Do liberals even like this country?

[jasonnfree]

By the way, the next time you talk to a liberal that likes to bring up "other countries" and their laws, bring up what their racial demographics are. They like to try to use the gun control laws in Europe as some great example of fixing the gun violence issues in the US, but never address the fact that Euro nations have far fewer blacks and Latinos. There are some Euro countries with gun ownership rates as high as the US, yet almost no gun violence.

Same goes for their health care systems. Euro countries don't have tens of millions of bottom feeders on welfare not paying into their health care systems. Plus, many of the health care systems in Europe aren't that great and people end up buying their own private insurance on top of paying for the public one.

So, are you saying that it is blacks or latinos which automatically make crime higher?

Because Africa's intentional homicide rate is LOWER than the Americas homicide rate. So, it can't be because of black people, right?

Madagascar has an intentional murder rate of 0.62, that's low. And it's full of black people.

There are 18 African countries with a murder rate LOWER than the US's murder rate. And they're mostly full of black people.

Blame it on hispanics? Well, Spain and Portugal have lower murder rates than the US too. So.... is it hispanic blood? Er.. no, probably not.

So what is it?

How about this. Christians.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

You have to get down to number 27 on the list before you hit a non-Christian country, South Sudan. The next is number 42, Mali.

The bottom four happen to be Christian too, but they're so small you'd never really notice them. The first proper country there is Japan, not Christian. That's not to say there aren't Christian countries at the bottom, Europe has a low level of murder and lots of Christians, but it's more Christian lite.

The US is one of the most Christian countries in the first world, and one of the highest murder rates.

So, it's much easier to make such a case that Christian society ends up forgiving way, way too easily, and ends up with higher crime.

But blaming it on blacks doesn't work. Yes, in the US blacks have a massive problem. But is this because they're black, or because they're black IN THE USA? Probably the latter. And after years of slavery, segregation and beyond that something similar, you can see why.

There's a big difference between blacks living in white countries and blacks living in African countries. Take your example of the Japanese, they have one of the most strict immigration laws in order to keep Japan for the Japanese. The result is a relatively peaceful society not destroyed by multiculturalism. Africans can be very peaceful if they are in their natural cultural setting, although you still cherry picked peaceful ones when there are also many African countries that are completely barbaric and violent. You're also nuts if you think those third world countries keep crime statistics accurately anywhere near what Western countries do.

By the way, the Portuguese and Spanish are European, not Latino.

There is a problem with your argument here.

I went to Japan and I went to cross a road because I wanted to go to a store on the other side. I wasn't crossing where I should have crossed, I crossed in the middle of the street, because I didn't want to have to walk 100 meters each way just to get to a store. The road was empty more or less, just one guy on a push bike. I was half way across the road and the guy on the push bike STOPPED his bike so I could go past, even though he could easily have got ahead of me.

He didn't do this because Japan doesn't have many Japanese citizens who are not ethnically Japanese. He did this because that's Japan.

Japan has plenty of foreigners, go to Kyoto and you see them all the time, they work there, they're not citizens but they're not going to get kicked out any time soon either.

Africans can be peaceful in their "natural cultural setting". Oh, and then I'm cherry picking because I looked at all the stats and found 18 African countries who have lower murder rates than the US? How is that cherry picking exactly? Oh, it's because you want me to show only the countries that have HIGHER murder rates than the US, because that somehow makes YOUR argument. Oh, please, stop with the nonsense.

My argument was it isn't blacks who make problems, counter to your argument that high crime exists because the US has more black people than Europe. Right?

So, to back up my point I showed that 18 African countries have LOWER murder rates than the US. Which therefore shows that it isn't blacks who are the problem.

Now you've gone off and said blacks in Africa are different to blacks in America? What, they have three hands or something?

If it were a simple case, which you were suggesting, of blacks being far more prone to crime, then all or most countries with black people in them, would have much higher murder rates than the US, probably proportional to the number of black people in those countries. They don't.

So, your argument is bullshit.

Once again you completely missed the points I made.

Japan may have foreigners in their country, but those that are there are very carefully selected, as you pointed out they are people who are working there. Professionals with jobs. Does Japan have a huge population of non-Japanese that are on welfare? No, they don't.
If we were as selective of who we allowed in our country, our crime rate would be much lower.

As for the African/blacks, the statistics do not lie that in the US they have a much higher violence rate. Your 18 African countries that supposedly have lower murder rates than the US doesn't change that. I never stated that all blacks just commit more violence just because they are black, you just like to jump to that conclusion so you can label me a racist.

Liberals love to cherry pick certain European laws and claim that if the US just did the same, our crime rates would go down. In the case of gun laws, there are several Euro countries with high ownership rates, yet very low crime rates. Even in the US there are huge differences. Take a look at the gun violence rates of Idaho and compare it to any other state with high gun ownership but with a more "diverse" population.

Oh, I have no doubt I'm missing your point, seeing as your point is complete nonsense.

Japan has "carefully selected" foreigners, huh? Yeah, they don't like the Chinese, there's a huge deposit and requirements for them.

But having care immigration doesn't impact the US. Many of the black people were slaves. They've been American for a long time. It's not about color here. There are Russians coming in and doing dodgy stuff alongside the Hispanic, black, Asian, white etc gangs.

The problem in the US is the gangs, not the color of the gang.

No, 18 African countries does not change the fact that there is a problem with black Americans. However this was NOT your point. Your point was the color of their skin caused them to commit crime, that is not the case. There is plenty there that we can look to to see why there are problems, slavery, segregation and being treated as underlings for hundreds of years doesn't help. That many of them are under educated, born into poor families, doing the jobs that white people didn't want to do, etc etc, this has a MUCH BIGGER impact on why they have problems.

Why does Europe have less problems? Because, in general, they treat these people better. Why does France have a big problem with Muslims? Color of their skin? No, because they treated them like SHIT for a long time, they massacred them in Paris, they massacred them in Algeria, they made life hard for them.

Here's your problem, not the color of their skin.

Oh, so Liberals like to cherry pick... not conservatives huh? Can I roll my eyes enough at this blatantly partisan comment? Yes, I'm sure people all over like to cherry pick, it seems to happen here all the time, what with people saying that crime happen because of someone's skin color. Then go off making factually incorrect statements to back up their nonsense.

Treating these third worlders decently doesn't guarantee much. How they made that totally incompetent somali who shot that woman in Minneapolis a cop is an example of how you can't make chicken salad with chicken shit. How about those third world throwbacks in San Bernardino who murdered people who threw them a christmas party? Allah akbar and kill the infidel is how they were paid back for their kindness. It's outright stupidity to think you can bring third world throwbacks here and expect them to add anything positive to this country.

 

[danielpalos]

The negative health effects of fast food cannot be over emphasized. If people eliminated it completely from their diets obesity plummets. Then so does heart disease cancer diabetes. Then costs go down. Why can't people figure this out? Americans are far and out of shape....truth be told.

Can we trust Capitalism to "do the right thing" on a for-profit basis or should we get Socialism involved, because it is, That important?

 

[jasonnfree]

I agree with you only to a point.

The city of Cleveland wanted to hold gun manufacturers liable for the murders here in our city. In essence, what they would do is force gun manufacturers to not sell guns in Ohio, and in the process, attempt to put them out of business through those lawsuits.

