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.

(Salon)   Rand Paul thinks the best way to bring women out of poverty is to marry them off. RAND PAUL   (salon.com) divider line 91
    More: Fail, Rand Paul, Married... with Children, Community areas of Chicago, child poverty, Ross Douthat, op-ed pages, paid parental leave, war on poverty  
•       •       •

1385 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Feb 2014 at 1:19 PM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-12 01:12:28 PM
To be fair to RAND PAUL, he was just plagiarizing from The Handmaid's Tale.
 
2014-02-12 01:18:58 PM
Goddamn Obamawives.
 
2014-02-12 01:21:59 PM
Why can't we call him by his actual name, Randal Paul?
 
2014-02-12 01:23:56 PM
If you can't afford to have children, don't have children.

/don't care if you get married or not. Just don't expect other taxpayers to pay for your kids.
 
2014-02-12 01:24:02 PM

JerseyTim: Why can't we call him by his actual name, Randal Paul?


Randal Rafael Paul!
 
2014-02-12 01:24:06 PM
Hey Rand, does your theory apply to same-sex marriages too?
 
2014-02-12 01:24:30 PM
Free + ubiquitous contraceptives, smart + pragmatic sexual education, end the drug war, institute a gradually decreasing minimum income, end welfare bumps for additional kids.

My solution to solve inner city problems.
 
2014-02-12 01:25:32 PM
It's true that, on average, a married woman is less likely to be poor than a single woman. It seems to me, though, that there may be better solutions to the problem than encouraging women to rush into ill-advised marriages.
 
2014-02-12 01:26:03 PM
Yay!  Rand Paul thread!  I get to pull this one out again!

i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-12 01:26:07 PM
The GOP doesn't understand the difference between causation and correlation, why would we expect any different?
 
2014-02-12 01:28:11 PM

Danger Mouse: If you can't afford to have children, don't have children.

/don't care if you get married or not. Just don't expect other taxpayers to pay for your kids.


If you already have children, farkING STARVE TO DEATH.

Guess what? Your great plan has no follow-through and doesn't deal with the already present problem. And it tends to make things worse when it's inevitably politically coupled with abstinence-only sex education and attempts to limit the availability of contraceptives on every level.
 
2014-02-12 01:29:13 PM
It worked for Wendy Davis.
 
2014-02-12 01:29:16 PM
Who knew? Marriage = no poverty.
 
2014-02-12 01:29:39 PM
Off what?
 
2014-02-12 01:30:06 PM
I've got a campaign slogan for Randy...

"Party like it's 1799!"


Regressive moron.
 
2014-02-12 01:30:33 PM
Telling women how they should live is sure to pay huge dividends for the GOP! Because otherwise it'd be silly to continually demean a voting bloc equal to half the population.
 
2014-02-12 01:30:41 PM

Bloody William: Danger Mouse: If you can't afford to have children, don't have children.

/don't care if you get married or not. Just don't expect other taxpayers to pay for your kids.

If you already have children, farkING STARVE TO DEATH.

Guess what? Your great plan has no follow-through and doesn't deal with the already present problem. And it tends to make things worse when it's inevitably politically coupled with abstinence-only sex education and attempts to limit the availability of contraceptives on every level.


Wait wait wait wait wait.

The right has a PLAN? Is that what they call loading darts into their ass and farting at a dartboard filled with ideas?
 
2014-02-12 01:33:14 PM
The government has spent hundreds of millions since 2001 on promoting marriage and has nothing to show for it.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/11/3275811/marriage-promoti on -money/
 
2014-02-12 01:34:22 PM

keylock71: I've got a campaign slogan for Randy...

"Party like it's 1799!"


Regressive moron.


Randy???

You mean the entire GOP?
 
2014-02-12 01:36:04 PM

Bloody William: Danger Mouse: If you can't afford to have children, don't have children.

/don't care if you get married or not. Just don't expect other taxpayers to pay for your kids.

If you already have children, farkING STARVE TO DEATH.

Guess what? Your great plan has no follow-through and doesn't deal with the already present problem. And it tends to make things worse when it's inevitably politically coupled with abstinence-only sex education and attempts to limit the availability of contraceptives on every level.


Talking about unmarried people who have children. you know, like in the article.
 
2014-02-12 01:37:24 PM
If she comes from poverty, she's not going to have a dowry.  Good luck getting that cow married.

