you'd see some heavy-duty looting and stealing. "Qu'ils mangent la brioche" didn't work too well the first time, either.


I know first hand of the difference in low wage earnings vs entitlement earnings, that's why i purpose a partial subsidy. A simplistic example of this would be; if you receive $100 a week in benefits but only could earn $70 a week on a payroll, the subsidy offered will be an additional $50. See what I did there? In addition to your original earnings of $100, you are receiving an extra $20 on top of that as an incentive to remain working. Oh, and it only cost me 50% of my original subsidy. Obviously there are other variables such as payroll taxes (probably recommend a minimum, just doing your share tax payed only by those who qualify as 'working poor" as opposed to additional income), but the general idea is there.
 
2012-11-13 01:37:52 AM
Jesus Christ what's wrong with this thread? I've got 42 posts visible of 159.
 
Displayed 50 of 167 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report