Study: Free birth control leads to fewer abortions; Romney wants to cut access.

[candycorn]

^^^unsupported garbage.

Might I suggest an undergarment?

 

[JoeB131]

^^^unsupported garbage.

Might I suggest an undergarment?

Depends...

(get it?)

 

[P@triot]

There are several problems with education; would you agree? Many teachers unions are one of them; no doubt. "Waiting for Superman" illustrated that perfectly.This is my point though: He doesn't talk about any program he has to change it (at least Bush had NCLB); just "Leave the teachers unions behind". Yeah; the solution to improving education is paying teachers less. Only a dumbass like you would believe that.

You're so confused on these issues, you're actually mixing them together. I think you need to take a step back, turn off MSNBC, take a deep breath, and try to focus.

When a conservative talks about paying teachers less, that has nothing to do with "fixing education". That has to do with budgets. It has to do with massive state debts (like the $8 billion in Wisconsin at one time, the $4 billion in Ohio at one time, and the ungodly $16 billion that continues in California to this day). Paying less helps correct those deficits. Surely you can understand that, right?

As far as actually fixing education - conservatives have long had a solution to this problem. It's called SCHOOL CHOICE. When tax dollars are not automatically funneled to the closest school to your house, and instead follow the student whose parents have a choice of where to send them, then the schools have to earn the dollars. And as everyone who is not a left-wing communist dumbocrat knows, being forced to earn in the free-market causes people to work harder, smarter, more efficiently, and just generally up their all around game. While being guaranteed the dollars regardless of performance (ie through government, through unions, etc.) ends with failure and collapse. And guess what else will happen through this model, besides a better education? As the tax dollars follow the students to private schools, the unions will start to collapse and... voilà! The state budgets will drastically improve as a result. Once again we see the free-market easily solving all of the problems created by the anti-free-market, pro-marxist dumbocrats.

Title X funding isn't a problem; getting rid of it will ironically lead to more abortions

Trying to make the case that cutting funding for abortion will actually result in more abortions is as stupid as trying to make the case that cutting defense will actually result in defense contractors creating more military-grade weapons I'm not going to try to make the case that it will end all abortions. I know people will still find ways to do it (even self-inflicted). But ending the cash flow for it will definitely end SOME abortions. It's just a fact. Some people will not be willing to risk their own health and instead will choose adoption. And that will end with LESS abortions over all.

But that's really not the issue. While I find abortions tragic, ultimately those people are going to have to meet their maker one day and explain to HIM why they chose murder. The real issue is, it's not the American tax payer's fucking problem to pay for the abortions of the idiot dumbocrats.

 

[P@triot]

Wait a minute. Are you claiming we had a "perfect" country before the Progressive era. Really?

Not at all. Unlike you and the other dumbocrats who buy into your idealistic "perfect" utopia. However, it was as close to a perfect system as we can possibly get.

Then some whacky people had some idea that the people who actually did the work should see the rewards

The free-market bears exactly what you are worth every time. Nothing less. Nothing more. I know that pisses you off because you're not worth very much, but it's just a fact. If you worked 1/100th as hard as you bitch and cry, you would have been a billionaire. Instead, you think everyone owes you something.

why does it have to be "written".

Oh, I don't know Joe, because we are a nation of laws? Because people actually died to give us the very freedom you piss all over with your hate for this country and your hate for freedom.

We had a vote, and we all decided that we were going to take care of poor people.

No we didn't Joe. We didn't have a vote for Social Security. We didn't have a vote for Medicare. We didn't have a vote for Medicaid. And we sure as HELL didn't have a vote for Obamacare. Instead, we have a vote for representatives, many of which (the dumbocrats) who lied to us and then violated the very Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold and defend.

rich paid their fair share

Sadly, we would need to cut taxes on the wealthy by about 75% for them to be paying their "fair share". The CBO already proved this, and made you look like a monumental fool for repeating this bullshit lie over and over.

and we enjoyed 3.9 unemployment.

Oh, you mean the 3.9% unemployment created by Ronald Reagan cutting taxes and getting the federal government the fuck out of the way of the free market, and which was then collapsed by Bill Clinton and his socialism? Yeah, it would be nice to get back to the Constitutional government Reagan restored and which brought us all of that prosperity.