MattStafford: Free + ubiquitous contraceptives, smart + pragmatic sexual education, end the drug war, institute a gradually decreasing minimum income, end welfare bumps for additional kids.

My solution to solve inner city problems.


What do you mean by minimum income?  And no more welfare bumps? How are they going to afford to feed the kid? I don't think there are that many people having kids to get extra welfare.
 
2014-02-12 01:38:45 PM

Danger Mouse: Talking about unmarried people who have children. you know, like in the article.


So... if you can't afford to have children... and you're unmarried and have children... don't have children.

Please look over your logic for a causality error, because unless you're recommending poor people invoke a grandfather paradox, what you're saying doesn't really work.
 
2014-02-12 01:39:10 PM
he's right! at least the newly wed couple will have access to her dowry & maybe get a loan form their parents or sell off some stock... you know, be rich.
 
2014-02-12 01:40:51 PM

BMulligan: It's true that, on average, a married woman is less likely to be poor than a single woman. It seems to me, though, that there may be better solutions to the problem than encouraging women to rush into ill-advised marriages.


Reminds me of an old joke:

A constituent comes in to see SENATOR DOCTOR RAND PAUL, TOTALLY-CERTIFIED EYE SURGEON EXTRAORDINARIE. This constituent is also a doctor (certified by something called the "American Medical Association", which sounds kind of subversive, if you ask me), and he's concerned that people are dying in the poor sections of Kentucky at an alarming rate. He shows SENATOR DR PAUL some maps highlighting the situation, when THE GOOD, GOD-FEARING SENATOR points out a bright spot on the map.

"What's this? Looks like a section where no one's died, surrounded by high-death areas."

The "doctor" explains that that is the rich section of town, with better-funded social services (working sewers, fire/EMS that actually respond, a top-flight hospital - he doesn't mention that they're publicly-funded on all sides of the line. He's not insane, just looking for some help from a Senator), so people actually seek and get treatment, rather than succumbing to their illness.

LIBERTARIAN-MINDED SENATOR DOCTOR RANDALL PAUL, SCION OF ALL PAULISTINIANS AND PROTECTOR OF FREEDOM points his withering gaze as Herr Doktor Freeloadenschatz and asks "Well, why not move the poor people into that spot on the map? No one dies there. Problem solved. FREE MARKET, AWAY!"
 
2014-02-12 01:42:24 PM
Don't be a single mom.

Don't have any access to contraception.

Don't have abortions.

Its easy, Libs.
 
2014-02-12 01:42:30 PM
And if you can't get married in a way that would be legally accepted or recognized by the government just create your own National Board of Marriage and issue yourself your own Marriage Certificate!
 
2014-02-12 01:43:31 PM

Mrembo: keylock71: I've got a campaign slogan for Randy...

"Party like it's 1799!"


Regressive moron.

Randy???

You mean the entire GOP?


Touche.
 
2014-02-12 01:44:17 PM

BMulligan: It's true that, on average, a married woman is less likely to be poor than a single woman. It seems to me, though, that there may be better solutions to the problem than encouraging women to rush into ill-advised marriages.


Very true. If it weren't for ill-advised marriages there would be no Rand Paul.
 
2014-02-12 01:44:20 PM

Danger Mouse: Bloody William: Danger Mouse: If you can't afford to have children, don't have children.

/don't care if you get married or not. Just don't expect other taxpayers to pay for your kids.

If you already have children, farkING STARVE TO DEATH.

Guess what? Your great plan has no follow-through and doesn't deal with the already present problem. And it tends to make things worse when it's inevitably politically coupled with abstinence-only sex education and attempts to limit the availability of contraceptives on every level.

Talking about unmarried people who have children. you know, like in the article.


I see. So your problem isn't so much with poverty, then, as it is with sluts.
 
2014-02-12 01:45:30 PM

Danger Mouse: If you can't afford to have children, don't have children.

/don't care if you get married or not. Just don't expect other taxpayers to pay for your kids.


Congrats.  You've done what nearly ever other short-sighted politician on the right does - take a complex and multifaceted problem, dumb it down by taking away all subtlety, context, and refused to acknowledge the complexity of the issue.  Once you did that, the "solution" jumps right out at you.  It can fit on a bumper sticker, a la "Drill Here, Drill Now", and then complain when your solution isn't implemented.

