Wow, this takes some big gigantor balls. I couldn't believe it when I heard the news on my way home from work. Wow, wow, wow.

I understand where he is coming from, but wow.

BALLS!

The ACLU's response:

TAXMAN-
When he ties his "BALLS!" in a knot as an example to the 'others', let me know.

Betel, I don't know how much longer he is going to have that pair.

Personally, I think there are better ways to fight poverty, but at least he is trying to fight poverty which is a step in the right direction, right?

Shit -- I had to pay $500 to have my tubes snipped.

Taxman-
He's not trying to "fight poverty". He's trying to stop poor folks from being born. There's a difference, and a substantial one.

Betel, I am sorry if you couldn't sense the snark in that post.

A male volunteering to get sterilized gets applause on the OB/GYN service.

Weird.

He's not trying to "fight poverty". He's trying to stop poor folks from being born. There's a difference, and a substantial one.

And the poor usually vote democrat since democrats are more likely to increase welfare because they like having people under their subjugation. They don't like people who are not on the dole and can take care of themselves because they tend to vote republican. It's a vicious circle.

Goatman-
Your "thoughts" are a vicious circle.

This is an interesting point that is attempted by Goatman,

"And the poor usually vote democrat since democrats are more likely to increase welfare because they like having people under their subjugation. They don't like people who are not on the dole and can take care of themselves because they tend to vote republican."

...in the week that the Bush/Paulson presidency is asking for a trillion dollars to bail out Wall Street.

It's a vicious circle.

When you are talking about killing off a whole section of society, you are right, it is vicious. This isn't a republican party sponsored proposal, I can guarantee you that. Go ask any Republican on the Hill if he supports this plan and see how many enthusiastic supporters you can find. I would be willing to bet it isn't many.

"And the poor usually vote democrat since democrats are more likely to increase welfare because they like having people under their subjugation. "

Posted by I-Vote-Democratic-75%-of-the-
time-Goatman

Or possibly, one of his other personalities.

.in the week that the Bush/Paulson presidency is asking for a trillion dollars to bail out Wall Street.

I'm not sure I see the connection between sterilization the poor and corporate bail-outs, but coming from your mind's twisted, nothing surprises me anymore

Goatman-
re: "I'm not sure I see the connection between sterilization the poor and corporate bail-outs, but coming from your mind's twisted, nothing surprises me anymore"

Allow me to dumb it down for you, using your own words, but this time highlighted so you might have a chance at grasping my point:

"And the poor usually vote democrat since democrats are more likely to increase welfare because they like having people under their subjugation. They don't like people who are not on the dole and can take care of themselves because they tend to vote republican."

Does that make more sense, or should I type more slowly?

Goat, here is the connection:

You propose that dems are more likely to increase welfare for the poor, and Betel says that is a crazy thing to say since the WH is proposing a massive increase corporate welfare at this very moment.

The point being, which is worse?

I just thought of another question: who is going to pay for the procedure?

See you folks on a different thread.

Does that make more sense, or should I type more slowly

TYpe at whatever speed you want; I don't care.

Are you denying that the poor are more likely to vote democrat than republican?

If so, come out from under your rock and check out the world of reality.

Betel G--Taxman

You are expecting logic from a republican partisan hack. Do you really expect him to understand what you are saying?

Posted by I-Vote-Democratic-75%-of-the-
time-Goatman

Or possibly, one of his other personalities.

???

I'm not sure the point your are trying to make, but then again, you are not one of the more lucid posters on the DR.

Taxman--Betel G

You see how he flips from talking about welfare for poor people to who poor people vote for when you nail him on the Corporate welfare about to happen. He still thinks that six hundred a month a poor woman receives for herself and her kids is more of a waste of money than the 700 billion to Corporate fatcats.

That's republican logic---you can't convince them of reality. Goatman thinks steel girders don't act as heat sinks, and that craters on the moon are still smoking.

How the fuck does who these people vote for have anything to do with the article, goatman? If you want to be partisan, you could realize that republican bailout of wall street coming is costing more than welfare.

And who do you think wall street will vote for? Douche.

As usual, you attack the democratic party after pretending you vote for them 75% of the time. You're full of shit.

He still thinks that six hundred a month a poor woman receives for herself and her kids is more of a waste of money than the 700 billion to Corporate fatcats.

???

