Dem leadership: Babies a burden on economy

[KingCondanomation]

Just to sum up, Pelosi is pretty clear that she supports contraception, which prevents the sperm & egg from ever even meeting. Dano parlays that into "babies," which apparently, Pelosi is asserting "are a burden," and goes on to say that Dems DEMAND the "sacrifice of life."

And Damo seems to have no problem w/ that.

Okay. I think my work is done here.

You realize when I say sacrifice, I am not talking about placing anything on some altar and killing it right? You do understand metaphors?
They are using other people's money to encourage people to give up having kids while the economy is bad and states budgets are hurting, they are pushing that they make some sacrifice in their lives.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

She said less births would reduce costs, that is a very clear implication on her part that babies are a burden on the economy.

Let me get this straight.

Dano, you believe that a low birth rate does not put less strain on the economy?

It very clearly and obviously does. And she is advocating lowering the birth rate through completely voluntary means. This is common sense. You are mentally diseased.

 

[Damocles]

Just to sum up, Pelosi is pretty clear that she supports contraception, which prevents the sperm & egg from ever even meeting. Dano parlays that into "babies," which apparently, Pelosi is asserting "are a burden," and goes on to say that Dems DEMAND the "sacrifice of life."

And Damo seems to have no problem w/ that.

Okay. I think my work is done here.

Ignoring that I never said I support that assertion, only that it was disingenuous to suggest that she didn't say what she said.

You posted that you objected to the line, "She didn't say that the babies would be a burden..."

We have demonstrated that it was disingenuous to suggest so.

Then it was even more so to suggest that I supported a totally different assertion.

 

[Cancel3]

And single mothers or welfare?

Did anyone on the left ever think that the strongest way to prevent unwanted pregnancies is to stop having the state fund and pay for the results of unwanted pregnancies?
If there was no social welfare, housing, food stamps, Medicaid, etc..., people would be far more careful as they once were because the vast cost of raising a child would be on their shoulders and not on the rest of society.
Instead we just increase the social welfare state yet again, with yet more government dependence and even cuter they can get away with calling it a "stimulus".
Fucking bullshit.

As they once were? You mean back when premaritral sex would ruin your reputation for life? Or when unwanted children were thrown out or sold? Or perhaps back the grand old days when children starved on the streets?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You realize when I say sacrifice, I am not talking about placing anything on some altar and killing it right? You do understand metaphors?
They are using other people's money to encourage people to give up having kids while the economy is bad and states budgets are hurting, they are pushing that they make some sacrifice in their lives.

You are the greatest spin master evil has ever had, dano. Feel proud.

 

[Damocles]

Oh, and just to add - people don't use contraception if they are PLANNING a pregnancy, which no one is talking about restricting.

The IQ of this board continues to nosedive.

And your intellectual honesty seems to dissolve when you get excited.

Read what I said and stop asserting I suggested anything other than what I said.

You'd be amazed at what you agree with.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Oh, and just to add - people don't use contraception if they are PLANNING a pregnancy, which no one is talking about restricting.

The IQ of this board continues to nosedive.

The bigger point in what I posted is an eye-opening view on how lefties think about people and kids in relation to society and their value.

 

[Damocles]

Oh, and just to add - people don't use contraception if they are PLANNING a pregnancy, which no one is talking about restricting.

The IQ of this board continues to nosedive.

Who has suggested restricting contraception?

Why are you being so deliberately disingenuous?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The bigger point in what I posted is an eye-opening view on how lefties think about people and kids in relation to society and their value.

My values is that I hate kids. Get over it old fart.

 

[Onceler]

Ignoring that I never said I support that assertion, only that it was disingenuous to suggest that she didn't say what she said.

You posted that you objected to the line, "She didn't say that the babies would be a burden..."

We have demonstrated that it was disingenuous to suggest so.

Then even more so to suggest that I supported a totally different assertion.

Damo, in the light of what she said in this interview, and how it was characterized by this post, I think it is hopelessly dishonest to say "Dem leaders say babies are a burden."

I stand by that, in the strongest possible way. I don't know how anyone of intelligence could read what she said - about contraception, which, again, is about PREVENTING unwanted pregancies - and think that even she is saying "babies are a burden." That's a very dishonest characterization.

Stick with it, though.

 

[KingCondanomation]

As they once were? You mean back when premaritral sex would ruin your reputation for life? Or when unwanted children were thrown out or sold? Or perhaps back the grand old days when children starved on the streets?