Here's the thing, the lamest excuse for not doing the right thing is to say something assinine like 'Well, the Founding Slave-Owners didn't think of it in the 18th century, so it must not have been a good idea!"

First of all, who are you to decide what is "the right thing"?!?! You know who else had not only the arrogance to decide that they knew "the right thing" but they were also arrogant enough to believe they had the divine right to push their arrogant assumption on all of humanity. I'm sure you know some of them - Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, and now JoeB.

Second of all, like all dumbocrats, you don't know SHIT about American history. Your asinine dumbocrat talking point of "founding slave owners" is so inaccurate, it's not even funny. Furthermore, the fact that we ENDED slavery during the 1800's and long before the rise of your Marxism & Communism is PROOF of how dumb your argument is.

 

[JoeB131]

Wait a minute. Are you claiming we had a "perfect" country before the Progressive era. Really?

Not at all. Unlike you and the other dumbocrats who buy into your idealistic "perfect" utopia. However, it was as close to a perfect system as we can possibly get.

Let's review, shall we.
Women couldn't vote.
Blacks couldn't vote.
Old people died young because of lack of medical attention.
Children worked in dangerous industrial environments.
Immigrants lived in vast tenement slums.

Then those mean old "progressives"- Republican and Democrats alike, decided, nope, we need to fix this.

Then some whacky people had some idea that the people who actually did the work should see the rewards

The free-market bears exactly what you are worth every time. Nothing less. Nothing more. I know that pisses you off because you're not worth very much, but it's just a fact. If you worked 1/100th as hard as you bitch and cry, you would have been a billionaire. Instead, you think everyone owes you something.

Horseshit. What I've found is no matter how hard you work, there will always be someone out there trying to cheat you. The market is bullshit, always has been. And people are seeing through it.

[
Oh, I don't know Joe, because we are a nation of laws? Because people actually died to give us the very freedom you piss all over with your hate for this country and your hate for freedom.

And where's your DD214. I don't define freedom as "the ability of the rich to act like douchebags."

[
No we didn't Joe. We didn't have a vote for Social Security. We didn't have a vote for Medicare. We didn't have a vote for Medicaid. And we sure as HELL didn't have a vote for Obamacare. Instead, we have a vote for representatives, many of which (the dumbocrats) who lied to us and then violated the very Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold and defend.

You didn't vote for those things. FDR and LBJ and BHO ran on those things, won election and did them.

but I have a wonderful idea. Let's take a couple of square states where no one lives. Send all the Ayn Rand reading assholes there. Put a big fence around it. Then they get no government benefits at all. They can just use their natural wonderful skills and "freedom" to prosper.

Should be hilarious when they end up resorting to cannibalism.

[
Sadly, we would need to cut taxes on the wealthy by about 75% for them to be paying their "fair share". The CBO already proved this, and made you look like a monumental fool for repeating this bullshit lie over and over.

Trickle down is a lie. Supply side doesn't work. We had our greatest prosperity when the workforce was heavily unionized, we invested in infrastructure and the top marginal rate was 93%.

[

and we enjoyed 3.9 unemployment.

Oh, you mean the 3.9% unemployment created by Ronald Reagan cutting taxes and getting the federal government the fuck out of the way of the free market, and which was then collapsed by Bill Clinton and his socialism? Yeah, it would be nice to get back to the Constitutional government Reagan restored and which brought us all of that prosperity.

Except that did nothing of the sort. Reagan cut taxes, we had a weak recovery and huge deficits. Then Reagan agreed to tax increases. Then his deregulators let the Banking Industry ruin the economy, and after saying "read my lips", Bush put in another tax increase. Then Clinton put in a tax increase. And lo and behold, when you got the rich paynig their fair share and government doing its job, then we had real prosperity- and debt reduction.

[

Here's the thing, the lamest excuse for not doing the right thing is to say something assinine like 'Well, the Founding Slave-Owners didn't think of it in the 18th century, so it must not have been a good idea!"

First of all, who are you to decide what is "the right thing"?!?! You know who else had not only the arrogance to decide that they knew "the right thing" but they were also arrogant enough to believe they had the divine right to push their arrogant assumption on all of humanity. I'm sure you know some of them - Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, and now JoeB.

If you're not free to piss on poor people, you aren't free at all.

Somehow, I doubt your rich, hope you will be some day, and just hate the thought the rest of us migh wind that shit back.