I do? I've said many times on this forum that I am against corporate welfare. In fact I said it as recently as a few days ago. But that doesn't fit in with your pre-conceived notion of what you want me to be and think, so you make up lies.

Goatman- Boyd made a good point. You failed to understand it.

How the fuck does who these people vote for have anything to do with the article, goatman?

I thought you were smarter than this, Alex. In fact, I actually said what votes had to do with it. I guess you haven't read all the retorts in this thread. I hate repeating myself, but for you, I will.

The poor usually vote democrat. Fact. If the poor are sterilized, there will be fewer poor voters in 18 years. Fact. Fewer poorer voters mean fewer democratic voters.

Get it? It actually is a simple concept to grasp. You surprise me.

The poor usually vote democrat. Fact. If the poor are sterilized, there will be fewer poor voters in 18 years. Fact. Fewer poorer voters mean fewer democratic voters.

Yeah? And?

So fucking what? What is your "point"?

If everyone on wall street died tomorrow the republicans would lose a lot of votes.

Gosh, aren't I a real intellectual for pointing that out. And it doesn't sound partisan at all!

The only reason you'd make this a point of contention, even when larger welfare wastes were pointed out to you by boyd and taxman, is because it's yet another opportunity to slam the democrats.

Pick ONE thread where you aren't a partisan semantics playing sophist. PLEASE.

PS- Boyd handed you your ass. Maybe you'll notice, maybe not.

So fucking what? What is your "point"?

*sigh*

If two explanations don't do it, a third will. Instead of calling you stupid, I'll call myself that for being unable to get an obvious point that most others could get across to you.

Sorry I failed you, Alex.

PS- Boyd handed you your ass

Me proving him being a liar = him handing me my ass. LOL. To you and boyd, maybe.

Pick ONE thread where you aren't a partisan semantics playing sophist. PLEASE

Does earlier today count, or does it have to be older than that?

Excuse me, I meant "I'll bet the latter", (spin, spin, spin) not former. I know you too well, Alex.

Me proving him being a liar = him handing me my ass.

Except you didn't, but OK.

I get that a lot of poor people vote dems. It's somewhat factual.

So fucking what? Has nothing to do with the article, and you look ridiculous pointing it out given the current situation on wall street.

Except you didn't, but OK.

???

Except I did. He once told me he wasn't black. In yesterday's thread he implied he was. I guess you and I have different definitions of 'lying'. Actually, it would be you and the world have a different definition. You disappoint me that you have lowered yourself into the realm of buffalo bob by pretending that you don't accept the commonly accepted words and phrases that the rest of the world does.

Goatman- Is it spin if I say "thank god, you weren't a sophist for once Keep doing that"?

PLEASE, keep doing that. Your little gotcha games that never go anywhere and constant fights with buffalo boob, and premature declarations of victory against posters are getting old.

Why? Because I know you're better than this.

He "implied" he was.

Did he say it or not?

Is he half? Do you KNOW fucking anything for sure?

As for "lying"...the guy changed his name to escape some asshole stalking on this site. I suppose you think people entering the witness protection plan are liars too. Or changing your email address and phone number. Are those people liars?

If the motherfucker wants more than one name and it isn't getting around a ban, who the fuck cares?

Goatman- Is it spin if I say "thank god, you weren't a sophist for once Keep doing that"?

You asked me:

Pick ONE thread where you aren't a partisan semantics playing sophist. PLEASE

I did what you asked. It proved you wrong about my partisianship and your always trying to pideonhole me. Instead of addressing your error and admitting you are wrong, you deflect.

Goatman- Is it spin if I say "thank god, you weren't a sophist for once Keep doing that"?

Nor is it admitting you were wrong an that your constant attempts to pigeonhole me into whatever it is you want me to be are wrong.

I thought you had more integrity than that, alex. That is what I would expect from bOoB, not you.

Even in your reply above you maintain your erroneous position. It was not "for once" as you said. I've been non-partisian many other times, but you choose to ignore that. Even now, you want to keep me in your pigeon hole

SHall I show you some more posts to prove that it wasn't just "for once" as you said? Well, I can, but I won't. You will never admit you are wrong.

See you later, Alex

I saw a bumper sticker today that read "If you can't feed 'em DON'T breed 'em"

I believe there's a supreme knowledge to this bumper sticker.

I thought you had more integrity than that, alex.

I made a generalized statement basically begging you not to be an ass in this thread, and mr. literalist sophist butt that you are, made it a "lie" on my part when you found one thread where you weren't a jerk.