The only reason they never pursued that goal is because of the courts. It would cost the city millions and they would lose the battle. However. If we had a liberal Supreme Court, they would allow such a suit to continue and of course, stop gun manufacturers from selling guns.

Thank God people chose Trump for President. If Hillary was in charge, guns would be just about illegal in the US in less than a decade.

What worries me is that Trump is a temporary reprieve.

Democrats will either assassinate him or harass him to the point he can not do anything for the nation. He is going to face relentless accusations of wrongdoing until his last day in office. I don't see it ever stopping. I think it will get even worse and they pick at events during his term and make mountains out of anything and everything they can whip up into a frenzy. Makes no difference if it is fake news or not. They are looking to Trump fatigue the nation with bad news even if it's fake news.

As far as Hillary....thank God. Hopefully she'll never come back but her control over the Democrat party is DEEP DEEP DEEP. The Clintons ARE essentially the Democrat party.

What both parties do is underestimate the rage of Republican/ conservative voters. Even if they could get rid of Trump, who would be next to take the office? And even if they could get rid of Pence, the Speaker of the House takes the office of President.

Democrat voters have protests, riot, damage public and private property, stop traffic from flowing when they get mad. When we get mad, we patiently await election day and take our anger out there as we did this past election.

So if they want to piss us off even more, I say good for them. Payback is a bitch.

I'm doing work for seniors (mostly for free) who have been lifelong dems but had it up to here with how the demorats went batshit crazy and tried to turn this country into the third world just so they could have guaranteed voters far into the future. Of course the corruption of the clintons and the arrogance of obama didn't help either.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I agree with you only to a point.

The city of Cleveland wanted to hold gun manufacturers liable for the murders here in our city. In essence, what they would do is force gun manufacturers to not sell guns in Ohio, and in the process, attempt to put them out of business through those lawsuits.

The only reason they never pursued that goal is because of the courts. It would cost the city millions and they would lose the battle. However. If we had a liberal Supreme Court, they would allow such a suit to continue and of course, stop gun manufacturers from selling guns.

Thank God people chose Trump for President. If Hillary was in charge, guns would be just about illegal in the US in less than a decade.

What worries me is that Trump is a temporary reprieve.

Democrats will either assassinate him or harass him to the point he can not do anything for the nation. He is going to face relentless accusations of wrongdoing until his last day in office. I don't see it ever stopping. I think it will get even worse and they pick at events during his term and make mountains out of anything and everything they can whip up into a frenzy. Makes no difference if it is fake news or not. They are looking to Trump fatigue the nation with bad news even if it's fake news.

As far as Hillary....thank God. Hopefully she'll never come back but her control over the Democrat party is DEEP DEEP DEEP. The Clintons ARE essentially the Democrat party.

What both parties do is underestimate the rage of Republican/ conservative voters. Even if they could get rid of Trump, who would be next to take the office? And even if they could get rid of Pence, the Speaker of the House takes the office of President.

Democrat voters have protests, riot, damage public and private property, stop traffic from flowing when they get mad. When we get mad, we patiently await election day and take our anger out there as we did this past election.

So if they want to piss us off even more, I say good for them. Payback is a bitch.

I'm doing work for seniors (mostly for free) who have been lifelong dems but had it up to here with how the demorats went batshit crazy and tried to turn this country into the third world just so they could have guaranteed voters far into the future. Of course the corruption of the clintons and the arrogance of obama didn't help help either.

Many older people were involved in war and seen what oppressive and dictator type countries have produced. They fought against those countries and don't want to see that happening here.

The US Communist Party endorsed the last three Democrat presidential candidates and strongly supported Bernie Sanders. Sanders had a great chance at the position if not for Hillary Clinton and perhaps election manipulation by the Democrat party.

Of course older people are going to reject the Democrats.

 

[frigidweirdo]

One thing is what is allowed to happen, that doesn't make it right, or fair, that doesn't mean it benefits the country, it doesn't mean it doesn't give an unfair advantage to the rich.

It just means that it is allowed, it means the rich have paid the politicians who make sure it's legal, the politicians are happy, the rich are happy.

Nope, I still don't get why you brought up flat taxes, what you said doesn't make sense.

Again, as I've written about tax breaks for large companies, it doesn't benefit the country or the local area. It merely takes jobs away from other people, and hands it to those working for less at larger companies.

You seem to be blinded by partisan politics when you think it's the same that a large company, paying less, or no tax, and paying workers less, is the same as if they're working for smaller businesses paying their taxes.....

I don't get it Ray, I don't get why you seem to think an unfair system is good for the country.

Okay, let's look at your situation.

The problem I see is that you seem to be equating this to simply, if I have one, and you have ten, I pay half, you pay 5.

This isn't the case. This isn't what we're talking about here, but you seem to be ignoring the reality. i did a whole theoretical thing about Walmart, and I bet you didn't even read it.

Look.

You have a large business and a small business. They compete together.

If the large company is paying 10% tax, and the small company is paying 25% tax, are they competing? No, the larger company is getting the advantage. If they can then have workers being paid less, then they're paying less and therefore have more profits or lower prices.

It should be the other way around. Smaller businesses are BETTER for the economy. It means the cash is spread around more evenly, rather than in the pocket of one rich person who buys another summer house.

How some companies end up paying -33% tax is beyond me. The govt is paying them to do the work someone else would do, if they could be competitive, and pay their taxes like everyone else.

If someone is paying -33%, that means other people are having to pay a lot more taxes in order to fill in what the govt is paying this company AND what the company isn't paying. -33% is like the govt losing 66% of taxes. It takes from others, if it's taking from others, then they have a competitive advantage, don't they?

This means the GOVERNMENT is GIVING them a competitive advantage, doesn't it?

No, it does not.

Let's say a small and large business open up in the same area. Both pay 35% in taxes. Both are allowed to use 240 different items they can write off. The smaller store can only write off 35 of those items, and the larger store can write off 125 of those items, therefore, the larger store pays less in taxes because they have more write-offs.

In other words there are not two sets of tax laws for the same types of companies. There is only one set of tax laws for both.

Who gets more of a write-off, Applebee's, or the guy with the hot dog stand two blocks from Applebee's?

But we're not talking write offs Ray. Come on, stick to the topic.

We're talking about governments, at whatever level, giving tax breaks to companies so they get an unfair competitive advantage.

Then show me one business where this is true. Show me where two businesses (one large and one small) have two different tax codes because of their size.

Again, what are you talking about? We're not talking about TAX CODES. Come on, I don't have the energy for pushing you back to the topic every post.

Well if you are not talking about two sets of rules for two like businesses just different sized, then I don't know WTF you are talking about. If both industries of like kind follow the same rules and have the same ability to write-off, then there is nothing unfair about it. That's besides the fact that prices are not set based on taxes paid instead of ability to buy in bulk and from the lowest price providers.

I go grocery shopping every week, but once every month or so I go to Sam's Club. Why? Because when you buy in larger quantities, you get a lower price just like businesses do. Our customers deal with Walmart and they are constantly dropping providers and picking up new ones; sometimes at a disadvantage to us and sometime an advantage to us. But none of our customers deal with K-Mart, Target or any other stores. They don't put as much effort into getting products at the lowest possible price as Walmart does. Even if they did, they would not sell their products as cheap as they sell to Walmart because Walmart buys in much larger quantities.

