Reading the two articles made you:
More for Obama
47.2% (25)
47.2% (25)
More for Romney
13.2% (7)
13.2% (7)
Stayed the same
22.6% (12)
22.6% (12)
other
17% (9)
17% (9)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Julia: two visions of a citizen's relationship to government

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

I love to the discussion thread popping up that if I can't tell a woman what to do with her earned benefits then it's religious persecution.

To those of you like "it's the government forcing secular values on women", you realise they don't force you to use or take contraceptives right?

"But their employee's money and benefits might be used on things I don't liiiiike", I hear you say? Too fucking bad? Since when did your employer get to dictate yours or my religious views? People so goddamn desperately want this to be an issue of an employer being forced to "pay" for things they disagree with, but it's always been about them refusing to use benefits you've earned in a legal way you want.

I love this bullshit idea that if you earn any benefit in lieu of cash like insurance or stock or something, you're an entitled baby for not letting your employer run your life. But if a rich person signs themselves a golden parachute in severance packages to ensure its too expensive to fire them, then you can't bitch, because that's their "earned benefit" due to their years of hard work running companies into the ground and laying off most their work force. If you complain or tax them these bravehearted job creators might John Galt and take their valuable skills at widening the income gap elsewhere!

Remember, if your rich anything you make in lieu of money is "earned" and so sacred we have to worship your prowess, but if you're not anything you earn in lieu of cold hard cash (and sometimes even then) is an "entitlement", and you should get on you knees and work the shaft in thanks for it.

It boils down to the truth after all, that if the rich spend money on anything even caviar, it's a "job creating investment", but apparently the non-rich buying shit is a "waste" of money (which is why Republicans love to tax the poor), and in no way contributes to turning the wheel of the economy, and their patronage of services and goods in no way creates jobs. We absolutely must worship these paragons of men, who bravely set up a middle man between Uss making and us consuming shit we want.

Damien Granz:
I love to the discussion thread popping up that if I can't tell a woman what to do with her earned benefits then it's religious persecution.

I don't know why and it's not strictly related to the discussion, but this suddenly reminded me of a sarcastic list of reasons why god exists which make fun of the American religious conservatives:

ARGUMENT FROM DENTAL OPPORTUNITY ACCEPTED, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (IV)
(1) Bite me.
(2) OW! YOU BIT ME!
(3) I'm being persecuted!!
(4) Therefore, God exists!

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

And quite frankly I think the way religious conservatives try to completely reverse the actual situation like they're entitled to controlling other's lives either from 'morals' or 'but it's my taxes' much like you describe is something weird.

This troubles me, on one hand, I like Obama more than I like Romney. On the other hand I don't like the government running so many things, I prefer them running a few important things well, and this game plan Obama seems to be pushing stretches government authority to a level I don't think they can handle (with any sort of skill) or should handle.

On the other hand I'm a vortigaunt.

Damien Granz:
but apparently the non-rich buying shit is a "waste" of money (which is why Republicans love to tax the poor)

The poor aren't really taxed though, so I think this idea that Republicans hate the poor and only the Democrats care is unnecessary pro-two party rhetoric. I'm considered "lower class" with my $16,000 a year, but last year I paid $72 bucks in taxes (+$50 to get them done). And I don't even claim dependents, if I did I'd actually be getting money back.

Feel free to rip on Republicans where they deserve it, (and dear God are there a ton of things we should rip on them for) but painting poor people as a defenseless child we need to save from the evil Republicans is unnecessary.

Vryyk:
I'm considered "lower class" with my $16,000 a year, but last year I paid $72 bucks in taxes (+$50 to get them done). And I don't even claim dependents, if I did I'd actually be getting money back.

So you paid half a percent of your annual income for tax? I wonder how you pulled that one off without anyone sticking their nose into it, really.

Amnestic:

Gorfias:

How about, it's against your religion

Really? Point out to me where any religion states

"Thou shalt not subsidize female birth control."

Be fruitful and multiply. Some religious dogma holds that avoiding pregnancy, including the rhythm method is against this command.

Katatori-kun:

Gorfias:
It is immoral to spend one's life thinking the way to get by is to live off of your neighbors.

I'll accept your correction on my typing the wrong word, but your disagreement with my overall comment is just so much pointless hot air until you can show some evidence that backs up anything you are saying.