This is why people don't like you, goat. You play semantics like a lawyer and then accuse people of lying when they don't play your bullshit games.

You're right, I'm NOT going to admit I was "wrong".(which I have done in past many times, and you keep accusing me of never doing) My statement was a sarcastic reply to your BS: "Can you, for once, not be an asshole" is the gist.(and anyone with a brain would read it that way, but not mr. sophist, he has to troll and "win" by any means neccessary)

Pictures of you helping an old lady across the street don't nullify me saying that, nor do they make me a "liar".

I was asking you to NOT BE AN SEMANTICS PLAYING ASS TONIGHT, AND YOU RESPONDED BY BEING A SEMANTICS PLAYING ASS.

Let's review:

Alex sez to goat:

"Pick ONE thread where you aren't a partisan semantics playing sophist. PLEASE."(ie stop being a jerk like you've been lately please)

goat links to one thread like the literalist he is, completely missing the point like usual.

Alex sez "OK. Keep acting that way, please."

Goat- you're a liar.

Alex- Huh?

Goat- you said I'm always a sophist.

Alex- no I didn't.

Goat- you have no integrity, alex.

See why people fucking hate you, goat? Why you get into so many pointless fights? Stop twisting everything all the time. If you want to put stupid words in someone's mouth, stick to your own mouth.

"Pick ONE thread where you aren't a partisan semantics playing sophist. PLEASE"

I would like to see one thread where Goatman has engaged in an argument with a Republican/conservative/
rightwinger. Has that ever happened?

You're right, I'm NOT going to admit I was "wrong".

Of course you won't. You have this pathological desire (weird, to say the least) to keep me stuffed into this pigeon hole you've put me into, even when I've proven (at your request) otherwise. To admit you are wrong would be to take me out of that pigeon hole you've crammed me into. And for perveted reasons known only to yourself, you do not want me out of it.

You are an ass.

My statement was a sarcastic

AH. I see. Now that I have proven you wrong, it is suddenly sarcasm.

Whatever, alex.

My statement was a sarcastic

So in your sarcasm, you are in fact admitting that I am not a partisian hack? It would be the height of hilarity and vanity on your part to see you say otherwise since I can produce many posts that prove I'm not.

Falls right in line with the republican mantra.

wealth = morals.

The more wealthy the higher the morals.

Goatie, always be the gameplayer, never the game being played.

You keep getting tricked into someone elses game, take the initative and be the lead.

If you took my "request" as literally asking for proof, you're being willfully ignorant, goat. And you're intentionally adding words to that statement I never made.

I was asking you to stop being a jerk. I think 90% of the people who read the entire thread could figure that shit out. You responding by doing the one thing that makes you a jerk. And you're STILL responding by doing the one thing that makes you a jerk.

If you want to engage in a debate, cool. If you want to troll every now and then, fine.

But god damn it, man. Why do most of the goatman encounters have to be a trivial game of misread comments, sophistry, and playing semantics? Leave me the fuck alone if this is all you want to do.

This is why people don't like you, goat

Oh, they don't? Been taking an offline poll? I've never seen anyone make that statement on the DR. Oh, I forget, the mighty Alex is able to channel and know answers of others. I found that out yesterday.

You play semantics like a lawyer...

???

I play semantics? No, it is you el al who do by twisting my words from their literal translation into what you want them to be.

Yes, like a lawyer, I say what I mean and expect people to accept me at my word. But there are assholes like you who get pissed for being called on the floor for erroneously translating my words into something completely different than the literal written meaning.

If you can't deal with my inflexibility in allowing you to twist the literal meaning of my words, that is your problem, not mine. What I say is what I mean. It is not something like poetry with similes and metaphors open to interpretation.

Just as when you played the role of playwrite yesterday, your 12:36 script is lacking key dialogue which changes the entire meaning of the play. But you already know that, don't you?

From the article:

If Rep. LaBruzzo wants to show compassion for poor people, he should propose legislation to increase access to economic, educational, and other opportunities so that those less fortunate can improve their lives and their circumstances."

I wouldn't want to require sterilization as a qualification for temporary assistance on welfare - to tide a family over, but these transgenerational welfare families are both a burden and a blight. Their continued support and consequent proliferation, is dysgenic.

