Since when did the definition of “troll” change to “someone with whom you disagree”?
Huh, that many people are “similar nutcases”. Several are parents. I guess the entitled-minded parents aren’t that “vast majority” after all.
What does what we spent our money on while I was still working have to do with anything? We had the money - are you saying we should have just let hi die?
We used to go to Vegas every three months or so too - wanna bitch about that? And note I said “our” money - I still haven’t see a legit reason why I should be paying to build and maintain playgrounds.
Your money’s your money. I won’t argue with you there: Vegas, dog surgery, faberge eggs: if you can afford 'em, spend it however you want. Hopefully nobody’s really quibbling with you there.
But you can’t legitimately gripe about a tiny percentage of your taxes going to parks and the like. We ALL pay taxes that go to programs of which we do not approve and some of us actually vote for the folks who legislate those taxes. You gotta make it to the polls to have a legit gripe there. You saying “Why should I pay for playgrounds if I don’t like the people who use them?” is tantamount to me saying “I’m not disabled, so none of my tax dollars should help the disabled.” Would you have a problem with that?
It didn’t. But kalhoun has admitted to posting things just to get a rise out of other posters. That’s the very definition of trolling.
There is one thing I would like to know.
Why is it that when a child is killed, it is SO much worse than killing an adult?
I understand that the child has not had time to live life enough time, but aren’t all innocent victims equal in value?
I also find it interesting that child molesters are loathed, even by prison inmates. Do not get me wrong, it is awful, but I’ve always thought it was curious that child molesters are the worst of the worst in the eyes of many.
Are you similarly opposed to dog runs?
We already do - not from having them, but from keeping them. Laws which are apparently either extremely weak or hard to enforce since children are left in horrid conditions and returned to abusive parent(s) all the time. I really don’t understand, with this “vast majority” who love children in this country, why it is that so many are left to live in squalor and grow up to run in gangs and do drugs. Maybe it just isn’t the issue elsewhere that it is here, tho I’d think that other big cities like New York and Chicago would be having those same problems.
I’m talking about the fact that any woman in this country can go ahead and have (and keep) a baby without much concern WRT whether or not she can afford it. Octomom is an extreme example, but there she is. 14 children all by artificial means, while she was on welfare and yet last I heard, she still has all of those kids. Two of her kids are getting SSDI but I don’t know where else she is getting her money - she certainly wasn’t working and probably couldn’t now. Wiki has it that “Suleman said she will get by with the help of family, friends, and her church, and she plans to return to school in the fall.” This after filing bankrupcy last year “citing nearly $1 million in liabilities.” The state of California is sending her money and probably paying to send her to school, yet many people see nothing wrong with what she has done and want everyone to just leave her alone.
Re: the crackheads - I dunno if anyone is in favor of it, but the government does give these women money for prenatal (if they bother to go), pays for the birth and any (usually) problems and then sends the baby home with mom and her welfare check. So basically, any woman can have a baby no matter her financial status, whether or not she has anyplace clean enough, whether or not she has abused other children, whether or not she is a crack whore.
You should look into the campaign that the anti-gays ran here before you show any more ignorance on this subject. It may be true what you say about this generation growing up to vote, I have no idea, but that has nothing to do with how their parents voted in the here and now, and one of the major reasons why.
We were talking about children who cannot yet vote.
Your goalposts don’t just shift, they dance.
Pages of debate on whether or not having kids is selfish and you now come up with this? :dubious:
I would hope that people already have at least a modicum of selflessness before having children.
A loooooong time ago. It helps them feel better about themselves to think they are heaping abuse on a “troll” rather than a “fellow human”.