Guess what?  Your not clever, and your solution doesn't solve the problem in any timeline..  Taking poor, disadvantaged people who have been poor for multiple generations and taking away all help simply creates a large class of people driven to violent desperation.  Now you're dealing with the mass damage and civil unrest they cause, and paying for them to go to jail.  Wealth gaps grow, a generation of children grow up in cities with no chance at a life, and the problem compounds.

You're paying for it either way.  How about we use that money to help them to be better, more productive people, and not spend it on cops, bars, and guards to house them for ten to fifteen?
 
2014-02-12 01:46:15 PM

vernonFL: Don't be a single mom.

Don't have any access to contraception.

Don't have abortions.

Its easy, Libs.


Sex is bad.  Don't do sex.
 
2014-02-12 01:47:38 PM
"Sorry kid, your mom should have thought it through before getting pregnant. As a republican I cannot help you."
 
2014-02-12 01:50:07 PM

Testiclaw: JerseyTim: Why can't we call him by his actual name, Randal Paul?

Randal Rafael Paul!


"Senator" Rangda RAFAEL, Wiggy Starblust, the Plagiartarian, Racist McHairpiece...
 
2014-02-12 01:50:59 PM

palelizard: What do you mean by minimum income?  And no more welfare bumps? How are they going to afford to feed the kid? I don't think there are that many people having kids to get extra welfare.


A basic income.  A cash payment every week instead of food stamps or welfare or section 8 housing.  Essentially, all of the welfare benefits that funnel through bureaucracy we get rid of and just cut them a check instead.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think there are that many either - but the purpose isn't remove an incentive to have kids, the purpose is to create a disincentive to kids.  You shouldn't be having kids unless you are prepared to raise them, and with ubiquitous + free contraceptives, that shouldn't be too difficult.  Hell, make abortions free too while we're at it.
 
2014-02-12 01:51:55 PM

BMulligan: I see. So your problem isn't so much with poverty, then, as it is with sluts.


A whore will have sex with anyone.  A slut will have sex with anyone but me.

Sluts must be punished.

Khellendros: You're paying for it either way. How about we use that money to help them to be better, more productive people, and not spend it on cops, bars, and guards to house them for ten to fifteen?


Who will I feel superior to if that happens?  Who will I blame for societal ills?
 
2014-02-12 01:51:58 PM
*facepalm*
 
2014-02-12 01:54:13 PM

Danger Mouse: If you can't afford to have children, don't have children.

/don't care if you get married or not. Just don't expect other taxpayers to pay for your kids.


Well played, sir...6/10...you'll get some bites.
 
2014-02-12 01:58:00 PM

Wendy's Chili: Testiclaw: JerseyTim: Why can't we call him by his actual name, Randal Paul?

Randal Rafael Paul!

"Senator" Rangda RAFAEL, Wiggy Starblust, the Plagiartarian, Racist McHairpiece...


You forgot "Aqua Buddha".
 
2014-02-12 02:01:03 PM

Cagey B: Wendy's Chili: Testiclaw: JerseyTim: Why can't we call him by his actual name, Randal Paul?

Randal Rafael Paul!

"Senator" Rangda RAFAEL, Wiggy Starblust, the Plagiartarian, Racist McHairpiece...

You forgot "Aqua Buddha".


Yeah, I meant to add "Aqua Buddy" but then I got distracted trying to work in that Southern Avenger nonsense.
 
2014-02-12 02:05:15 PM

BMulligan: Danger Mouse: Bloody William: Danger Mouse: If you can't afford to have children, don't have children.

/don't care if you get married or not. Just don't expect other taxpayers to pay for your kids.

If you already have children, farkING STARVE TO DEATH.

Guess what? Your great plan has no follow-through and doesn't deal with the already present problem. And it tends to make things worse when it's inevitably politically coupled with abstinence-only sex education and attempts to limit the availability of contraceptives on every level.

Talking about unmarried people who have children. you know, like in the article.

I see. So your problem isn't so much with poverty, then, as it is with sluts.


Stupid sluts. And stupid baby daddys.
 
2014-02-12 02:08:57 PM

palelizard: I don't think there are that many people having kids to get extra welfare.


A co-worker of mine has a friend who heard on the radio that welfare queens pop out kids by the dozen to cash in on the gov' dole.
=Smidge=
 
2014-02-12 02:12:54 PM

vernonFL: Don't be a single mom.