Fine you don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. Maybe if you read what I actually wrote it would help.

We are, in actual fact, talking about companies being GIVEN special deals by governments. Do you remember the bit about bribery? Do you think having a two day conversation about this might have meant that we weren't just talking about tax code? Come on Ray, what the fuck? Get off the bottle or whatever it is you're on man.

Why do you think Walmart can get lower prices?

How Walmart and Home Depot Are Buying Huge Political Influence

"Walmart and Home Depot are ranked among the top 100 political donors overall for the period since 1989, putting their fingerprints on tax and labor law."

Ah.... Walmart pay a lot for political influence.

Why do you think Walmart pay politicians a lot of money? Could it be because they get something out of it Ray?

They got govt to make it so they can pay their workers less and the govt picks up a $6 BILLION tap on that one. Workers come in and they're like "hey, we won't pay you much, but looky here, the govt WILL pay you".

You complain about the govt giving hand outs. They're giving hand outs because Walmart PAY THEM to do so.

As I showed you before, they get $1 billion or more in govt subsidies

Report says Wal-Mart received $1B in government subsidies. - May. 24, 2004

" Over $1 billion in government subsidies have gone into transforming discounter Wal-Mart Stores from a regional discount store operator into the world's largest retailer, "

Yes, how does a company go from a regional discount store to having stores in China and other countries around the world? Wait, let's see. Oh, yeah, the govt gives them an unfair competitive advantage to the tune of ONE BILLION DOLLARS, excluding the shit they get for paying their workers SIX BILLION too little a year and demand the govt picks up that tap too.

I've said all this before Ray, does it not ring a bell, or did you just not bother to read what I wrote?

Wal-Mart, feds struggle to settle bribery investigation

Here's Walmart being done for Bribery, but they don't want to be convicted of the crimes they've been committing, because if they get convicted Ray, they can't get govt subsidies, so they bribing people to make sure they don't get convicted and don't lose their ability to get money from their bribes.

 

[danielpalos]

I agree with you only to a point.

The city of Cleveland wanted to hold gun manufacturers liable for the murders here in our city. In essence, what they would do is force gun manufacturers to not sell guns in Ohio, and in the process, attempt to put them out of business through those lawsuits.

The only reason they never pursued that goal is because of the courts. It would cost the city millions and they would lose the battle. However. If we had a liberal Supreme Court, they would allow such a suit to continue and of course, stop gun manufacturers from selling guns.

Thank God people chose Trump for President. If Hillary was in charge, guns would be just about illegal in the US in less than a decade.

What worries me is that Trump is a temporary reprieve.

Democrats will either assassinate him or harass him to the point he can not do anything for the nation. He is going to face relentless accusations of wrongdoing until his last day in office. I don't see it ever stopping. I think it will get even worse and they pick at events during his term and make mountains out of anything and everything they can whip up into a frenzy. Makes no difference if it is fake news or not. They are looking to Trump fatigue the nation with bad news even if it's fake news.

As far as Hillary....thank God. Hopefully she'll never come back but her control over the Democrat party is DEEP DEEP DEEP. The Clintons ARE essentially the Democrat party.

What both parties do is underestimate the rage of Republican/ conservative voters. Even if they could get rid of Trump, who would be next to take the office? And even if they could get rid of Pence, the Speaker of the House takes the office of President.

Democrat voters have protests, riot, damage public and private property, stop traffic from flowing when they get mad. When we get mad, we patiently await election day and take our anger out there as we did this past election.

So if they want to piss us off even more, I say good for them. Payback is a bitch.

I'm doing work for seniors (mostly for free) who have been lifelong dems but had it up to here with how the demorats went batshit crazy and tried to turn this country into the third world just so they could have guaranteed voters far into the future. Of course the corruption of the clintons and the arrogance of obama didn't help either.

But the pure pander of your right winger is ok. How, "uncorrupting of the Youth of the Nation".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Only lower income humans or all? Because it seems to me that lower income humans have more children than middle-class humans. Check out my other thread about 50% of babies born in this country do so on Medicaid.

Your problem is that EVERYBODY likes to fuck. Even though you have no money...you can still fuck

The rich? They have high cost doctors to make sure they only have the children they want. The poor? If you didn't pay for your birth control that week.....shit happens

Georgetown Students Go Broke to Buy Birth Control? Target Sells Pills for $9 Per Month

I think these poor people could manage to get a job at McDonald's for one day a month or collect aluminum cans for a day to afford their own birth control.

You seem to be dancing on both sides of the equation here. You complain about poor people having five kids then are outraged if insurance pays for birth control. Even if that birth control only costs nine dollars a month

How Much Do Birth Control Pills Cost? - CostHelper.com

• For patients not covered by health insurance, birth control pills typically cost $20 to $50 a month.
• For patients covered by health insurance, out-of-pocket costs typically consist of a prescription drug copay. Most insurance plans offer the lowest copays on generic medication -- usually $5 to $15 -- and higher copays of $30 to $40 for non-preferred brands.
• Birth control pills, the most commonly covered contraceptive, are covered by more than 80 percent of health insurance plans, according to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. And in some states, it's mandatory; the Kaiser Family Foundation[1] lists 33 states that require coverage of birth control.

So what's your point? At the most, fifty bucks a month. That's less than what you could earn at Walmart working one day a month. I understand you belong to the party of excuses, but you are not making any kind of point here.

The point is you got to make up your mind
You either support low cost or free birth control or you accept poor people having kids

Personally, I would convert ice cream trucks and have them driving up and down the street offering FREE birth control

No, that's not the only two choices nor should they be. We should not be supporting parents who have children they can't support. I've offered several solutions but nobody would have the guts to implement my ideas. If we created a deterrent of having children you cannot afford, it would greatly reduce the amount of poor people being born. Rich or poor, everybody knows how babies are created.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, are you saying that it is blacks or latinos which automatically make crime higher?

Because Africa's intentional homicide rate is LOWER than the Americas homicide rate. So, it can't be because of black people, right?

Madagascar has an intentional murder rate of 0.62, that's low. And it's full of black people.

There are 18 African countries with a murder rate LOWER than the US's murder rate. And they're mostly full of black people.

Blame it on hispanics? Well, Spain and Portugal have lower murder rates than the US too. So.... is it hispanic blood? Er.. no, probably not.

So what is it?

How about this. Christians.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

You have to get down to number 27 on the list before you hit a non-Christian country, South Sudan. The next is number 42, Mali.

The bottom four happen to be Christian too, but they're so small you'd never really notice them. The first proper country there is Japan, not Christian. That's not to say there aren't Christian countries at the bottom, Europe has a low level of murder and lots of Christians, but it's more Christian lite.

The US is one of the most Christian countries in the first world, and one of the highest murder rates.

So, it's much easier to make such a case that Christian society ends up forgiving way, way too easily, and ends up with higher crime.

But blaming it on blacks doesn't work. Yes, in the US blacks have a massive problem. But is this because they're black, or because they're black IN THE USA? Probably the latter. And after years of slavery, segregation and beyond that something similar, you can see why.