Would "minorities" be more heavily impacted? Possibly. But they would be impacted not on the basis that they are members of a class of minorities, but that they were members of a class of indigents. Racial and ethnic status would not be a criterion to be considered for inclusion or exclusion from the indigent dependent class targeted.

you are in fact admitting that I am not a partisian hack?

You're not always. I was saying you've been one a lot in the last few days. Every time I see you lately, you're being a sophistic partisan butthole. Pisses me off because you're a decent guy that gets stuck in these jackass jags and can't stop.

Even now you're doing it. Trying to figure out how to cut my posts up enough to squeeze some literal statement out of it that only you can see, so you can get a "gotcha" and call me a liar over an argument you made.

I like you goatman. I think you can be even handed. But in the last few days you've been acting even worse than usual. Huge long flame wars of pointless wordsmithing that accomplishes dick, makes no points, does not educate, and changes no ones mind.

Remember when I said "don't treat me like I'm buffalo bob?" Same shit. It works on bob because he thinks the moon landing was fake and he deserves to be treated with semantics. Everyone else just gets irritated, goatman.

Even worse, you think this bullshit rises to the level of being able to call others "liars". It doesn't. Not even close.

I would like to see one thread where Goatman has engaged in an argument with a Republican/conservative/
rightwinger. Has that ever happened?

It has, but like alex, if I go to the trouble to find it and produce it and you'll not admit you were wrong.

Even if there were none, yours is an invalid logical conclusion, null. Lack of an anti-right argument does not prove one is a righty. You must be a graduate of the buffalo bob school of (il)logic

No more jumping through hoops just to watch y'all put whatever spin you want or say you were being sarcastic. Sorry. You'll have to look for yourself if you are really that interested.

You've learned a lot from da bOoB, haven't you?

You keep getting tricked into someone elses game, take the initative and be the lead.

You are right, rex. These idiots know that they are. They don't need me or anyone else to point it out to them.

But there are assholes like you who get pissed for being called on the floor for erroneously translating my words into something completely different than the literal written meaning.

That's nice.

I told you how your statements in the racism thread "looked". Not what you actually meant.

I tried to do that so you could see why boyd was getting pissy. Instead of saying "oh I see, thanks" you attacked me and accused me of accusing you of...

See what I mean?

More bullshit about bullshit. Stop it, please. And it's not "Infelxibility" goat, it's sophistic purposeful BS so you can call someone a liar. Had a bad day at work?

You knew damn well that "Pick ONE thread where you aren't a partisan semantics playing sophist. PLEASE." didn't mean what YOU have written it to mean.

That was YOUR interpretation and rewrite of my words. Funny, how the rest of us have to live up to your perfect semantics standard, but you don't.

"by twisting my words from their literal translation into what you want them to be."

That's the problem. People make logical inferences from your literal words and then you fall back on the "that's not what I literally said".

Likewise, you interpret other people's words literally. Example: someone stated there was "two Americas" and you started attacking with questions Like "well, where is the capitol of this other America". That's being as literal minded as a child.

Some people understand metaphor, simile, analogy, etc. Apparently you do not.

Goat,

I don't fucking like you, not just don't like you, I don't fucking like you.

You play convoluted games which you yourself don't believe in for no reason other than to arouse ire and convolute possible decision processes for entertainment purposes, you are one that makes this country move in the wrong direction.

You're not always. I was saying you've been one a lot in the last few days. Every time I see you lately, you're being a sophistic partisan butthole. Pisses me off because you're a decent guy that gets stuck in these jackass jags and can't stop.

Even now you're doing it. Trying to figure out how to cut my posts up enough to squeeze some literal statement out of it that only you can see, so you can get a "gotcha" and call me a liar over an argument you made.

I like you goatman. I think you can be even handed. But in the last few days you've been acting even worse than usual. Huge long flame wars of pointless wordsmithing that accomplishes dick, makes no points, does not educate, and changes no ones mind.

Remember when I said "don't treat me like I'm buffalo bob?" Same shit. It works on bob because he thinks the moon landing was fake and he deserves to be treated with semantics. Everyone else just gets irritated, goatman.

Even worse, you think this bullshit rises to the level of being able to call others "liars". It doesn't. Not even close.

Anyone ever notice how everything eventually devolves into a rhetorical soap opera about Aikenandrite's "feelings" towards another poster in every thread he shows up in?

Not a slam--just an observation.

People make logical inferences from your literal words and then you fall back on the "that's not what I literally said".