Nobody would argue that our Stereotype Crackhead Mama should be a mother. The issue is that she conceived and she is a mother. She has a child and society tries (however flawed those attempts are) at protecting the child, who is completely innocent. The Octomom is a similar case: I wish she didn’t have this creepy desire to have an entire soccer team’s worth of children, but, being that I can’t control that, I have no problem with pennies of my personal taxes to protecting these children, who are culpable in no way at all. I can join you in griping about mothers who have no right being mothers in the first place, but society’s attempts at protecting the unfortunate (in this case, those children) are things to be praised not shouted down. Ditto goes for the money I’m taxed for, say, SSDI: it allows for a better quality of life for those who weren’t dealt an easy hand. I think it’s a parallel you should think about.
I can legitimately gripe about anything I want, however playgrounds (not parks) are just one of many things my tax dollars are going to that benefit only children and parents. And playgrounds are something they just flat out don’t need.
What taxes do you pay that go to programs you don’t approve of?
No, I don’t gotta make it to the polls, because it doesn’t make a bit of difference if I vote or not. Which is why I no longer bother.
Are there tax payer funded programs for the disabled adults? (Well, other than the military who get disabled.) And don’t be starting up with SSDI again - just because the government robs Peter to pay Paul doesn’t mean it wasn’t my money at some point.
I tend to wonder about this too - I think I may have mentioned it at one point before I got shouted down. Seems to me it would be more tragic to lose an adult, who is much more likely to be missed by many more people, outside of just close family, not to mention more likely to be leaving a hole in a business someplace.
I’ve been saying this from the beginning. It’s stupid to feel insulted when someone calls you selfish.
I mean what’s more selfish than begrudging children playgrounds after all?
I don’t believe they do, and based on what you’ve said here I believe you have less than average. One of the great things about society is that we can have mutual selfishness that benefits quite a great number of people. There are perfectly logical reasons to work together with other people for selfish reasons.
If paid for by the taxpayer, yes. I don’t use them so I don’t know how they are funded locally. OTOH, it’s quite likely that the reason those came to be is because parents bitched about “those dangerous dogs” using the park with their widdle pwecious, so now the dogs are behind a fence and pwecious is safe. Plus, they are much cheaper to create and almost zero maintainence.
MY goalposts? You change the subject and then blame me? Go back and read my post that started this little sub-sub thread - I clearly said “parents”. Here, I’ll help you because I can see it on review - I posted in yesterday at 08:31 PM.
They improve quality of life in the same way dog parks do, or upkeep of foliage on my street. We don’t need any of those things; I’m simply happier living in a city with open spaces that invite its citizens outside.
Besides wars I wrote my congresswoman to oppose? Not a big fan of space shuttle missions either. Or NCLB. There are plenty.
If you do not participate, your gripes are simply less valid. You’ve removed yourself from the system, but you bitch about the system. So how’s it going to change? Do you write your congressperson? Donate to worthy campaigns? Otherwise, you’re just whining for the sake of it—which is pretty limp. If you don’t try to change things then you shouldn’t be complaining when they stay the same.
I’m not well-versed in tax-payer funded programs for the disabled. Perhaps another poster is. For the record, I’d have no problem with you getting some of my tax money for a legit disability, regardless of how I feel about you. It seems simple to me.
This, however, is really disturbing. It can be nothing but perverse trolling.
By sending it home with Crackhead Mom? It doesn’t take a brain at all to see that is a really Bad Idea, but since society has this idea that all women have a RIGHT to children, they take that “chance” of sending the baby home every time.
Well, for one thing, unless you are living in California you aren’t paying much more than pennies, if that. For another, we wouldn’t have to pay anything if they had taken kid #1 away from her at birth - heck, if they had done that she might not have even had #'s 2 - 14. No matter how nuts she is, I can’t see her paying out big bucks for AI if she knew that she wasn’t going to get to keep the babies. If you want to protect these children, why do you support sending them home to a woman you think is creepy and who apparently has no means to support them?
Yeah right. Me paying into SS for decades is the same thing as those 2 kids drawing it, having never worked. You are taxed for SS because (suposedly) you will be allowed to draw on it when you retire/become disabled, not because you are supporting me, or those 2 kids. The realities of the way the government messes with money doesn’t negate the intent of the program.