Should point out Germany was a social democracy long before Hitler got there. Otto Von Bismark established Social Security and Universal Health Care in 1888. It made Germany the economic dynamo of Europe.

[
Second of all, like all dumbocrats, you don't know SHIT about American history. Your asinine dumbocrat talking point of "founding slave owners" is so inaccurate, it's not even funny. Furthermore, the fact that we ENDED slavery during the 1800's and long before the rise of your Marxism & Communism is PROOF of how dumb your argument is.

We ended slavery and replaced it with Jim Crow for another hundred years. While that was an improvement, it was still wrong. And the fact people like you go batshit crazy over a black guy in the white house shows we still have a long way to go.

 

[JoeB131]

As far as actually fixing education - conservatives have long had a solution to this problem. It's called SCHOOL CHOICE. When tax dollars are not automatically funneled to the closest school to your house, and instead follow the student whose parents have a choice of where to send them, then the schools have to earn the dollars. And as everyone who is not a left-wing communist dumbocrat knows, being forced to earn in the free-market causes people to work harder, smarter, more efficiently, and just generally up their all around game. While being guaranteed the dollars regardless of performance (ie through government, through unions, etc.) ends with failure and collapse. And guess what else will happen through this model, besides a better education? As the tax dollars follow the students to private schools, the unions will start to collapse and... voilà! The state budgets will drastically improve as a result. Once again we see the free-market easily solving all of the problems created by the anti-free-market, pro-marxist dumbocrats.
.

Horseshit.

As a product of Catholic Parochial education, I can tell you this is bullshit.

The private schools didn't take the kids with learning disabilities. The nun's solution to ADHD was a "Ruler across the knuckles." Chornic problem children were thrown out.

Also, what you fail to realize that when you have people paying for a school, it means the parents are more involved. More likely to make sure the kids do their homework, meet with teachers and otherwise be involved.

I think there does need to be reform in the schools. Unions should not have carte blanche to protect bad teachers. Absolutely.

But frankly, if you reduce teacher pay, you are just going to get teachers who are less committed, less qualified, and the best and the brightest will just find something else to do for a living. Something less stressful.

 

[candycorn]

There are several problems with education; would you agree? Many teachers unions are one of them; no doubt. "Waiting for Superman" illustrated that perfectly.This is my point though: He doesn't talk about any program he has to change it (at least Bush had NCLB); just "Leave the teachers unions behind". Yeah; the solution to improving education is paying teachers less. Only a dumbass like you would believe that.

You're so confused on these issues, you're actually mixing them together. I think you need to take a step back, turn off MSNBC, take a deep breath, and try to focus.

I was merely pointing out Mitt's use of buzzwords to impress brainless dolts like you.

When a conservative talks about paying teachers less, that has nothing to do with "fixing education".

No kidding.

That has to do with budgets. It has to do with massive state debts (like the $8 billion in Wisconsin at one time, the $4 billion in Ohio at one time, and the ungodly $16 billion that continues in California to this day). Paying less helps correct those deficits. Surely you can understand that, right?

On that we agree; it does nothing to fix education.

As far as actually fixing education - conservatives have long had a solution to this problem. It's called SCHOOL CHOICE.

And the teachers will be paid like Wal*Mart associates even with this "school choice"

When tax dollars are not automatically funneled to the closest school to your house, and instead follow the student whose parents have a choice of where to send them, then the schools have to earn the dollars.

Ahh, and if your local school closes and you can't send your child across town to the school that remains open...what then?

And as everyone who is not a left-wing communist dumbocrat knows, being forced to earn in the free-market causes people to work harder, smarter, more efficiently, and just generally up their all around game.

So what you're saying is that throwing more money works?

While being guaranteed the dollars regardless of performance (ie through government, through unions, etc.) ends with failure and collapse. And guess what else will happen through this model, besides a better education? As the tax dollars follow the students to private schools, the unions will start to collapse and... voilà! The state budgets will drastically improve as a result. Once again we see the free-market easily solving all of the problems created by the anti-free-market, pro-marxist dumbocrats.

Teachers will make less and the education will be the same. Or does the Governor have any in-classroom specifics?

Title X funding isn't a problem; getting rid of it will ironically lead to more abortions

Trying to make the case that cutting funding for abortion will actually result in more abortions is as stupid as trying to make the case that cutting defense will actually result in defense contractors creating more military-grade weapons

You're speaking out of ignorance again. Gee, what a shock.