There's a big difference between blacks living in white countries and blacks living in African countries. Take your example of the Japanese, they have one of the most strict immigration laws in order to keep Japan for the Japanese. The result is a relatively peaceful society not destroyed by multiculturalism. Africans can be very peaceful if they are in their natural cultural setting, although you still cherry picked peaceful ones when there are also many African countries that are completely barbaric and violent. You're also nuts if you think those third world countries keep crime statistics accurately anywhere near what Western countries do.

By the way, the Portuguese and Spanish are European, not Latino.

There is a problem with your argument here.

I went to Japan and I went to cross a road because I wanted to go to a store on the other side. I wasn't crossing where I should have crossed, I crossed in the middle of the street, because I didn't want to have to walk 100 meters each way just to get to a store. The road was empty more or less, just one guy on a push bike. I was half way across the road and the guy on the push bike STOPPED his bike so I could go past, even though he could easily have got ahead of me.

He didn't do this because Japan doesn't have many Japanese citizens who are not ethnically Japanese. He did this because that's Japan.

Japan has plenty of foreigners, go to Kyoto and you see them all the time, they work there, they're not citizens but they're not going to get kicked out any time soon either.

Africans can be peaceful in their "natural cultural setting". Oh, and then I'm cherry picking because I looked at all the stats and found 18 African countries who have lower murder rates than the US? How is that cherry picking exactly? Oh, it's because you want me to show only the countries that have HIGHER murder rates than the US, because that somehow makes YOUR argument. Oh, please, stop with the nonsense.

My argument was it isn't blacks who make problems, counter to your argument that high crime exists because the US has more black people than Europe. Right?

So, to back up my point I showed that 18 African countries have LOWER murder rates than the US. Which therefore shows that it isn't blacks who are the problem.

Now you've gone off and said blacks in Africa are different to blacks in America? What, they have three hands or something?

If it were a simple case, which you were suggesting, of blacks being far more prone to crime, then all or most countries with black people in them, would have much higher murder rates than the US, probably proportional to the number of black people in those countries. They don't.

So, your argument is bullshit.

Once again you completely missed the points I made.

Japan may have foreigners in their country, but those that are there are very carefully selected, as you pointed out they are people who are working there. Professionals with jobs. Does Japan have a huge population of non-Japanese that are on welfare? No, they don't.
If we were as selective of who we allowed in our country, our crime rate would be much lower.

As for the African/blacks, the statistics do not lie that in the US they have a much higher violence rate. Your 18 African countries that supposedly have lower murder rates than the US doesn't change that. I never stated that all blacks just commit more violence just because they are black, you just like to jump to that conclusion so you can label me a racist.

Liberals love to cherry pick certain European laws and claim that if the US just did the same, our crime rates would go down. In the case of gun laws, there are several Euro countries with high ownership rates, yet very low crime rates. Even in the US there are huge differences. Take a look at the gun violence rates of Idaho and compare it to any other state with high gun ownership but with a more "diverse" population.

Oh, I have no doubt I'm missing your point, seeing as your point is complete nonsense.

Japan has "carefully selected" foreigners, huh? Yeah, they don't like the Chinese, there's a huge deposit and requirements for them.

But having care immigration doesn't impact the US. Many of the black people were slaves. They've been American for a long time. It's not about color here. There are Russians coming in and doing dodgy stuff alongside the Hispanic, black, Asian, white etc gangs.

The problem in the US is the gangs, not the color of the gang.

No, 18 African countries does not change the fact that there is a problem with black Americans. However this was NOT your point. Your point was the color of their skin caused them to commit crime, that is not the case. There is plenty there that we can look to to see why there are problems, slavery, segregation and being treated as underlings for hundreds of years doesn't help. That many of them are under educated, born into poor families, doing the jobs that white people didn't want to do, etc etc, this has a MUCH BIGGER impact on why they have problems.

Why does Europe have less problems? Because, in general, they treat these people better. Why does France have a big problem with Muslims? Color of their skin? No, because they treated them like SHIT for a long time, they massacred them in Paris, they massacred them in Algeria, they made life hard for them.

Here's your problem, not the color of their skin.

Oh, so Liberals like to cherry pick... not conservatives huh? Can I roll my eyes enough at this blatantly partisan comment? Yes, I'm sure people all over like to cherry pick, it seems to happen here all the time, what with people saying that crime happen because of someone's skin color. Then go off making factually incorrect statements to back up their nonsense.

Treating these third worlders decently doesn't guarantee much. How they made that totally incompetent somali who shot that woman in Minneapolis a cop is an example of how you can't make chicken salad with chicken shit. How about those third world throwbacks in San Bernardino who murdered people who threw them a christmas party? Allah akbar and kill the infidel is how they were paid back for their kindness. It's outright stupidity to think you can bring third world throwbacks here and expect them to add anything positive to this country.

Yeah, like the US needs third world people coming to the US to murder people. I mean, the US has enough home grown murderers to not need to import any at all. It's like selling ice to the Antarctic.

 

[jasonnfree]

I agree with you only to a point.

The city of Cleveland wanted to hold gun manufacturers liable for the murders here in our city. In essence, what they would do is force gun manufacturers to not sell guns in Ohio, and in the process, attempt to put them out of business through those lawsuits.

The only reason they never pursued that goal is because of the courts. It would cost the city millions and they would lose the battle. However. If we had a liberal Supreme Court, they would allow such a suit to continue and of course, stop gun manufacturers from selling guns.

Thank God people chose Trump for President. If Hillary was in charge, guns would be just about illegal in the US in less than a decade.

What worries me is that Trump is a temporary reprieve.

Democrats will either assassinate him or harass him to the point he can not do anything for the nation. He is going to face relentless accusations of wrongdoing until his last day in office. I don't see it ever stopping. I think it will get even worse and they pick at events during his term and make mountains out of anything and everything they can whip up into a frenzy. Makes no difference if it is fake news or not. They are looking to Trump fatigue the nation with bad news even if it's fake news.

As far as Hillary....thank God. Hopefully she'll never come back but her control over the Democrat party is DEEP DEEP DEEP. The Clintons ARE essentially the Democrat party.

What both parties do is underestimate the rage of Republican/ conservative voters. Even if they could get rid of Trump, who would be next to take the office? And even if they could get rid of Pence, the Speaker of the House takes the office of President.

Democrat voters have protests, riot, damage public and private property, stop traffic from flowing when they get mad. When we get mad, we patiently await election day and take our anger out there as we did this past election.

So if they want to piss us off even more, I say good for them. Payback is a bitch.

I'm doing work for seniors (mostly for free) who have been lifelong dems but had it up to here with how the demorats went batshit crazy and tried to turn this country into the third world just so they could have guaranteed voters far into the future. Of course the corruption of the clintons and the arrogance of obama didn't help either.

Oooh, a funny from someone not capable of an intelligent response. Must be a hilary voter.

 

[jasonnfree]

There's a big difference between blacks living in white countries and blacks living in African countries. Take your example of the Japanese, they have one of the most strict immigration laws in order to keep Japan for the Japanese. The result is a relatively peaceful society not destroyed by multiculturalism. Africans can be very peaceful if they are in their natural cultural setting, although you still cherry picked peaceful ones when there are also many African countries that are completely barbaric and violent. You're also nuts if you think those third world countries keep crime statistics accurately anywhere near what Western countries do.