Nulli,

most of these republican tards do just this, they make outlandish statements and when their statements are drawn to a conclusion they say that is not what they mean.

The lack of forethought and power to think things through is frightening. The only thing left is for them to argue about the words they convolute to keep the debate going.

"ven if there were none, yours is an invalid logical conclusion, null. Lack of an anti-right argument does not prove one is a righty."

Spending 99% of your time bashing lefties is good enough. Very few assertions can be proven 100%. I just go by your posts, nothing more.

Ever notice how pinche follows people around and focuses on personal commentary instead of politics?

That's what you do.

Aikenandrite.

That was the point of my post.

I'm going to start doing it to you now.

Anyone ever notice that Pinche follows boyd, nullifidian, and I around and then accuses us of following him?

Not a slam, just an observation.

I'm going to start doing it to you now.

Start?

LOL.

You've been doing it for years. Even if I have a conversation with someone else in the same thread as you, inevitably you cross over to call me a faggot, gash or now "Aikenandrite".

You did it the other night. You're doing it again tonight.

Wanna just save time and exchange phone numbers?

Alex,

Yes, he used to follow me around but have since slowed my posting way down, I find crossing words with the likes of him to be worthless. Mao never actually addresses the posts outright, just some clever put down like that invalidates the posts.

I know you're a fan.

I don't like streisand. At all.

But I'm not classless enough to call her a kike cunt. Poor pinche, after 8 years of watching his hero W fail, all he has left is the politics of hate.

Money- you used to be a big fan of pinche's. So did I.

He used to argue. Now he's just abusive.

"But Obama is a marxist."

I wonder if Goatman agrees with that. Or maybe, as a "called by my friends a bleeding heart liberal" he might think that's absurd.

But Obama is a marxist

He has a grease paint mustache and a cigar?

No, you probably don't really know who that marx is either.

Getting cold war mentality talking points from freeper land has rotted your brain, man.

But it's true. Obama is a Marxist!

Baracko Marx. *honk honk*

I'm shocked that pinche follows moneywar around:

User Info

Pinche_Mao

Only people speaking the language of known conflict have now become the entire housing military.

Seniority: 34

Contact User
No Home Page

Joined 2005/05/24
Visited 2008/09/25

Alexa, you do realize you act like a spastic yapping poodle, don't you?

Don't swallow your tounge.

Money- you used to be a big fan of pinche's. So did I.

He used to argue. Now he's just abusive.

#67 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2008-09-25 01:15 AM | Reply | Flag

Yes, he did used to argue but then after he had his kid things changed.

I find it interesting that you find it difficult to believe mao used to follow me around. I don't look at it as follow around as much as there are a few of us who can stand up to his intellectual slap stick postings.

"tongue"

Can I swallow yours, honey?

Baracko Marx. *honk honk*

McLame is a Marxist too.

A Skid Marxist!

Obama is the real deal.

McAncient is an empty suit with a full, sodden pair of Depends adult undergarments underneath.

Well, Spud's glad we got that cleared up.

Spud sees RexellaVanImpe and Punchy Meow are still hard at work practicing their internet tuff-guy routines.

Makes a nice break from their synchronised swimming practice anyway.

Be Well.

I don't fucking like you, not just don't like you, I don't fucking like you.

I'm shattered.

I don't mind you so much. I don't really think you are that smart, and you seem to have some deep seated emotional issues, but I don't hold that I against you and say I dislike you.

I can't really get so worked up about this place that I can really say "I don't fucking like you" about anyone here. It's just a blog for christ's sake.

But anyway, let me go dry my eyes and try to figure out how I can carry on knowing that you don't fucking like me. It's going to be tough.

you are one that makes this country move in the wrong direction.

Jesus! I had no idea I wielded so much power! All this time I thought it was the fault of the Irish.

Mao never actually addresses the posts outright, just some clever put down like that invalidates the posts.

Though never true, this seems to be a favorite theme of yours. It is this sort of thing that prompted my observation in my 3:43 post

"But Obama is a marxist."

I wonder if Goatman agrees with that.

Why do you suddenly care what I think?

Rasta -- I have ragged Tosser about Pakistan, too, and I know that you are right that America is a better place to live, but in fairness I have to say you are wrong about the all the mud hut things. I've been there twice (tosser doesn't believe this though, but that's irrelevant) and at last the places I've seen weren't that bad. I'm sure there are slums that rival Dante's 7th circle of hell, but the entire country is not like that.

oops wrong thread. cut and paste time

Poor republicans. Jesus won't allow them to agree to abortions (it's in the book of St Dumbass), but they really need to kill off a huge section of the 'poor' population.

what's a neo-nazi to do?