A person that decides to spend a lifetime living off of others is, on its face, exploitation of others. It is as if you have, to some extent, enslaved others. Western culture has decided that slavery is immoral.

thaluikhain:
... not every single mother needs government support. That does not translate to none needing it....

In that case, I want the most immediate authority possible assessing the situation. If not the individual, the extended family. If not them, the community. The city or town. The county. If not the county, the state. By the time you get the Fed involved, they have no idea who this person is or how not to make a program that doesn't subsidize socially destructive behavior.

Imperator_DK:

Gorfias:
...Government daycare has the economic impact of steering women out of their homes.

...and this is bad?

More women at work means a larger workforce and thus a better economy. And that the individual women have the option to choose whether they want to stay at home to raise the children, or go out and earn their own money. I really can't see that being negative.

The negative is that the government, using the market and the power of government, has intruded into the private lives of families, in essence making decisions for them they might not want. Some women would actually love to stay in the home and raise their children. Sure, a woman can say, "screw you, I'll do with less and stay home anyway." That is still her choice, but she is now in real terms harmed: her husband must now pay extra taxes to support another woman's child in day care. Her husband's resources are supposed to be meant for her family, not anothers.

Vryyk:

Damien Granz:
but apparently the non-rich buying shit is a "waste" of money (which is why Republicans love to tax the poor)

The poor aren't really taxed though, so I think this idea that Republicans hate the poor and only the Democrats care is unnecessary pro-two party rhetoric. I'm considered "lower class" with my $16,000 a year, but last year I paid $72 bucks in taxes (+$50 to get them done). And I don't even claim dependents, if I did I'd actually be getting money back.

Feel free to rip on Republicans where they deserve it, (and dear God are there a ton of things we should rip on them for) but painting poor people as a defenseless child we need to save from the evil Republicans is unnecessary.

That sounds like a lie or your 'income' is all investment or trust fund allowances, or you don't understand exactly what you payed in taxes.

And the latter is highly likely if somebody making 16,000 a year payed somebody 50 dollars to do their taxes, when IRS legally demands that somebody making that little can get their federal taxes done online for free, so if you got suckered that hard by a 'tax consultant' chances are you have no fucking idea what you actually payed.

Yes, paying 16,000 a year means you likely didn't pay a separate 'income' tax on your income. Though actually you likely did pay it all year long, you just likely got it refunded back as a tax credit, or you should had, but apparently you didn't even fill out your claimants right because you still owed 22 dollars somehow when you shouldn't had owed even that.

This whole story is suspect to hell and back.

But what you're probably not paying attention to, or noticing is that you would had payed 8% of your income in payroll taxes, which isn't even the same as income taxes, which you wouldn't get back, and would be a lot more than 12 fucking dollars.

So if somebody tells you that you didn't pay taxes on your income, they're full of fucking shit. You payed taxes on your income, it just wasn't 'income' tax. It was payroll.

Here's a thing too. You payed 22 dollars, supposedly, on income tax? Then you still payed more in income tax than Steve Jobs did during his last full year alive.

Of course, Jobs payed about 12% of his total earnings, but all that was on capital gains taxes, not income. He payed nothing in income tax because his income was nothing.

You see how and why claiming somebody doesn't pay taxes if you only count one 'type' is stupid and misleading?

Not to mention that you payed state and probably local taxes, sales tax, property tax (if you own anything), excise taxes, etc. And it's been found that the rich generally pay a smaller portion of that because they can afford to live in places that don't rely on them as much.

So yeah, I'm either going to have to call a large heaping of bullshit, or you're not giving the whole story (like how you're a disabled minor who's also a parent or something), or you don't know what you actually payed, or you're breaking the law.

Gorfias:

Amnestic:

Gorfias:

How about, it's against your religion

Really? Point out to me where any religion states

"Thou shalt not subsidize female birth control."

Be fruitful and multiply. Some religious dogma holds that avoiding pregnancy, including the rhythm method is against this command.

Which religious dogma? I'm guessing you mean Catholics. Looking over the 98% of Catholic Women in the US have used birth control (and indeed, what is a religion if not its people?), I will also note that Catholic dogma is against IVF pregnancies. This objection is in direct opposition to 'be fruitful and multiply'.

Even overlooking that, "be fruitful and multiply" is up to an incredible amount of interpretation. Should we start shackling women to the bedroom and forcing them to be pregnant permanently? I mean, that's one interpretation.