Don't have any access to contraception.

Don't have abortions.

Its easy, Libs.


Live the way Republicans want you to live and they won't have to punish you. That's the freedom-loving small government way of modern conservatives.
 
2014-02-12 02:13:27 PM

MattStafford: palelizard: What do you mean by minimum income?  And no more welfare bumps? How are they going to afford to feed the kid? I don't think there are that many people having kids to get extra welfare.

A basic income.  A cash payment every week instead of food stamps or welfare or section 8 housing.  Essentially, all of the welfare benefits that funnel through bureaucracy we get rid of and just cut them a check instead.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think there are that many either - but the purpose isn't remove an incentive to have kids, the purpose is to create a disincentive to kids.  You shouldn't be having kids unless you are prepared to raise them, and with ubiquitous + free contraceptives, that shouldn't be too difficult.  Hell, make abortions free too while we're at it.


I could get behind that. I agree with your other points.  There's other public works that would assist (safe, clean public transport for getting to and from jobs) as well.

Though the decreasing income I don't think will work.  There are too many people who consistently make bad decisions.  Better to have the funded housing, and free meals available in easy to access places (in the housing).  While issuing a flat check would be fine for most people, the personality types likely to use the check for frivolous expenditures are also the types that are more likely to have a detrimental impact on others when they've run out of their money and have nowhere to stay and nothing to eat.  If I blow my monthly income on booze and drugs in the first week, and then waste away hiding in the sewers, well, okay, I made my bed.  But if I'm squatting on the street, panhandling and/or mugging or otherwise committing crime, other people are impacted by my decisions and we've defeated the purpose of cutting me the check in the first place.
 
2014-02-12 02:14:02 PM

Smidge204: A co-worker of mine has a friend who heard on the radio that welfare queens pop out kids by the dozen to cash in on the gov' dole.
=Smidge=


It isn't about removing an incentive, it's about creating a disincentive (at least in my opinion).
 
2014-02-12 02:17:11 PM
"Mawwiage.... Mawwiage is what bwings us togevaar today."
-Rand Paul
 
2014-02-12 02:19:24 PM
When I want to get married, he calls me immoral.
 
2014-02-12 02:19:32 PM
This is a classic example of ignoring stats that are politically inconvenient and fishing for studies that support your world view. It's not rocket science that raising a family on two salaries with two parents and collecting benefits from two employers is easier than on one, nor is it hard to figure out that when you have a baby on purpose you're generally more equipped to handle raising it than someone who has one by accident. I think it's still generally the custom to wait until marriage to decide to have a baby so that means that most of the poor single-parent families didn't intend for that to happen. Free birth control, better sex education and free access to abortions would help people who aren't ready to start a family be able to wait until they are, which means waiting until they're married and in better economic standing in most cases.
 
2014-02-12 02:20:09 PM

Smidge204: palelizard: I don't think there are that many people having kids to get extra welfare.

A co-worker of mine has a friend who heard on the radio that welfare queens pop out kids by the dozen to cash in on the gov' dole.
=Smidge=


Well, yeah.  Otherwise their gold-plated cadillacs look so empty and they'll have no contacts in their Obamaphones.
 
2014-02-12 02:21:42 PM
Because there are no poor married people. None. Not one. (Or, well, two) All married couples are doing just fine. Yeppers. Juuuuuussst fine. No poors who are married. Nary a one (two).

You farking idiot.
 
2014-02-12 02:26:53 PM

MattStafford: It isn't about removing an incentive, it's about creating a disincentive (at least in my opinion).


You seriously believe that those people are smart enough to go "Hmmmm maybe I should use protection right now because it may mean less money in the future".

And why exactly should the children be punished for the decision of their parents?

What proof do you have the disincentives will actually reduce birth rates? You have any reports that suggest this?

I think your idea is actually BS. What you really want to do is "Punish" poor people for having children. You don't actually care if the numbers dropped. Because if you did you would be more supportive of programs that actually HAVE shown to reduce pregnancy down but you probably look at those as "Rewards". OMG THEY ARE GETTING "FREE" BIRTHCONTROL!!!

Like most right wingers I doubt you care about solving the problem. You are instead interested in punish those you have deemed that made  incorrect choices.
 
Displayed 50 of 91 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report