So we have to supplement the lifestyles of those with no self discipline? And the last I checked every method available was still legal. Nobody has banned anything.
Once again, refusing to pay for something and outright prohibiting something are 2 different things. You’re argument that they are the same is absurd.
I bolded the statement in question.
What is exactly wrong or illegal about that? Go to a different gas station or store then.
Problem solved.
But it’s probably 3,000 miles away if you believe k9bfriender. Don’t you know the majority of Americas poor live in a cave in the middle of Wyoming?
And they can’t afford $7-$10. Even though many of them will have cable TV, DVD players, and other non-essentials. Plus they are too impulsive to use condoms and foam. We have to pay for their pills so they can fuck immediately whenever they want. But Republican Congressmen are racing back to Washington to ban those pills as we post, so it’s a moot point.
:rolleyes:
Hahah.
I seriously do not understand it. It really is a question of personal priorities. About half of those I see that would qualify as ‘poor’, from passing through shit neighborhoods or going to Wal-Mart or ALDI between the first and third of the month, have expensive shoes, smartphones, designer bags (even the knockoffs are expensive) and some outside with all of the above smoking cigs and some are obese to boot. Now we should pay more so they can have extra conveniences of birth control outside of condoms?
Condoms and ‘pulling out’ have been very effective for me in the last decade. It must be because of my ‘privilege’ though. Should we also pay for the ‘disenfranchised’ or those that lack self control and discipline when they flush condoms and clog their septic tanks?
For k9bfriender and others
I am not against assistance for people who need it, it was used for a short period by my family when I was young, but where do we draw the line k9bfriender? Where does personal responsibility end and government assistance begin? Perhaps that is the more important question here.
Please cite your claim that according to me it is 3,000 miles away or stop repeating your inaccurate statement.
Now I did live in an apartment for a few years where the only gas station within walking distance was a UDF. If you don’t have a car, the gas station the next exit up may as well be 3,000 miles away.
Nice classicist attitude there. “Many of them” is a nice generalization that allows you to paint all the people that you sneer at with the same brush. You don’t know them, you just know what your confirmation bias informs you.
Oh how fun it is to laugh at those you see as beneath you.
Once again, confirmation bias at work. You pass 100 poor people, and you notice a few that have things that you don’t think that they deserve. Expensive shoes? Well, even when I was impoverished for a few years, my shoes were by far the most expensive part of my wardrobe. I wore them everyday, unlike most of my clothes, and I was on my feet 10 or more hours a day, so having shoes that didn’t destroy my feet was useful. Plus, when I would by cheap shoes, they would wear out much faster than expensive shoes, ending up costing me more money in the long run. Smart phones? Everyone has one of those these days (except for me, for some reason). Do they have a computer at home as you do? Probably not. They do all the things that you do on your computer on their phone, expect the phone is cheaper than the computer, and is actually more useful as well.
Poor people do smoke, that’s a problem, but it’s an addiction that is hard to beat. Even harder when your life is shit, and even harder when people like you are adding to that shit. And your fat shaming is just unnecessary and cruel. It is expensive to eat healthy, and it is hard to stay in shape when you are on your feet all day already.
Well, this is a discussion about the GOP’s stance on birth control, and the likelihood of them pushing for legislation to further restrict it, but you two have largely turned it into a gleeful bash fest on the poor. I will say that personally, I am for a basic income, to ensure that everyone has the ability to live a life with dignity, even if they do not have the ability to do something that someone else finds productive enough for them to gain a living wage from that. We take care of people with mental and physical disabilities, as we can see that they are obvious, and they prevent the person from being able to take care of themselves. But, when someone shows that they are incapable of caring for themselves due to their lack of education, drive, intelligence, perseverance, mental stability, or just poor luck, we say that it is their fault for not taking responsibility for their actions, and leave them to rot. If someone is not able to manage to support themselves, then that is the definition of someone that needs help, not the scorn that you are dishing out.
Back to the subject at hand, my point about the UDFs was not to get nasty commentary about thousands of miles, but to show that there are influential people in the GOP community who do push for legislating what they consider to be family values. They have pushed for local laws to restrict the sale of family planning products in other stores in the area. They haven’t gotten much traction, but that is something that could change, given the current political climate and their ability to donate limitless funds to candidates who favor their positions. Birth control used to be illegal entirely, and even more recently was illegal for unmarried women to purchase or posses. There are elements in the GOP party who would like to bring back those laws.
If you want to argue that they are not a large enough part of the community to get traction and get those laws changed, that is a valid debate we can have. But to make snide commentary to divert from he fact that there really are influential people in your party who want to return to how things really were in the past is to entirely miss the point.
I can only assume that missing the point and diverting the argument into insulting those less fortunate was not the intent.
Sorry pal, wrong. I wasn’t insulting anyone. Those are observations. This liberal copout with ‘confirmation bias’ is really irritating. Where was I fat shaming in that? Where did I somehow ‘act’ through words like they are beneath me.
Every. Single. Item. You examined in your reply are excuses. I cannot and will not debate with you if you are basing everything off of emotion.
Good day, though!
It’s strange to me that many conservatives prefer to subsidize the feeding, clothing, housing and medical care of unplanned children born to poor women rather than subsidize contraceptives. It sure seems like it’d be way more expensive in the long run, but these are highly rational people so I can only assume they’ve done the cost/benefit analysis.
Many don’t want to subsidize any of it but will in dire cases, instead promoting the ideals of the family unit and self-reliance instead, and allowing the states to decide if they want to help in those respects instead of a federal government forcing support.
What if I told you there was a really easy, relatively inexpensive way to drastically reduce the number of those “dire cases”? You may want to take a seat, because this one’s gonna knock your support stockings off!