Even overlooking that,

Genesis 1:28:
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

I'd say we already have filled the earth and 'subdued' it. Thus, one could quite easily say the command no longer applies.

EVEN OVERLOOKING THAT,

It's a command from Genesis 1. Why isn't the command metaphorical like, you know, Garden of Eden is?

EVEN OVERLOOKING THAT

It's from the Old Testament. I thought we were meant to scrap that, right? New Covenant? Or should Catholic dogma start including selling daughters as slaves and stoning adulterers again?

In short, the religious objection is stupid. I guess 'context' isn't important when it lets Catholics control their womenfolk, amirite?

Oh, and

EVEN OVERLOOKING THAT

Just because you use birth control once doesn't mean you're never going to have kids. It's not as if hormonal birth control ties your tubes or a condom performs a vasectomy on you. What if they're not ready for a kid but - understandably - want to enjoy the pleasures of sex? I guess poor people shouldn't be allowed to have sex either, amirite?

Vegosiux:

Vryyk:
I'm considered "lower class" with my $16,000 a year, but last year I paid $72 bucks in taxes (+$50 to get them done). And I don't even claim dependents, if I did I'd actually be getting money back.

So you paid half a percent of your annual income for tax? I wonder how you pulled that one off without anyone sticking their nose into it, really.

Let me explain it a bit better, I paid more than that out of my paychecks, but I got most of it back at the end of the year. Seventy-two bucks is what the difference between the total from all my paychecks and the tax rebate I received at the end of the year was, the fifty bucks is what I paid HR Block to do my state taxes for me. The federal tax return was free. If the number seems a bit low, I'm assuming wherever you live you pay a good bit more in taxes than we do, especially if you live in Europe. My roommate actually got about eighty bucks back because of military tax breaks.

Damien Granz:

And the latter is highly likely if somebody making 16,000 a year payed somebody 50 dollars to do their taxes, when IRS legally demands that somebody making that little can get their federal taxes done online for free, so if you got suckered that hard by a 'tax consultant' chances are you have no fucking idea what you actually payed.

Wipe the foam off your mouth and consider that Americans also pay a state tax. That's what I paid fifty for, and only because I'm lazy, I'm well aware a 1040EZ would have been free, but I was busy. The federal return was free.

More for Obama. I'm not fond of how the Julia's life thing described some of the benefits to Obama's policies in abstract assumptions, but I'm aware of Rich Lowry's work and he's the definition of a frothing propagandist, if not an all around tool.

Amnestic:
Paraphrase: "Gives arguments against religious dogma banning contraceptives"

Good arguments all, and yet some people disagree with you. Their supposed to have that right and live as they want, as long as they're not matierially harming you. If they tried to outlaw your right to purchase birth control, or purchase the insurance coverage of your choice that includes birth control, I personally would oppose them. But if you want the Federal government to be able to coerce Catholic charities into paying for abortions and contraceptives, I think that's wrong. I think a substantial majority of Americans are with me: both on opposing bans on your rights, or coercion of Catholics.

Gorfias:
But if you want the Federal government to be able to coerce Catholic charities into paying for abortions and contraceptives, I think that's wrong. I think a substantial majority of Americans are with me: both on opposing bans on your rights, or coercion of Catholics.

I don't want TEH EVIL GUBMINT to be able to force Christian Scientist businesses into paying for ANY medical treatment. In unrelated news, I expect the Church of Jesus Christ Scientists to get a LOT of new recruits in short order.

I also don't want MY precious tax money going to bail out bankers or blow up Iraqis, so I guess we're BOTH outta luck, eh?

I'm curious to see how a law mandating equal pay for equal work (a law that shouldn't be necessary) is somehow "state-sponsored bigotry against men." White Male Persecution Complex, exhibit No. infinity.

arbane:

I don't want TEH EVIL GUBMINT to be able to force Christian Scientist businesses into paying for ANY medical treatment. In unrelated news, I expect the Church of Jesus Christ Scientists to get a LOT of new recruits in short order.

I also don't want MY precious tax money going to bail out bankers or blow up Iraqis, so I guess we're BOTH outta luck, eh?

After careful study and many communications with other forum members, I have deduced, with my way above average super mind, that when you use magenta, you are not being serious. But yeah, if Christian scientists only want to be insured for leaches, I just don't understand what it is to you.

And yeah, we are out of luck. I don't appreciate that my tax dollar was used to kill people in Libya, a nation we are not at war with.