By the way, the Portuguese and Spanish are European, not Latino.

There is a problem with your argument here.

I went to Japan and I went to cross a road because I wanted to go to a store on the other side. I wasn't crossing where I should have crossed, I crossed in the middle of the street, because I didn't want to have to walk 100 meters each way just to get to a store. The road was empty more or less, just one guy on a push bike. I was half way across the road and the guy on the push bike STOPPED his bike so I could go past, even though he could easily have got ahead of me.

He didn't do this because Japan doesn't have many Japanese citizens who are not ethnically Japanese. He did this because that's Japan.

Japan has plenty of foreigners, go to Kyoto and you see them all the time, they work there, they're not citizens but they're not going to get kicked out any time soon either.

Africans can be peaceful in their "natural cultural setting". Oh, and then I'm cherry picking because I looked at all the stats and found 18 African countries who have lower murder rates than the US? How is that cherry picking exactly? Oh, it's because you want me to show only the countries that have HIGHER murder rates than the US, because that somehow makes YOUR argument. Oh, please, stop with the nonsense.

My argument was it isn't blacks who make problems, counter to your argument that high crime exists because the US has more black people than Europe. Right?

So, to back up my point I showed that 18 African countries have LOWER murder rates than the US. Which therefore shows that it isn't blacks who are the problem.

Now you've gone off and said blacks in Africa are different to blacks in America? What, they have three hands or something?

If it were a simple case, which you were suggesting, of blacks being far more prone to crime, then all or most countries with black people in them, would have much higher murder rates than the US, probably proportional to the number of black people in those countries. They don't.

So, your argument is bullshit.

Once again you completely missed the points I made.

Japan may have foreigners in their country, but those that are there are very carefully selected, as you pointed out they are people who are working there. Professionals with jobs. Does Japan have a huge population of non-Japanese that are on welfare? No, they don't.
If we were as selective of who we allowed in our country, our crime rate would be much lower.

As for the African/blacks, the statistics do not lie that in the US they have a much higher violence rate. Your 18 African countries that supposedly have lower murder rates than the US doesn't change that. I never stated that all blacks just commit more violence just because they are black, you just like to jump to that conclusion so you can label me a racist.

Liberals love to cherry pick certain European laws and claim that if the US just did the same, our crime rates would go down. In the case of gun laws, there are several Euro countries with high ownership rates, yet very low crime rates. Even in the US there are huge differences. Take a look at the gun violence rates of Idaho and compare it to any other state with high gun ownership but with a more "diverse" population.

Oh, I have no doubt I'm missing your point, seeing as your point is complete nonsense.

Japan has "carefully selected" foreigners, huh? Yeah, they don't like the Chinese, there's a huge deposit and requirements for them.

But having care immigration doesn't impact the US. Many of the black people were slaves. They've been American for a long time. It's not about color here. There are Russians coming in and doing dodgy stuff alongside the Hispanic, black, Asian, white etc gangs.

The problem in the US is the gangs, not the color of the gang.

No, 18 African countries does not change the fact that there is a problem with black Americans. However this was NOT your point. Your point was the color of their skin caused them to commit crime, that is not the case. There is plenty there that we can look to to see why there are problems, slavery, segregation and being treated as underlings for hundreds of years doesn't help. That many of them are under educated, born into poor families, doing the jobs that white people didn't want to do, etc etc, this has a MUCH BIGGER impact on why they have problems.

Why does Europe have less problems? Because, in general, they treat these people better. Why does France have a big problem with Muslims? Color of their skin? No, because they treated them like SHIT for a long time, they massacred them in Paris, they massacred them in Algeria, they made life hard for them.

Here's your problem, not the color of their skin.

Oh, so Liberals like to cherry pick... not conservatives huh? Can I roll my eyes enough at this blatantly partisan comment? Yes, I'm sure people all over like to cherry pick, it seems to happen here all the time, what with people saying that crime happen because of someone's skin color. Then go off making factually incorrect statements to back up their nonsense.

Treating these third worlders decently doesn't guarantee much. How they made that totally incompetent somali who shot that woman in Minneapolis a cop is an example of how you can't make chicken salad with chicken shit. How about those third world throwbacks in San Bernardino who murdered people who threw them a christmas party? Allah akbar and kill the infidel is how they were paid back for their kindness. It's outright stupidity to think you can bring third world throwbacks here and expect them to add anything positive to this country.

Yeah, like the US needs third world people coming to the US to murder people. I mean, the US has enough home grown murderers to not need to import any at all. It's like selling ice to the Antarctic.

Finally, an intelligent response. You're starting to get it. We have our own low lifes here to deal with, so why add to our problems by bringing in those least capable of assimilating?

 

[rightwinger]

Your problem is that EVERYBODY likes to fuck. Even though you have no money...you can still fuck

The rich? They have high cost doctors to make sure they only have the children they want. The poor? If you didn't pay for your birth control that week.....shit happens

Georgetown Students Go Broke to Buy Birth Control? Target Sells Pills for $9 Per Month

I think these poor people could manage to get a job at McDonald's for one day a month or collect aluminum cans for a day to afford their own birth control.

You seem to be dancing on both sides of the equation here. You complain about poor people having five kids then are outraged if insurance pays for birth control. Even if that birth control only costs nine dollars a month

How Much Do Birth Control Pills Cost? - CostHelper.com

• For patients not covered by health insurance, birth control pills typically cost $20 to $50 a month.
• For patients covered by health insurance, out-of-pocket costs typically consist of a prescription drug copay. Most insurance plans offer the lowest copays on generic medication -- usually $5 to $15 -- and higher copays of $30 to $40 for non-preferred brands.
• Birth control pills, the most commonly covered contraceptive, are covered by more than 80 percent of health insurance plans, according to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. And in some states, it's mandatory; the Kaiser Family Foundation[1] lists 33 states that require coverage of birth control.

So what's your point? At the most, fifty bucks a month. That's less than what you could earn at Walmart working one day a month. I understand you belong to the party of excuses, but you are not making any kind of point here.

The point is you got to make up your mind
You either support low cost or free birth control or you accept poor people having kids

Personally, I would convert ice cream trucks and have them driving up and down the street offering FREE birth control

No, that's not the only two choices nor should they be. We should not be supporting parents who have children they can't support. I've offered several solutions but nobody would have the guts to implement my ideas. If we created a deterrent of having children you cannot afford, it would greatly reduce the amount of poor people being born. Rich or poor, everybody knows how babies are created.

Let em die is not a solution

We are the wealthiest nation on earth. We can afford to take care of our poor. If you want them to have fewer kids....stop bitching about birth control

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, it does not.

Let's say a small and large business open up in the same area. Both pay 35% in taxes. Both are allowed to use 240 different items they can write off. The smaller store can only write off 35 of those items, and the larger store can write off 125 of those items, therefore, the larger store pays less in taxes because they have more write-offs.

In other words there are not two sets of tax laws for the same types of companies. There is only one set of tax laws for both.

Who gets more of a write-off, Applebee's, or the guy with the hot dog stand two blocks from Applebee's?

But we're not talking write offs Ray. Come on, stick to the topic.

We're talking about governments, at whatever level, giving tax breaks to companies so they get an unfair competitive advantage.

