btw................ I wouldn't use the pill. I would use Norplant. It fits under the skin. It's pretty effective.AND................. this is not forced. If you want help you get the Norplant under the skin.

I'm sitting here laughing.

You put the Norplant under the skin.......

or you get the hose again.....................


My Gosh I've turned into Buffalo Bob.

it looks like Norplant is discontinued??

(09-17-2010 03:39 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  How about we take the government out of it. You want it, you pay for it. Can't pay?? Find a "support" group who will. They won't?? Suffer the consequences. Sucks

this. that's really all there is to do at this point.

Mack is gonna round up all the dumb ignorant people, including women, especially women, and put them in concentration camps to facilitate forced labor, just like was done with the Pols, gypsies and the Jews. Mack could then conduct medical experiments.
Dr. Josef Mengele called them "useless eaters". Mack calls them "useless f'uckers".

Forget the fact that it was the gov't that facilitated manufacturing to be sent overseas.

And don't forget that many who have lost their jobs was through no fault of their own. Gov't caused many of those circumstances to fruition.

And gov't aholes just pushed another bank bailout.

(09-17-2010 11:15 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  swoosh........ I don't see anyone with pom poms cheering on out of wedlock kids.

(09-17-2010 04:57 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-17-2010 11:15 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  swoosh........ I don't see anyone with pom poms cheering on out of wedlock kids.

and torch with the rebound and put back

If she resigns she better give back the money.

She already bailed on her scheduled Talk Show appearances for tomorrow.

Oy vey.

Here's the thing for me on this. If she loses it is no different than if Castle had won. So it's a wash.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/18/o...tml?hpt=T2

Quote:At issue are more than $20,000 of spending in 2009 and 2010 that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington claims was illegal.

"It turns out Miss O'Donnell has treated her campaign funds like they are her very own personal piggy bank. She's used that money to pay for things like her rent, for gas, meals and even a bowling outing. And that's just flat-out illegal," said Melanie Sloan, the group's executive director....

"For example, in 2009, Miss O'Donnell wasn't a candidate for anything, yet she had numerous campaign expenses, things like travel and gas, and yet she had no actual campaign," Sloan said.

It seems pretty shady, but I wonder how uncommon it really is.

I don't know much about CREW, but from their website they don't appear to be particularly partisan. Their list of most corrupt candidates includes a decent mix of democrats, republicans, and independents.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/

(09-17-2010 01:21 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(09-17-2010 11:15 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  swoosh........ I don't see anyone with pom poms cheering on out of wedlock kids. I can see having medicaid pay for the abortions though. Much much cheaper. As I have said many times before, we should make it mandatory for someone getting govt. assistance to be on birth control. It's a win win. We cut down on abortions (conservatives like) and we don't have as many people sucking off social services.

Wow, so you're openly admitting to being in favor of eugenics?

1) While I don't like the idea of the government becoming more involved in things, I have no clue how you made the leap that birth control in exchange for taxpayer subsidized support is eugenics? I'm with Mach in the sense that if you need govn't help, you now follow their rules (i.e. no more kids until you don't need us). Its a simple agreement regardless of who its between: if I give you this, you must do this to continue to receive it.

2) The biggest challenge I see is ensuring the right of a child to grow up in a proper environment (think basics: food, education, shelter, etc). To what extent should the government get involved? Either they have to take children to ensure that they a raised in a proper environment or provide subsidies to allow parents to create a proper environment. I won't go into too much detail, but you get the general conundrum.

(09-19-2010 01:25 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(09-17-2010 01:21 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(09-17-2010 11:15 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  swoosh........ I don't see anyone with pom poms cheering on out of wedlock kids. I can see having medicaid pay for the abortions though. Much much cheaper. As I have said many times before, we should make it mandatory for someone getting govt. assistance to be on birth control. It's a win win. We cut down on abortions (conservatives like) and we don't have as many people sucking off social services.

Wow, so you're openly admitting to being in favor of eugenics?