By law; not one federal dollar, not one state dollar that I'm aware of funds an abortion anywhere, any time. Live it; love it; know it. Planned parenthood gets a small amount of the $300M to provide family planning assistance and contraception; not abortions shitbrains.

So when you don't provide contraception either through PP or the LHD (Local Health Department), you will end up with more pregnancies....just like if you don't get enough vitamin C, you will get ill; if you do not get enough B4, B6, or B12, you will feel lethargic. This is a medical reality.

So, shitbrains, when you have more pregnancies; you will have more abortions.

I'm not going to try to make the case that it will end all abortions. I know people will still find ways to do it (even self-inflicted). But ending the cash flow for it will definitely end SOME abortions.

You really are out of your depth; it has never been more apparent.

It's just a fact. Some people will not be willing to risk their own health and instead will choose adoption. And that will end with LESS abortions over all.

There's stupid...and then there is THAT statement. You've set a new record.

But that's really not the issue. While I find abortions tragic, ultimately those people are going to have to meet their maker one day and explain to HIM why they chose murder. The real issue is, it's not the American tax payer's fucking problem to pay for the abortions of the idiot dumbocrats.

Learn a tad bit about federal statutes before attempting to debate again next time junior.

 

[candycorn]

As far as actually fixing education - conservatives have long had a solution to this problem. It's called SCHOOL CHOICE. When tax dollars are not automatically funneled to the closest school to your house, and instead follow the student whose parents have a choice of where to send them, then the schools have to earn the dollars. And as everyone who is not a left-wing communist dumbocrat knows, being forced to earn in the free-market causes people to work harder, smarter, more efficiently, and just generally up their all around game. While being guaranteed the dollars regardless of performance (ie through government, through unions, etc.) ends with failure and collapse. And guess what else will happen through this model, besides a better education? As the tax dollars follow the students to private schools, the unions will start to collapse and... voilà! The state budgets will drastically improve as a result. Once again we see the free-market easily solving all of the problems created by the anti-free-market, pro-marxist dumbocrats.
.

Horseshit.

As a product of Catholic Parochial education, I can tell you this is bullshit.

The private schools didn't take the kids with learning disabilities. The nun's solution to ADHD was a "Ruler across the knuckles." Chornic problem children were thrown out.

Also, what you fail to realize that when you have people paying for a school, it means the parents are more involved. More likely to make sure the kids do their homework, meet with teachers and otherwise be involved.

I think there does need to be reform in the schools. Unions should not have carte blanche to protect bad teachers. Absolutely.

But frankly, if you reduce teacher pay, you are just going to get teachers who are less committed, less qualified, and the best and the brightest will just find something else to do for a living. Something less stressful.

The future they are speaking of is this: Look for this in Conservistan:

The University of Phoenix; K-12: Total virtual ecucation without ever setting foot in a classroom.

Capella University Downhole: When you want to feel like you've been educated





This is what they're going for. They've privatized prisons and crated the "prison industrial complex" to where the prison corporations lobby states to create more laws to give them more inmates. They tried to privatize social security to where your future will be in the stock market (just before the largest single-day drop in the Dow took place).

Maybe we'll have private police forces when they decide they no longer want to pay police officer pensions...

 

[P@triot]

Let's review, shall we.
Women couldn't vote.
Blacks couldn't vote.
Old people died young because of lack of medical attention.
Children worked in dangerous industrial environments.
Immigrants lived in vast tenement slums.

Then those mean old "progressives"- Republican and Democrats alike, decided, nope, we need to fix this.

Isn't funny how we're talking about economics (ie pre-marxism, communism, socialism) and all you can do is point to is slavery and women not being able to vote? Kind of speaks volumes that you can't point to one single economic flaw in the system. Since you can't point out a flaw there, you point out flaws in completely unrelated items and somehow think that justifies your strong belief in communism

Horseshit. What I've found is no matter how hard you work, there will always be someone out there trying to cheat you. The market is bullshit, always has been.

Break out the tinfoil hats folks, someone is "always" out to get JoeB.!

I don't define freedom as "the ability of the rich to act like douchebags."

I rest my case. You can't stand that people have the freedom to act however they want, "douchebag" or otherwise. You're just a little Joseph-Stalin wanna be.