Then show me one business where this is true. Show me where two businesses (one large and one small) have two different tax codes because of their size.

Again, what are you talking about? We're not talking about TAX CODES. Come on, I don't have the energy for pushing you back to the topic every post.

Well if you are not talking about two sets of rules for two like businesses just different sized, then I don't know WTF you are talking about. If both industries of like kind follow the same rules and have the same ability to write-off, then there is nothing unfair about it. That's besides the fact that prices are not set based on taxes paid instead of ability to buy in bulk and from the lowest price providers.

I go grocery shopping every week, but once every month or so I go to Sam's Club. Why? Because when you buy in larger quantities, you get a lower price just like businesses do. Our customers deal with Walmart and they are constantly dropping providers and picking up new ones; sometimes at a disadvantage to us and sometime an advantage to us. But none of our customers deal with K-Mart, Target or any other stores. They don't put as much effort into getting products at the lowest possible price as Walmart does. Even if they did, they would not sell their products as cheap as they sell to Walmart because Walmart buys in much larger quantities.

Fine you don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. Maybe if you read what I actually wrote it would help.

We are, in actual fact, talking about companies being GIVEN special deals by governments. Do you remember the bit about bribery? Do you think having a two day conversation about this might have meant that we weren't just talking about tax code? Come on Ray, what the fuck? Get off the bottle or whatever it is you're on man.

Why do you think Walmart can get lower prices?

How Walmart and Home Depot Are Buying Huge Political Influence

"Walmart and Home Depot are ranked among the top 100 political donors overall for the period since 1989, putting their fingerprints on tax and labor law."

Ah.... Walmart pay a lot for political influence.

Why do you think Walmart pay politicians a lot of money? Could it be because they get something out of it Ray?

They got govt to make it so they can pay their workers less and the govt picks up a $6 BILLION tap on that one. Workers come in and they're like "hey, we won't pay you much, but looky here, the govt WILL pay you".

You complain about the govt giving hand outs. They're giving hand outs because Walmart PAY THEM to do so.

As I showed you before, they get $1 billion or more in govt subsidies

Report says Wal-Mart received $1B in government subsidies. - May. 24, 2004

" Over $1 billion in government subsidies have gone into transforming discounter Wal-Mart Stores from a regional discount store operator into the world's largest retailer, "

Yes, how does a company go from a regional discount store to having stores in China and other countries around the world? Wait, let's see. Oh, yeah, the govt gives them an unfair competitive advantage to the tune of ONE BILLION DOLLARS, excluding the shit they get for paying their workers SIX BILLION too little a year and demand the govt picks up that tap too.

I've said all this before Ray, does it not ring a bell, or did you just not bother to read what I wrote?

Wal-Mart, feds struggle to settle bribery investigation

Here's Walmart being done for Bribery, but they don't want to be convicted of the crimes they've been committing, because if they get convicted Ray, they can't get govt subsidies, so they bribing people to make sure they don't get convicted and don't lose their ability to get money from their bribes.

Yes, we have been through this before, and unless you're going to post non-bias evidence instead of liberal propaganda, I'm not wasting the time to read them.

One more time: What Walmart workers con government for is NOT A SUBSIDY TO WALMART! Walmart doesn't benefit if one of their workers are on food stamps or 100,000. It has nothing to do with Walmart, it has to do with electing liberals into office. Saying Walmart workers getting X from government is a Walmart subsidy is an out and out lie and pure propaganda.

Now if you want to call industry asking for lower taxes a payoff, then why not talk about the union bribery to politicians, particularly government unions like the teachers? How about trial lawyer bribery to Democrats that make it possible for a con artist spilling hot coffee on themselves a liability to the restaurant? How about the environmental bribery of making laws that favor their agenda?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Georgetown Students Go Broke to Buy Birth Control? Target Sells Pills for $9 Per Month

I think these poor people could manage to get a job at McDonald's for one day a month or collect aluminum cans for a day to afford their own birth control.

You seem to be dancing on both sides of the equation here. You complain about poor people having five kids then are outraged if insurance pays for birth control. Even if that birth control only costs nine dollars a month

How Much Do Birth Control Pills Cost? - CostHelper.com

• For patients not covered by health insurance, birth control pills typically cost $20 to $50 a month.
• For patients covered by health insurance, out-of-pocket costs typically consist of a prescription drug copay. Most insurance plans offer the lowest copays on generic medication -- usually $5 to $15 -- and higher copays of $30 to $40 for non-preferred brands.
• Birth control pills, the most commonly covered contraceptive, are covered by more than 80 percent of health insurance plans, according to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. And in some states, it's mandatory; the Kaiser Family Foundation[1] lists 33 states that require coverage of birth control.

So what's your point? At the most, fifty bucks a month. That's less than what you could earn at Walmart working one day a month. I understand you belong to the party of excuses, but you are not making any kind of point here.

The point is you got to make up your mind
You either support low cost or free birth control or you accept poor people having kids

Personally, I would convert ice cream trucks and have them driving up and down the street offering FREE birth control

No, that's not the only two choices nor should they be. We should not be supporting parents who have children they can't support. I've offered several solutions but nobody would have the guts to implement my ideas. If we created a deterrent of having children you cannot afford, it would greatly reduce the amount of poor people being born. Rich or poor, everybody knows how babies are created.

Let em die is not a solution

We are the wealthiest nation on earth. We can afford to take care of our poor. If you want them to have fewer kids....stop bitching about birth control

I never bitched about birth control. Let them take all the birth control they want. Just don't charge me for it.

I never said let them die. What I said is if a parent cannot financially support their children, those children should be removed from the household and put in an orphanage. I said that we should have a law were anybody applying for any kind of federal or state assistance get no money until we have them fixed first so they can't procreate while living on taxpayer dollars. If we did things like that, it would greatly reduce the amount of poor people procreating.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There's a big difference between blacks living in white countries and blacks living in African countries. Take your example of the Japanese, they have one of the most strict immigration laws in order to keep Japan for the Japanese. The result is a relatively peaceful society not destroyed by multiculturalism. Africans can be very peaceful if they are in their natural cultural setting, although you still cherry picked peaceful ones when there are also many African countries that are completely barbaric and violent. You're also nuts if you think those third world countries keep crime statistics accurately anywhere near what Western countries do.

By the way, the Portuguese and Spanish are European, not Latino.

There is a problem with your argument here.

I went to Japan and I went to cross a road because I wanted to go to a store on the other side. I wasn't crossing where I should have crossed, I crossed in the middle of the street, because I didn't want to have to walk 100 meters each way just to get to a store. The road was empty more or less, just one guy on a push bike. I was half way across the road and the guy on the push bike STOPPED his bike so I could go past, even though he could easily have got ahead of me.

He didn't do this because Japan doesn't have many Japanese citizens who are not ethnically Japanese. He did this because that's Japan.

Japan has plenty of foreigners, go to Kyoto and you see them all the time, they work there, they're not citizens but they're not going to get kicked out any time soon either.

Africans can be peaceful in their "natural cultural setting". Oh, and then I'm cherry picking because I looked at all the stats and found 18 African countries who have lower murder rates than the US? How is that cherry picking exactly? Oh, it's because you want me to show only the countries that have HIGHER murder rates than the US, because that somehow makes YOUR argument. Oh, please, stop with the nonsense.