Tyler Perry:
I'm curious to see how a law mandating equal pay for equal work (a law that shouldn't be necessary) is somehow "state-sponsored bigotry against men." White Male Persecution Complex, exhibit No. infinity.

Did you know that in Apartheid South Africa, they had affirmative action for WHITE people? Without it, business didn't want to hire them because they could get black people to generate higher profits.

If you told business people that they could cut their human resources costs 30% just by firing men and replacing them with women, there wouldn't be an employed man in the country. the figure is bullshit and if businesses are put in fear of lawsuits, they will effect policies that discriminate against men to protect themselves. And that just sucks for anyone that cares about fairness.

Vryyk:

Damien Granz:

And the latter is highly likely if somebody making 16,000 a year payed somebody 50 dollars to do their taxes, when IRS legally demands that somebody making that little can get their federal taxes done online for free, so if you got suckered that hard by a 'tax consultant' chances are you have no fucking idea what you actually payed.

Wipe the foam off your mouth and consider that Americans also pay a state tax. That's what I paid fifty for, and only because I'm lazy, I'm well aware a 1040EZ would have been free, but I was busy. The federal return was free.

Those free tax services charge about 6 bucks to do state and local for you, too. But of course, you buying a gold plated tax return because robots doing to was too much work still addressed roughly 0 of my points.

arbane:

Gorfias:
But if you want the Federal government to be able to coerce Catholic charities into paying for abortions and contraceptives, I think that's wrong. I think a substantial majority of Americans are with me: both on opposing bans on your rights, or coercion of Catholics.

I don't want TEH EVIL GUBMINT to be able to force Christian Scientist businesses into paying for ANY medical treatment. In unrelated news, I expect the Church of Jesus Christ Scientists to get a LOT of new recruits in short order.

I also don't want MY precious tax money going to bail out bankers or blow up Iraqis, so I guess we're BOTH outta luck, eh?

Not to mention my tax money went to giving GE a tax credit to send work overseas, wasn't exactly my idea too. Almost like a single shareholder in the country doesn't get to decide what the whole country does by themselves, and yet, has to vote for changes or representatives.. hmm

Gorfias:

After careful study and many communications with other forum members, I have deduced, with my way above average super mind, that when you use magenta, you are not being serious. But yeah, if Christian scientists only want to be insured for leaches, I just don't understand what it is to you.

And yeah, we are out of luck. I don't appreciate that my tax dollar was used to kill people in Libya, a nation we are not at war with.

You realize we haven't been at war with anybody since World War 2, right? Including Iraq?

Also, how the hell did you miss the Poe's Law text color being sarcastic? Arbane's conversations must had seemed real damn peculiar if you read all the pink text as not ironic or not sarcastic...

Gorfias:
Did you know that in Apartheid South Africa, they had affirmative action for WHITE people? Without it, business didn't want to hire them because they could get black people to generate higher profits.

Free market, baby!

Mandating equal pay for equal work is not "affirmative action," no matter how you slice it.

Gorfias:
If you told business people that they could cut their human resources costs 30% just by firing men and replacing them with women, there wouldn't be an employed man in the country. the figure is bullshit and if businesses are put in fear of lawsuits, they will effect policies that discriminate against men to protect themselves. And that just sucks for anyone that cares about fairness.

Well, considering that women have been grossly underpaid for doing similar work in relation to men for going on how many decades now, I'm surprised nobody has tried that yet.

Tyler Perry:

Gorfias:
If you told business people that they could cut their human resources costs 30% just by firing men and replacing them with women, there wouldn't be an employed man in the country. the figure is bullshit and if businesses are put in fear of lawsuits, they will effect policies that discriminate against men to protect themselves. And that just sucks for anyone that cares about fairness.

Well, considering that women have been grossly underpaid for doing similar work in relation to men for going on how many decades now, I'm surprised nobody has tried that yet.

You do realize what you wrote makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.... unless you are writing that bottom line, near sociopathic business types hire men at higher wages than women just because they're really nice like that to men?

Rubbish.

Implying the Government is not already broke.

Gorfias:

Tyler Perry:

Gorfias:
If you told business people that they could cut their human resources costs 30% just by firing men and replacing them with women, there wouldn't be an employed man in the country. the figure is bullshit and if businesses are put in fear of lawsuits, they will effect policies that discriminate against men to protect themselves. And that just sucks for anyone that cares about fairness.