"Three generations of imbeciles is enough."

- Oliver Wendell Holmes

Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200

(it's in the book of St Dumbass), Posted by Lipzoidial

Ha ha ha ha!
That is rich!
St. Dumbass.
Lipzoidial may I use that reference?

Lipzoidial may I use that reference?

#84 | Posted by BobOtto

Please do. But it won't gain you any points with the talibaptist.

"Three generations of imbeciles is enough."

two if they're Bush.

And Mcsame has had at least two generatons worth of triple sucking on the US Treasury tit, speaking of welfare scammers.

Eugenecists and Nazis wanted to sterilize the retarded.

Then they realised that meant the end of the Right.

Can I ask How does paying volunteers to have your tubes tied "kill off all the poor"?..There will always be poor, just not so many young ones. But if they decide to have an abortion at 8 months, somehow I am shamed into being 'compassionate" and asked to pay for it. Why do libs never make sense

There's nothing that says the insane can't run for office....this clown if living proof.

What next? A 'child license' required for all....at a huge cost, to deter the poor. This is just how China does it.

Never work...they get more money from welfare.

"I would like to see one thread where Goatman has engaged in an argument with a Republican/conservative/
rightwinger. Has that ever happened?"

#40 | Posted by nullifidian

Goatman has argued with me before, namely on the issues of abortion and religion.

I'd like to know who is for this, who is against it, and why? Instead of all the name calling.

Labruzzo also wants to pay couples with college degrees to have kids.

The unfortunate fact is that these people are usually poor because they lack the characteristics, including intelligence, that enable people to largely fend for themselves in this society during the "good times" that we had been experiencing.

You poor deluded bastard! You call what you do with that hate filled mind of yours thinking?

Louisiana Repub Wants to Sterilize Poor

Well, we can always import poor people from other countries to do the jobs we don't want to do.

"Labruzzo also wants to pay couples with college degrees to have kids."

This is social engineering gone crazy if you ask me

I think we should stop peyaing people to have kids, abortion has been legal since 1973 damn it! How about if abortion is safe, legal and FREQUENT.

Damn religion is runing the world. Damn religion is causing overpopulation.

Want to discover the REAL root of our all our financial crises? Look no further than the minorities and the poor.

This guy is brilliant.

Margaret Sanger 1879-1966 - from Wikipedia:

"Sanger was a proponent of eugenics...Her first pamphlet read:"
"It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge."

"Sanger promoted the idea of "race hygiene" through "negative eugenics," an attempt to reduce the fertility of "dysgenic" groups."

Now you might ask "who is Margaret Sanger?"

"The founder of the American Birth Control League (which eventually became Planned Parenthood)"

Planned Parenthood is still going strong with eugenics. You might also read:

Pay them $10,000 plus a case of wine, a roll of lotto tickets, and a bag of crack.

How about if abortion is safe, legal and FREQUENT.

Oh yeah, super great idea, douchebag.

Johnson-you, LaBruzzo, and everyone like you should be banned from EVER breeding.

How about paying people to committ suicide?

Just a thought.

Obviously a family member or friend, or whoever they wished would get the money.

"eugenics"

Careful with that axe, Eugene.

I said careful!

Great Idea.

This is the best suggestion I have heard in quite a long time!
Why should we, the responsible taxpayers, foot the bill for those who cannot take care of themselves yet continue to reproduce?

Why should we, the responsible taxpayers, foot the bill for those who cannot take care of themselves yet continue to reproduce?

Investment bankers?

Good for him. If these people can't be personally responsible and keep their legs closed or use a condom or something sensible, then yeah, let's pay em off to to something sensible at least. It always amazed me how people least able to take care of themselves always have the biggest entourage to (barely) care for. 8 kids, 3 dogs, etc etc etc.

He's right. Human right to reproduce irresponsibly be damned. And the ACLU is off on this. Civil liberties need to be tempered with sense and responsibility.

It'd be one thing if people would exercise some personal responsibility, but that's becoming less and less likely.

I once again point you all to the prophetic film "IDIOCRACY".