My argument was it isn't blacks who make problems, counter to your argument that high crime exists because the US has more black people than Europe. Right?

So, to back up my point I showed that 18 African countries have LOWER murder rates than the US. Which therefore shows that it isn't blacks who are the problem.

Now you've gone off and said blacks in Africa are different to blacks in America? What, they have three hands or something?

If it were a simple case, which you were suggesting, of blacks being far more prone to crime, then all or most countries with black people in them, would have much higher murder rates than the US, probably proportional to the number of black people in those countries. They don't.

So, your argument is bullshit.

Once again you completely missed the points I made.

Japan may have foreigners in their country, but those that are there are very carefully selected, as you pointed out they are people who are working there. Professionals with jobs. Does Japan have a huge population of non-Japanese that are on welfare? No, they don't.
If we were as selective of who we allowed in our country, our crime rate would be much lower.

As for the African/blacks, the statistics do not lie that in the US they have a much higher violence rate. Your 18 African countries that supposedly have lower murder rates than the US doesn't change that. I never stated that all blacks just commit more violence just because they are black, you just like to jump to that conclusion so you can label me a racist.

Liberals love to cherry pick certain European laws and claim that if the US just did the same, our crime rates would go down. In the case of gun laws, there are several Euro countries with high ownership rates, yet very low crime rates. Even in the US there are huge differences. Take a look at the gun violence rates of Idaho and compare it to any other state with high gun ownership but with a more "diverse" population.

Oh, I have no doubt I'm missing your point, seeing as your point is complete nonsense.

Japan has "carefully selected" foreigners, huh? Yeah, they don't like the Chinese, there's a huge deposit and requirements for them.

But having care immigration doesn't impact the US. Many of the black people were slaves. They've been American for a long time. It's not about color here. There are Russians coming in and doing dodgy stuff alongside the Hispanic, black, Asian, white etc gangs.

The problem in the US is the gangs, not the color of the gang.

No, 18 African countries does not change the fact that there is a problem with black Americans. However this was NOT your point. Your point was the color of their skin caused them to commit crime, that is not the case. There is plenty there that we can look to to see why there are problems, slavery, segregation and being treated as underlings for hundreds of years doesn't help. That many of them are under educated, born into poor families, doing the jobs that white people didn't want to do, etc etc, this has a MUCH BIGGER impact on why they have problems.

Why does Europe have less problems? Because, in general, they treat these people better. Why does France have a big problem with Muslims? Color of their skin? No, because they treated them like SHIT for a long time, they massacred them in Paris, they massacred them in Algeria, they made life hard for them.

Here's your problem, not the color of their skin.

Oh, so Liberals like to cherry pick... not conservatives huh? Can I roll my eyes enough at this blatantly partisan comment? Yes, I'm sure people all over like to cherry pick, it seems to happen here all the time, what with people saying that crime happen because of someone's skin color. Then go off making factually incorrect statements to back up their nonsense.

Treating these third worlders decently doesn't guarantee much. How they made that totally incompetent somali who shot that woman in Minneapolis a cop is an example of how you can't make chicken salad with chicken shit. How about those third world throwbacks in San Bernardino who murdered people who threw them a christmas party? Allah akbar and kill the infidel is how they were paid back for their kindness. It's outright stupidity to think you can bring third world throwbacks here and expect them to add anything positive to this country.

Yeah, like the US needs third world people coming to the US to murder people. I mean, the US has enough home grown murderers to not need to import any at all. It's like selling ice to the Antarctic.

Which is why the Republicans created Kate's Law which was actually an idea of Bill O'Reilly, but the Democrat Senate stopped that and the defunding of sanctuary cities right in it's tracks.

 

[rightwinger]

You seem to be dancing on both sides of the equation here. You complain about poor people having five kids then are outraged if insurance pays for birth control. Even if that birth control only costs nine dollars a month

How Much Do Birth Control Pills Cost? - CostHelper.com

• For patients not covered by health insurance, birth control pills typically cost $20 to $50 a month.
• For patients covered by health insurance, out-of-pocket costs typically consist of a prescription drug copay. Most insurance plans offer the lowest copays on generic medication -- usually $5 to $15 -- and higher copays of $30 to $40 for non-preferred brands.
• Birth control pills, the most commonly covered contraceptive, are covered by more than 80 percent of health insurance plans, according to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. And in some states, it's mandatory; the Kaiser Family Foundation[1] lists 33 states that require coverage of birth control.

So what's your point? At the most, fifty bucks a month. That's less than what you could earn at Walmart working one day a month. I understand you belong to the party of excuses, but you are not making any kind of point here.

The point is you got to make up your mind
You either support low cost or free birth control or you accept poor people having kids

Personally, I would convert ice cream trucks and have them driving up and down the street offering FREE birth control

No, that's not the only two choices nor should they be. We should not be supporting parents who have children they can't support. I've offered several solutions but nobody would have the guts to implement my ideas. If we created a deterrent of having children you cannot afford, it would greatly reduce the amount of poor people being born. Rich or poor, everybody knows how babies are created.

Let em die is not a solution

We are the wealthiest nation on earth. We can afford to take care of our poor. If you want them to have fewer kids....stop bitching about birth control

I never bitched about birth control. Let them take all the birth control they want. Just don't charge me for it.

I never said let them die. What I said is if a parent cannot financially support their children, those children should be removed from the household and put in an orphanage. I said that we should have a law were anybody applying for any kind of federal or state assistance get no money until we have them fixed first so they can't procreate while living on taxpayer dollars. If we did things like that, it would greatly reduce the amount of poor people procreating.

No more charge than if their insurance pays for an antibiotic. The antibiotic will prevent an infection.......birth control will prevent a pregnancy

Both are wise investments from a public health perspective

The rest of your post sounds worthy of Hitler

 

[Moonglow]

So what's your point? At the most, fifty bucks a month. That's less than what you could earn at Walmart working one day a month. I understand you belong to the party of excuses, but you are not making any kind of point here.

The point is you got to make up your mind
You either support low cost or free birth control or you accept poor people having kids

Personally, I would convert ice cream trucks and have them driving up and down the street offering FREE birth control

No, that's not the only two choices nor should they be. We should not be supporting parents who have children they can't support. I've offered several solutions but nobody would have the guts to implement my ideas. If we created a deterrent of having children you cannot afford, it would greatly reduce the amount of poor people being born. Rich or poor, everybody knows how babies are created.

Let em die is not a solution

We are the wealthiest nation on earth. We can afford to take care of our poor. If you want them to have fewer kids....stop bitching about birth control

I never bitched about birth control. Let them take all the birth control they want. Just don't charge me for it.

I never said let them die. What I said is if a parent cannot financially support their children, those children should be removed from the household and put in an orphanage. I said that we should have a law were anybody applying for any kind of federal or state assistance get no money until we have them fixed first so they can't procreate while living on taxpayer dollars. If we did things like that, it would greatly reduce the amount of poor people procreating.

No more charge than if their insurance pays for an antibiotic. The antibiotic will prevent an infection.......birth control will prevent a pregnancy

Both are wise investments from a public health perspective

The rest of your post sounds worthy of Hitler

Or Mao.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So what's your point? At the most, fifty bucks a month. That's less than what you could earn at Walmart working one day a month. I understand you belong to the party of excuses, but you are not making any kind of point here.