Trickle down is a lie. Supply side doesn't work.

You know what works worse than Trickle Down Economics? The idiot Trickle Up Poverty you advocate just so you can feel better about your own failures. You want to drag everyone down to your level, because dragging them down is easier than making an effort to pull yourself up.

And the fact people like you go batshit crazy over a black guy in the white house shows we still have a long way to go.

The fact that you and your fellow idiot dumbocrats can't talk about anything other than a black man in the White House shows was racist assholes you are. All you see is a black man. That's it. I've never seen a black man in the White House. I go "bat shit crazy" because we have a radical Marxist in the White House.

 

[P@triot]

Horseshit.

As a product of Catholic Parochial education, I can tell you this is bullshit.

The private schools didn't take the kids with learning disabilities. The nun's solution to ADHD was a "Ruler across the knuckles." Chornic problem children were thrown out.

Also, what you fail to realize that when you have people paying for a school, it means the parents are more involved. More likely to make sure the kids do their homework, meet with teachers and otherwise be involved.

I think there does need to be reform in the schools. Unions should not have carte blanche to protect bad teachers. Absolutely.

But frankly, if you reduce teacher pay, you are just going to get teachers who are less committed, less qualified, and the best and the brightest will just find something else to do for a living. Something less stressful.

Thank you for PROVING my point (as always). Nobody defeats their own argument like Joseph B. Stalin here does.

If your Catholic school here was so bad, that's even more reason to advocate school choice. How quickly that school would go out of business if there were an abundance of Catholic school (or other school) choices your parents would have had to send you to.

Second, as far as "chronic problem children" - once again we see your entire "it's always someone else's fault" philosophy. If the child is a "chronic problem", he should be thrown the fuck out of the school and sent to a detention center for children.

As far as "ADHD" - once again we see your "it's always someone else's fault" philosophy. This is also another prime example of how more options would create a better education system as said child could move to place where they don't "rap knuckles" for that disorder.

 

[candycorn]

Its neither here nor there on the discussion about Title X funding but since education was brought up; I think we should discontinue all high school sports that involve playing other teams. Not P.E. but if you're going to privatize something, privatize that. We're building stadiums with tax money for schools that aren't educating the children.

Screw that; take whatever money we're spending on swimming, tennis, track and field, football, etc... and put that into vocational education. Teach these kids how to turn a wrench, fix a computer, or draw some blood and take an X-ray.

 

[koshergrl]

You might sort of have a point......even take the money and spend it on MUSIC programs.

 

[koshergrl]

Though I think team sports teach kids things they don't learn any other way...still, I think communities could probably (for the most part) pull together and get something rolling, outside of school. I know in the rural communities I've lived in we've managed to always have sports for the kids, even though there are sometimes no sports programs associated with the (charter, in this case) schools.

 

[JoeB131]

Let's review, shall we.
Women couldn't vote.
Blacks couldn't vote.
Old people died young because of lack of medical attention.
Children worked in dangerous industrial environments.
Immigrants lived in vast tenement slums.

Then those mean old "progressives"- Republican and Democrats alike, decided, nope, we need to fix this.

Isn't funny how we're talking about economics (ie pre-marxism, communism, socialism) and all you can do is point to is slavery and women not being able to vote? Kind of speaks volumes that you can't point to one single economic flaw in the system. Since you can't point out a flaw there, you point out flaws in completely unrelated items and somehow think that justifies your strong belief in communism.

You don't think all those things WERE economic? Of course they were. They were about keeping people in their place. You don't think there was an economic motive to put children at work into the coal mine or for black people to be a disenfranchised workforce working in the cotton feilds even AFTER slavery ended?

[
I rest my case. You can't stand that people have the freedom to act however they want, "douchebag" or otherwise. You're just a little Joseph-Stalin wanna be..

No problem. They can act however they want. As long as they accept the consequences of their actions and pay their fair share. You can act as "douchebaggy" as you want.

You can't have freedom without responsibility... that's anarchy.

[

Trickle down is a lie. Supply side doesn't work.

You know what works worse than Trickle Down Economics? The idiot Trickle Up Poverty you advocate just so you can feel better about your own failures. You want to drag everyone down to your level, because dragging them down is easier than making an effort to pull yourself up.