1) While I don't like the idea of the government becoming more involved in things, I have no clue how you made the leap that birth control in exchange for taxpayer subsidized support is eugenics? I'm with Mach in the sense that if you need govn't help, you now follow their rules (i.e. no more kids until you don't need us). Its a simple agreement regardless of who its between: if I give you this, you must do this to continue to receive it.

2) The biggest challenge I see is ensuring the right of a child to grow up in a proper environment (think basics: food, education, shelter, etc). To what extent should the government get involved? Either they have to take children to ensure that they a raised in a proper environment or provide subsidies to allow parents to create a proper environment. I won't go into too much detail, but you get the general conundrum.

Taxpayers will be paying for those things one way or another.



We need welfare reform. And if you're so broke that you can't support yourself, and have to rely on the government to live, then you have you have no business bringing a child into the world until you're able to provide for it.

That's common sense.

(09-18-2010 09:37 PM)jh Wrote:  I don't know much about CREW, but from their website they don't appear to be particularly partisan. Their list of most corrupt candidates includes a decent mix of democrats, republicans, and independents.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/

The bio of their Executive Director:

Quote:Ms. Sloan served as Minority Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, working on criminal justice issues for then-Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI). Ms. Sloan also served as Counsel for the Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by then-Representative Charles Schumer (D-NY). There, she drafted portions of the 1994 Crime Bill, including the Violence Against Women Act. In 1993, Ms. Sloan served as Nominations Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, under then-Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE).

The contact name on their site if you want to call for an investigation of O'Donnel is Garrett Russo. His last job was the National Press Desk for former Vice President Gore’s (D-Fantasy Land) Alliance for Climate Protection.

There's nothing non-partisan about them. The list of 2010 Corrupt Candidates they have has 9 republicans and 3 dems.

(09-18-2010 03:53 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  If she resigns she better give back the money.

She already bailed on her scheduled Talk Show appearances for tomorrow.

Damn, when Republicans vote for crazy, you guys go all out.
Sarah Palin, send help.

(09-19-2010 06:58 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-18-2010 09:37 PM)jh Wrote:  I don't know much about CREW, but from their website they don't appear to be particularly partisan. Their list of most corrupt candidates includes a decent mix of democrats, republicans, and independents.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/

The bio of their Executive Director:

Quote:Ms. Sloan served as Minority Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, working on criminal justice issues for then-Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI). Ms. Sloan also served as Counsel for the Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by then-Representative Charles Schumer (D-NY). There, she drafted portions of the 1994 Crime Bill, including the Violence Against Women Act. In 1993, Ms. Sloan served as Nominations Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, under then-Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE).

The contact name on their site if you want to call for an investigation of O'Donnel is Garrett Russo. His last job was the National Press Desk for former Vice President Gore’s (D-Fantasy Land) Alliance for Climate Protection.

There's nothing non-partisan about them. The list of 2010 Corrupt Candidates they have has 9 republicans and 3 dems.

I'm not sure what the bio of the executive director has to do with anything. Just because she used to work for democrats in congress doesn't mean she's a partisan political operative.

By the way, their listing of the 15 most corrupt congressmen includes seven republicans and, wait for it, eight democrats (that's more).
http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/

Their historical (well, only since 2005) listing is heavily slanted towards the republicans.
http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/files/BD...List_1.pdf

(09-19-2010 12:29 PM)jh Wrote:  I'm not sure what the bio of the executive director has to do with anything. Just because she used to work for democrats in congress doesn't mean she's a partisan political operative.

Does it "mean" it? Probably not.
Does it strongly suggest it? You betcha.

There is no such thing as nonpartisan. At least we know which side she's on.

If it does not look slanted to you, that's probably because its slant closely mirrors yours.

(09-19-2010 12:29 PM)jh Wrote:  I'm not sure what the bio of the executive director has to do with anything. Just because she used to work for democrats in congress doesn't mean she's a partisan political operative.

No. But when you take that, along with their communications exec, combined with the other members of the org, the majority of which have worked for dems or other dem supporting groups in the past, it's not exactly far fetched to think they're partisan dems.

Quote:By the way, their listing of the 15 most corrupt congressmen includes seven republicans and, wait for it, eight democrats (that's more).
http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/

That's nice, but I was talking about their most corrupt candidates list you can find Here