And as far as the paid vasectomies go, they should include that as long as it goes WITH and not INSTEAD OF the tubal ligations. Frankly, the ligations will be more effective, because it takes one breeder out of the mix, no matter how many partners she has and who they are and what they do. It's truly nipping things at the root.

I say sterilize the super rich. That way, the money they've stolen from the rest of us can go back to the country, not some dim-witted scion of the Bush/Rothschild/Rockefeller crime families.

Pay them $10,000 plus a case of wine, a roll of lotto tickets, and a bag of crack.

#99 | Posted by fwthom at 2008-09-25 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah! We mustn't help the poor....We may need another trillion dollars to help cover the CEO's golden parachutes before Bush is finally done.

Just think of all the crack they could buy with that $1000.

I think it's a great ideal, it should be implemented nation wide.
It would reduce welfare payments and crime, but of course the liberals will oppose it because it would destroy thier voter base!

Here's a stupid idea, let's use our pooled money (taxes) to fund the best education and child care system in the world, then the poor kids will grow up to be doctors and lawyers and other productive members of society. I know that's not a punitive or mean as what most people want, but hey, let's think positive for a change how about?

As a plus of course is that creates more taxpayers to pay for it all.

I LOVE IT... Make sure they do not breed.........

I don't understand the problem...

If someone on welfare wants to tie their tubes for 1000 bucks, then let them. I think they should have the freedom to do that.

I LOVE IT... Make sure they do not breed.........

#115 | Posted by cabo_vato

You haven't been to New Orleans have you?

Don't you remember a couple of years ago a hurricane went through New Orleans and 30,000 of these people were standing on roofs because they did not have the sense to get out of town?

Oh yea its their fault for this financial malaise.

We would be better off sterilizing the rich.

Goatman, you are funny.
Your industry gets more government subsidy than almost any other. Figure in the rock bottom lease costs, its at the top of the game.

I say sterilize the super rich.

If you look at the family sizes of the rich (except the Kennedys) I think it would be obvious they pretty much control their own numbers without incentives.

Goatman, you are funny.
Your industry gets more government subsidy than almost any other

???

Wrong. The oil drilling industry is not subsidized. Even if it was, I fail to get the connection between the offshore drilling industry and sterilizing the poor. Care to elaborate?

Let's see--sterilize or educate--hmmm what a dilemma--this is a real toughie--sterilize or educate--ok let's get some advice--I wonder what the Party of Life suggests? OH---really? How about that.

I wonder what the Party of Life suggests?

Which one is the party of life? Does that make the other one the other one the party of death?

Is the party of life the life of the party?

"Which one is the party of life? Does that make the other one the other one the party of death?"

You'd be surprised how accurate some far right-wingers would say that statement is.

#122 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-09-25 11:13 PM

Let's see--sterilize or educate--hmmm what a dilemma--this is a real toughie--sterilize or educate--ok let's get some advice--I wonder what the Party of Life suggests? OH---really? How about that.

You pose an inapplicable alternative, implying that education would remedy the inability of these folks to fend for themselves. It seems to be an indication of a transgenerational lack of competence rather than an environmental situation that limits their accomplishments.

Our local paper has an article regarding a woman, a druggie, who now has four children being raised in foster homes, paid for by the state, who ran off with her fifth baby, who was suffering from conditions related to her mother's drug use during pregnancy, who is being sought as she and the child were under strict supervision. Now the idea that such a breeder should have her fertility supported by the state seems ludicrous. When she wants her next fix, she'd probably take the payment.

The state, that's you the taxpayer, is shouldering a cost greater that that required to raise a kid in a decent home, and producing a generation of unfortunates that probably will repeat the mother's pattern, and who are proceeding toward maturity.

"The state, that's you the taxpayer, is shouldering a cost greater that that required to raise a kid in a decent home, and producing a generation of unfortunates that probably will repeat the mother's pattern, and who are proceeding toward maturity."

Hey! What's wrong with that? We'll have perpetual democrats, right? All we have to do is keep increasing the taxes on the evil "rich" to support 'em and make sure they get a ride to the polls on election day. Ahhh...I can see it now. Utopia at last.

Somebody needs to prescribe 240 grains of cranial re-arrangement for that ignorant ass.

It is quite clear that many of you should've been a pearl necklace.

Or a brown eye rim shot.

Failures of evolution.

"Failures of evolution."

Posted by gitmboy

I believe the term is ... extinct.

That it is.