Nobody has ever pulled himself up, not once. They've been pulled up by others or have climbed over others.

When we had a high tax rate on the rich, strong investment in infrastructure and widespread unionization, we had prosperity the world has not seen before or since.

[

And the fact people like you go batshit crazy over a black guy in the white house shows we still have a long way to go.

The fact that you and your fellow idiot dumbocrats can't talk about anything other than a black man in the White House shows was racist assholes you are. All you see is a black man. That's it. I've never seen a black man in the White House. I go "bat shit crazy" because we have a radical Marxist in the White House.

So you've learned how to say "Marxist" instead of the N-word, and you think you fool anyone?

What I see is a basically good guy you would be touting if he had an R behind his name.

 

[JoeB131]

Horseshit.

As a product of Catholic Parochial education, I can tell you this is bullshit.

The private schools didn't take the kids with learning disabilities. The nun's solution to ADHD was a "Ruler across the knuckles." Chornic problem children were thrown out.

Also, what you fail to realize that when you have people paying for a school, it means the parents are more involved. More likely to make sure the kids do their homework, meet with teachers and otherwise be involved.

I think there does need to be reform in the schools. Unions should not have carte blanche to protect bad teachers. Absolutely.

But frankly, if you reduce teacher pay, you are just going to get teachers who are less committed, less qualified, and the best and the brightest will just find something else to do for a living. Something less stressful.

Thank you for PROVING my point (as always). Nobody defeats their own argument like Joseph B. Stalin here does.

If your Catholic school here was so bad, that's even more reason to advocate school choice. How quickly that school would go out of business if there were an abundance of Catholic school (or other school) choices your parents would have had to send you to.

Second, as far as "chronic problem children" - once again we see your entire "it's always someone else's fault" philosophy. If the child is a "chronic problem", he should be thrown the fuck out of the school and sent to a detention center for children.

As far as "ADHD" - once again we see your "it's always someone else's fault" philosophy. This is also another prime example of how more options would create a better education system as said child could move to place where they don't "rap knuckles" for that disorder.

Poodle, the only point is at the top of your head. I never said that the Catholic schools I went to were bad. Quite the contrary, they were quite good and I got to rub elbows with the children of Congressmen and Mayors. Now, true, I had to deal with their psycho religion, which I figured out was bullshit by the time I was 11. (Right after the nun tried to rationalize that God Totally needed to drown every baby in the world because they were wicked.)

But they were good because the parents had an investment in them. School Choice, which is just going to end up being another give away for rich folks, (because how can you deny them vouchers?) isn't going to change much of anything.

The fact you think we need to send children to detention centers just shows your high level of douchebaggery.

No, if these kids are having problems, we need to fix the problems, before they become adults with problems.

Again- we lock up 2 million, and the French only lock up 56,000. Now why is that?

 

[koshergrl]

Does it count as "keeping people in their place" when you propose knocking rich people down and stealing their $$?

 

[JoeB131]

Does it count as "keeping people in their place" when you propose knocking rich people down and stealing their $$?

No, that's paying your fair share.

I have no problem with people being rich. Frankly, most of civilized society is about defending the right to be rich. If you had complete anarchy, you'd have no rich people. They'd never be able to hold on to anything for that long.

The wealthy SHOULD pay more in taxes. They should be subject to all the same laws the rest of us are. When we have a war, their kids should be in the foxholes right next to the kids of the poor folks.

And to be fair to the rich, the rich of an earlier time understood this.

It's only this new generation of Ayn Rand reading douchebags who have an inflated sense of their own worth.

 

[P@triot]

Nobody has ever pulled himself up, not once. They've been pulled up by others or have climbed over others.

The most ignorant quote ever, by the most ignorant poster ever. Go watch "The Pursuit of Happyness" and then come back and talk to me about your insanely ignorant views on the world...

 

[P@triot]

No, that's paying your fair share.

So then you're advocating for tax cuts for the wealthy and you're supporting Mitt Romney? Because we've already proven that for the wealthy to pay their fair share, we'd have to cut taxes for the wealthy by about 75%.

 

[P@triot]

Nobody has ever pulled himself up, not once. They've been pulled up by others or have climbed over others.

But people like you have pulled down hundreds of millions into poverty. How do you sleep at night knowing how many children went to bed hungry simply because you needed to pull them down so you could feel better about yourself?