Well, considering that women have been grossly underpaid for doing similar work in relation to men for going on how many decades now, I'm surprised nobody has tried that yet.

You do realize what you wrote makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.... unless you are writing that bottom line, near sociopathic business types hire men at higher wages than women just because they're really nice like that to men?

Rubbish.

Are you fucking kidding me? Are you now arguing that men DON'T make more money than women for equal work?

http://www.now.org/issues/economic/factsheet.html

It's like you live in some sort of alternate reality.

Tyler Perry:

Gorfias:

Tyler Perry:

Well, considering that women have been grossly underpaid for doing similar work in relation to men for going on how many decades now, I'm surprised nobody has tried that yet.

You do realize what you wrote makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.... unless you are writing that bottom line, near sociopathic business types hire men at higher wages than women just because they're really nice like that to men?

Rubbish.

Are you fucking kidding me? Are you now arguing that men DON'T make more money than women for equal work?

http://www.now.org/issues/economic/factsheet.html

It's like you live in some sort of alternate reality.

Of course he lives in an alternate reality, it is such a common thing for Americans there is even a name for it, it is called being a Republican.

Gorfias:

Katatori-kun:

Gorfias:
It is immoral to spend one's life thinking the way to get by is to live off of your neighbors.

I'll accept your correction on my typing the wrong word, but your disagreement with my overall comment is just so much pointless hot air until you can show some evidence that backs up anything you are saying.

A person that decides to spend a lifetime living off of others is, on its face, exploitation of others. It is as if you have, to some extent, enslaved others. Western culture has decided that slavery is immoral.

Get back to me when you have a comment that has anything whatsoever to do with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Supporting legislation that protects women from sexual discrimination doesn't have anything to do with "a lifetime living off of others". The suggestion is so preposterously sexist that it's a wonder it's not recognized as trolling.

Damien Granz:

you buying a gold plated tax return because robots doing to was too much work still addressed roughly 0 of my points.

Oh God, what was that supposed to say? That was the worst written post I've seen in a bit. (If English isn't your first language sorry).

Amnestic:

Gorfias:
Julia is able to force other people to pay for her birth control. I think most Americans oppose that.

If so, most Americans are fucking stupid. There's no two ways about it. Ensuring free (or near-to-free), freely accessible birth control is an enormous cost saver. The only reason to oppose it is if you're a) stupid or b) have a hard-on for keeping women shackled to the kitchen with a chain long enough to reach the bedroom.

Pick one.

Can you please tell me the requirement people need for sex? Why is so valuable that it most be free?

All protected sex is ENTERTAINMENT, when you break it down. You do it because you like it, not because you need it. Should the government pay for my Wii and TV? My laptop? My cell phone?

Why should protection be handed out like candy, either subsudizing or destroying an entire industry?

OT: Both of these articles made me even gladder I am voting for the Libertarian Party this year.

Not G. Ivingname:
Can you please tell me the requirement people need for sex? Why is so valuable that it most be free?

You're reasoning the wrong way around: First start off by explaining why are you entitled to controlling people bodies, lives and sexuality? Because failing that, you're really in no position to tell what other people who to screw and when.

Blablahb:

Not G. Ivingname:
Can you please tell me the requirement people need for sex? Why is so valuable that it most be free?

You're reasoning the wrong way around: First start off by explaining why are you entitled to controlling people bodies, lives and sexuality? Because failing that, you're really in no position to tell what other people who to screw and when.

No, I am entitled to not having to pay for people's hobbies. You want to have gay bondage sex at three in the afternoon? Go right ahead. However, the people doing the act should be the ones paying the bills, just like every other activity.

Tyler Perry:

are writing that bottom line, near sociopathic business types hire men at higher wages than women just because they're really nice like that to men?

Are you now arguing that men DON'T make more money than women for equal work?

http://www.now.org/issues/economic/factsheet.html

I'm writing those business people see something in those men they think worth paying for, or they'd be fired and replaced with women.

You can believe it or not, but I've spoke with business managers of both genders, and in times of frustration, they've said if they could get away with it, they'd never hire another woman ever again. I've not heard the same thing of men.

Katatori-kun:
Get back to me when you have a comment that has anything whatsoever to do with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

See above.

Not G. Ivingname:

Blablahb:

Not G. Ivingname:
Can you please tell me the requirement people need for sex? Why is so valuable that it most be free?