The point is you got to make up your mind
You either support low cost or free birth control or you accept poor people having kids

Personally, I would convert ice cream trucks and have them driving up and down the street offering FREE birth control

No, that's not the only two choices nor should they be. We should not be supporting parents who have children they can't support. I've offered several solutions but nobody would have the guts to implement my ideas. If we created a deterrent of having children you cannot afford, it would greatly reduce the amount of poor people being born. Rich or poor, everybody knows how babies are created.

Let em die is not a solution

We are the wealthiest nation on earth. We can afford to take care of our poor. If you want them to have fewer kids....stop bitching about birth control

I never bitched about birth control. Let them take all the birth control they want. Just don't charge me for it.

I never said let them die. What I said is if a parent cannot financially support their children, those children should be removed from the household and put in an orphanage. I said that we should have a law were anybody applying for any kind of federal or state assistance get no money until we have them fixed first so they can't procreate while living on taxpayer dollars. If we did things like that, it would greatly reduce the amount of poor people procreating.

No more charge than if their insurance pays for an antibiotic. The antibiotic will prevent an infection.......birth control will prevent a pregnancy

Both are wise investments from a public health perspective

The rest of your post sounds worthy of Hitler

Why Hitler? I ask nothing more of poor people than we working people practice ourselves. When a working couple has the most children their income can afford, they use birth control, and many cases, getting physically fixed. If they don't make enough money to support any children, they get fixed so they never have any. The same standard should be held with poor people. if you don't make enough money to support a family, don't have children.

In most cases, people get infections through no fault or action of their own. Nice try though.

 

[rightwinger]

The point is you got to make up your mind
You either support low cost or free birth control or you accept poor people having kids

Personally, I would convert ice cream trucks and have them driving up and down the street offering FREE birth control

No, that's not the only two choices nor should they be. We should not be supporting parents who have children they can't support. I've offered several solutions but nobody would have the guts to implement my ideas. If we created a deterrent of having children you cannot afford, it would greatly reduce the amount of poor people being born. Rich or poor, everybody knows how babies are created.

Let em die is not a solution

We are the wealthiest nation on earth. We can afford to take care of our poor. If you want them to have fewer kids....stop bitching about birth control

I never bitched about birth control. Let them take all the birth control they want. Just don't charge me for it.

I never said let them die. What I said is if a parent cannot financially support their children, those children should be removed from the household and put in an orphanage. I said that we should have a law were anybody applying for any kind of federal or state assistance get no money until we have them fixed first so they can't procreate while living on taxpayer dollars. If we did things like that, it would greatly reduce the amount of poor people procreating.

No more charge than if their insurance pays for an antibiotic. The antibiotic will prevent an infection.......birth control will prevent a pregnancy

Both are wise investments from a public health perspective

The rest of your post sounds worthy of Hitler

Why Hitler? I ask nothing more of poor people than we working people practice ourselves. When a working couple has the most children their income can afford, they use birth control, and many cases, getting physically fixed. If they don't make enough money to support any children, they get fixed so they never have any. The same standard should be held with poor people. if you don't make enough money to support a family, don't have children.

In most cases, people get infections through no fault or action of their own. Nice try though.

Seems like a solution Hitler would be proud of

Can't take care of your kids, they will be taken away from you. Want them back? sterilization

A Fascist solution

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, that's not the only two choices nor should they be. We should not be supporting parents who have children they can't support. I've offered several solutions but nobody would have the guts to implement my ideas. If we created a deterrent of having children you cannot afford, it would greatly reduce the amount of poor people being born. Rich or poor, everybody knows how babies are created.

Let em die is not a solution

We are the wealthiest nation on earth. We can afford to take care of our poor. If you want them to have fewer kids....stop bitching about birth control

I never bitched about birth control. Let them take all the birth control they want. Just don't charge me for it.

I never said let them die. What I said is if a parent cannot financially support their children, those children should be removed from the household and put in an orphanage. I said that we should have a law were anybody applying for any kind of federal or state assistance get no money until we have them fixed first so they can't procreate while living on taxpayer dollars. If we did things like that, it would greatly reduce the amount of poor people procreating.

No more charge than if their insurance pays for an antibiotic. The antibiotic will prevent an infection.......birth control will prevent a pregnancy

Both are wise investments from a public health perspective

The rest of your post sounds worthy of Hitler

Why Hitler? I ask nothing more of poor people than we working people practice ourselves. When a working couple has the most children their income can afford, they use birth control, and many cases, getting physically fixed. If they don't make enough money to support any children, they get fixed so they never have any. The same standard should be held with poor people. if you don't make enough money to support a family, don't have children.

In most cases, people get infections through no fault or action of their own. Nice try though.

Seems like a solution Hitler would be proud of

Can't take care of your kids, they will be taken away from you. Want them back? sterilization

A Fascist solution

Call it what you want, but what is the liberal solution? Keep promoting the poor to have larger families than the working, and then scratch your head as to why we can't solve poverty?

At least my solutions would produce results. And government takes kids away from parents for other reasons in this country such as child abuse, drug abuse, and parents who are sentenced to prison.

There is nothing Hitleresque about reducing poverty in this country. Nobody has to have children in this country, it's a choice. Nobody has to go on government assistance outside of those who are disabled, it's a choice.

Everything in this country is a choice.

 

[rightwinger]

Let em die is not a solution

We are the wealthiest nation on earth. We can afford to take care of our poor. If you want them to have fewer kids....stop bitching about birth control

I never bitched about birth control. Let them take all the birth control they want. Just don't charge me for it.

I never said let them die. What I said is if a parent cannot financially support their children, those children should be removed from the household and put in an orphanage. I said that we should have a law were anybody applying for any kind of federal or state assistance get no money until we have them fixed first so they can't procreate while living on taxpayer dollars. If we did things like that, it would greatly reduce the amount of poor people procreating.

No more charge than if their insurance pays for an antibiotic. The antibiotic will prevent an infection.......birth control will prevent a pregnancy

Both are wise investments from a public health perspective

The rest of your post sounds worthy of Hitler

Why Hitler? I ask nothing more of poor people than we working people practice ourselves. When a working couple has the most children their income can afford, they use birth control, and many cases, getting physically fixed. If they don't make enough money to support any children, they get fixed so they never have any. The same standard should be held with poor people. if you don't make enough money to support a family, don't have children.

In most cases, people get infections through no fault or action of their own. Nice try though.

Seems like a solution Hitler would be proud of

Can't take care of your kids, they will be taken away from you. Want them back? sterilization

A Fascist solution

Call it what you want, but what is the liberal solution? Keep promoting the poor to have larger families than the working, and then scratch your head as to why we can't solver poverty?

At least my solutions would produce results. And government takes kids away from parents for other reasons in this country such as child abuse, drug abuse, and parents who are sentenced to prison.

There is nothing Hitleresque about reducing poverty in this country. Nobody has to have children in this country, it's a choice. Nobody has to go on government assistance outside of those who are disabled, it's a choice.

Everything in this country is a choice.

Your solution borders on the final solution and is worthy of a fascist hell hole