Please produce evidence of ANY of that happening in 1955 before Medicaid, social welfare program expansion, Food Stamp Act of 1964 and government funding for birth control.

Pelosi and lefties view children as a burden on the state, she is clear on that. Yet it was the same lefties who MADE children a burden on the state.

 

[Onceler]

The bigger point in what I posted is an eye-opening view on how lefties think about people and kids in relation to society and their value.

Eye-opening only to a psychotic, delusional & paranoid mind.

It makes perfect sense to say that contraception is something that is desirable to PREVENT unwanted pregancies anytime, but especially in bad economic times. No one is talking about discouraging people who actually WANT to become parents.

God, are you a liar.

 

[KingCondanomation]

My values is that I hate kids. Get over it old fart.

No you hate people, you hate males especially, whites even more and southerners the most and yet you are a southern white male. It must suck living with so much self hate, I'd pity you if your post count was lower.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, in the light of what she said in this interview, and how it was characterized by this post, I think it is hopelessly dishonest to say "Dem leaders say babies are a burden."

I stand by that, in the strongest possible way. I don't know how anyone of intelligence could read what she said - about contraception, which, again, is about PREVENTING unwanted pregancies - and think that even she is saying "babies are a burden." That's a very dishonest characterization.

Stick with it, though.

The prevention of babies to save money and create less of a burden does indeed suggest that unplanned babies are a burden.

It is simply, totally, utterly, purposefully disingenuous to state it doesn't suggest any such thing. Seriously. You don't have to try to defend against a true statement.

Unwanted pregnancies do increase the monetary burden on society. I applaud her for addressing the problem.

Dishonest is pretending that such suggestion can't exist within a statement that almost everybody here would say was "true" if you are speaking monetary value only.

 

[Onceler]

"The prevention of babies to save money and create less of a burden does indeed suggest that babies are a burden."

You don't see the implication of his initial post - followed up by repeated assertions - that Dems think babies in general, and children, are a burden to the state? He's not just talking about "unwanted pregnancies."

I think you know the hole you're in. You just can't admit it when you are wrong; you're incapable.

Keep digging.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Eye-opening only to a psychotic, delusional & paranoid mind.

It makes perfect sense to say that contraception is something that is desirable to PREVENT unwanted pregancies anytime, but especially in bad economic times. No one is talking about discouraging people who actually WANT to become parents.

God, are you a liar.

By saying and unquestionably implying that babies are a burden on the budget or society really, then there are some moral people who will feel a little worse in choosing to have kids because that is how kids are looked upon from lefties. It will play into their decision.
Did you ever read "Atlas Shrugged"?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Please produce evidence of ANY of that happening in 1955 before Medicaid, social welfare program expansion, Food Stamp Act of 1964 and government funding for birth control.

Pelosi and lefties view children as a burden on the state, she is clear on that. Yet it was the same lefties who MADE children a burden on the state.

Overpopulation is a burden on society, whether the state takes the burden or not. You seem to be under the delusion that something is costless if the government isn't involved, because you have the mental illness called conservatism.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

By saying and unquestionably implying that babies are a burden on the budget or society really, then there are some moral people who will feel a little worse in choosing to have kids because that is how kids are looked upon by smart people.

As they should feel.

 

[Damocles]

"The prevention of babies to save money and create less of a burden does indeed suggest that babies are a burden."

You don't see the implication of his initial post - followed up by repeated assertions - that Dems think babies in general, and children, are a burden to the state? He's not just talking about "unwanted pregnancies."

I think you know the hole you're in. You just can't admit it when you are wrong; you're incapable.

Keep digging.

Again, I haven't defended his remarks, I have suggested that your remark that she didn't say that babies were a burden in any way was wrong. I have suggested that particular one is something that one can easily find in the aforementioned interview.

Attempting to again suggest I have supported something I haven't even spoken about is simply, again, disingenuous.

 

[Onceler]

By saying and unquestionably implying that babies are a burden on the budget or society really, then there are some moral people who will feel a little worse in choosing to have kids because that is how kids are looked upon from lefties. It will play into their decision.
Did you ever read "Atlas Shrugged"?

If people are ready to have & support kids, and freely choose to do so & feel they are capable of providing for the child w/out help from the state...why would they "feel a little worse" about the decision?

You know you've stepped too far out on this one, and your retreat is becoming increasingly illogical & emotional.

And yeah - I read that overblown, boring piece of right-wing hackery.