You're reasoning the wrong way around: First start off by explaining why are you entitled to controlling people bodies, lives and sexuality? Because failing that, you're really in no position to tell what other people who to screw and when.

No, I am entitled to not having to pay for people's hobbies. You want to have gay bondage sex at three in the afternoon? Go right ahead. However, the people doing the act should be the ones paying the bills, just like every other activity.

Then the poor will die, go homeless or fill the (already full) orphanages.

People are going to have sex. Short of implimenting some sort of wave which kills off sex drive a la Half Life 2, you're not gonna stop that. Ever. Pregnancy (and 9 months after, a baby) generally follows soon after.

Considering the rather large costs of having a child in America today, you're stuck with very few non-taxpayer-paid options.

But hey, if you're endorsing the poor dying in the streets that's cool, I just wanna be clear about what's gonna happen in the real world and not Libertarian Paradise Island.

Amnestic:
(without government subsidized contraceptives)...

Then the poor will die, go homeless or fill the (already full) orphanages.

People are going to have sex. Short of implimenting some sort of wave which kills off sex drive a la Half Life 2, you're not gonna stop that. Ever. Pregnancy (and 9 months after, a baby) generally follows soon after.

Considering the rather large costs of having a child in America today, you're stuck with very few non-taxpayer-paid options.

But hey, if you're endorsing the poor dying in the streets that's cool, I just wanna be clear about what's gonna happen in the real world and not Libertarian Paradise Island.

Er, Griswold was only decided in the mid 1960s. Your nightmare senario did not exist prior.

Not G. Ivingname:
No, I am entitled to not having to pay for people's hobbies. You want to have gay bondage sex at three in the afternoon? Go right ahead. However, the people doing the act should be the ones paying the bills, just like every other activity.

So if you get run over by a truck tomorrow, we should just throw what's left of you in the gutter to die, saying "His problem. His hobby to go crossing roads. He should pay the bill, obviously"?

Also, sex is a hobby now? There's this race, called humans, and much like every other species on planet earth they have this instinct to screw eachother. You might've noticed all these humans around. It's a rather powerfull drive. Not something one can frame as an entirely optional activity prone to casual judgement by hypocrites who wants others to pay their bills, but not contribute to others.

Not G. Ivingname:
No, I am entitled to not having to pay for people's hobbies. You want to have gay bondage sex at three in the afternoon? Go right ahead. However, the people doing the act should be the ones paying the bills, just like every other activity.

I've never quite understood this seemingly pathological lack of pragmatism generally exhibited by americans on the right wing.

People will fuck, and that will never change. Now, either you do something to lower the costs to society for that fucking now, or society will have to foot the bill later. Do you want to pay more of your taxes later to compensate for what the government refused to do earlier?

Ray Charles could see that it's a bad idea to ignore the issue of contraceptives. Lack of contraceptives will cost a shitload more than subsidising them could ever do, yet you ignore that in favour of...what, exactly? You're still paying for other people's fucking in the end, what with all the expenses that have to be covered by tax dollars, like orphanages or emergency healthcare. The only difference is that, by doing things your way, you are paying more rather than paying less. Why do you want to pay more?

I love the "I don't want to pay for others" argument. Where the fuck do you think the insurance money goes. The people that pay more in insurance than they actually use, you guys are paying for the healthcare of those that receive more in care than what they paid into insurance.

The birth control issue is simple, it is all about the economics. It is cheaper to provide birth control than it is to pay for an unwanted child.

Gorfias:

Er, Griswold was only decided in the mid 1960s. Your nightmare senario did not exist prior.

The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy".

Although the law was passed in 1879, the statute was almost never enforced.

-Wikipedia.

Your objection is noted and laughably rejected.

Amnestic:

Gorfias:

Er, Griswold was only decided in the mid 1960s. Your nightmare senario did not exist prior.

The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy".

Although the law was passed in 1879, the statute was almost never enforced.

-Wikipedia.

Your objection is noted and laughably rejected.

Nothing you just wrote is on point. :-0 !!! SUSTAINED!

People did not have a "right" to contraceptives until that case. They certainly did not have a "right" to have other people pay for their contraceptives. Again, before this case, your nightmare scenario did not exist. You fail!

EDIT: Another good one on "Julia"

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/298946/mamas-don-t-let-your-babies-grow-brto-be-julia-michelle-malkin

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked