Daily Steaming Pile of Peloci
-
In her special case, I wouldn't be opposed to a retro-active abortion. That is, if she'd be willing to take one for the team.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Seriously... Does anybody take this[^] seriously? Opinions on planned parenthood aside, is there anybody out there that really believes this has any business being in the "stimulus plan"? A long term plan to reduce financial burdens by a slight amount that will never be measurable? Sure. Stimulus? Hell no. Does this mean we can all expect a giant box of rubbers in the mail from the government? What on Earth will they do with hundreds of millions of dollars for contraceptives? How is birth control supposed to help stimulate the economy? Pelosi's already been born! On the same little interview, this spoof[^] was pretty entertaining (I thought). Never mind personal positions on abortion... I've never quite understood why liberals are so gung-ho for abortion. A vast portion of aborted babies are black, which are traditionally Democrat ballots. And most are poor, which are traditionally Democrat ballots. Do they figure that there are enough illegal Mexicans, dead people and cartoon characters to pick up the slack at the ballot box now? I know what you're thinking, it has to do with feminine freedom and the right to choose! BS, every political stance that politicians take, every issue they choose to politicize, is based on two things: Money & Power. Period. So where's the money and power in abortion? Seems like they're trying to exterminate a large portion of their voting base.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
The wicked witch of the West strikes again. Anybody for term limits?
-
Seriously... Does anybody take this[^] seriously? Opinions on planned parenthood aside, is there anybody out there that really believes this has any business being in the "stimulus plan"? A long term plan to reduce financial burdens by a slight amount that will never be measurable? Sure. Stimulus? Hell no. Does this mean we can all expect a giant box of rubbers in the mail from the government? What on Earth will they do with hundreds of millions of dollars for contraceptives? How is birth control supposed to help stimulate the economy? Pelosi's already been born! On the same little interview, this spoof[^] was pretty entertaining (I thought). Never mind personal positions on abortion... I've never quite understood why liberals are so gung-ho for abortion. A vast portion of aborted babies are black, which are traditionally Democrat ballots. And most are poor, which are traditionally Democrat ballots. Do they figure that there are enough illegal Mexicans, dead people and cartoon characters to pick up the slack at the ballot box now? I know what you're thinking, it has to do with feminine freedom and the right to choose! BS, every political stance that politicians take, every issue they choose to politicize, is based on two things: Money & Power. Period. So where's the money and power in abortion? Seems like they're trying to exterminate a large portion of their voting base.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Seriously... Does anybody take this[^] seriously? Opinions on planned parenthood aside, is there anybody out there that really believes this has any business being in the "stimulus plan"?
What do you think people will spend their tax cuts on? The primary idea of a stimulus plan is to ensure that more stuff is purchased. This can come about by the government making the purchases directly or by the government inducing increased spending by the private sector. This is stimulatory because when firms are selling more stuff they employ more people and are more willing to invest. That is as true of condom sellers as it is of any other type of firm. There will no doubt be ideologically-based disagreements about what constitutes desirable government spending. However, in purely economic terms, there is nothing wrong with using family planning expenditures as part of a stimulus package.
John Carson
-
In her special case, I wouldn't be opposed to a retro-active abortion. That is, if she'd be willing to take one for the team.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
I'd settle for term limits...it's horrifying to think she could live to be 90 or more.
-
Seriously... Does anybody take this[^] seriously? Opinions on planned parenthood aside, is there anybody out there that really believes this has any business being in the "stimulus plan"? A long term plan to reduce financial burdens by a slight amount that will never be measurable? Sure. Stimulus? Hell no. Does this mean we can all expect a giant box of rubbers in the mail from the government? What on Earth will they do with hundreds of millions of dollars for contraceptives? How is birth control supposed to help stimulate the economy? Pelosi's already been born! On the same little interview, this spoof[^] was pretty entertaining (I thought). Never mind personal positions on abortion... I've never quite understood why liberals are so gung-ho for abortion. A vast portion of aborted babies are black, which are traditionally Democrat ballots. And most are poor, which are traditionally Democrat ballots. Do they figure that there are enough illegal Mexicans, dead people and cartoon characters to pick up the slack at the ballot box now? I know what you're thinking, it has to do with feminine freedom and the right to choose! BS, every political stance that politicians take, every issue they choose to politicize, is based on two things: Money & Power. Period. So where's the money and power in abortion? Seems like they're trying to exterminate a large portion of their voting base.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Never mind personal positions on abortion... I've never quite understood why liberals are so gung-ho for abortion. A vast portion of aborted babies are black, which are traditionally Democrat ballots. And most are poor, which are traditionally Democrat ballots.
You seem to think politicians have very long planning horizons. I've never seen any evidence of that.
BoneSoft wrote:
I know what you're thinking, it has to do with feminine freedom and the right to choose! BS, every political stance that politicians take, every issue they choose to politicize, is based on two things: Money & Power. Period. So where's the money and power in abortion?
Um...a lot of people are in favour of it?
John Carson
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Seriously... Does anybody take this[^] seriously? Opinions on planned parenthood aside, is there anybody out there that really believes this has any business being in the "stimulus plan"?
What do you think people will spend their tax cuts on? The primary idea of a stimulus plan is to ensure that more stuff is purchased. This can come about by the government making the purchases directly or by the government inducing increased spending by the private sector. This is stimulatory because when firms are selling more stuff they employ more people and are more willing to invest. That is as true of condom sellers as it is of any other type of firm. There will no doubt be ideologically-based disagreements about what constitutes desirable government spending. However, in purely economic terms, there is nothing wrong with using family planning expenditures as part of a stimulus package.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
This is stimulatory because when firms are selling more stuff they employ more people and are more willing to invest. That is as true of condom sellers as it is of any other type of firm.
Except that there is no actual economic growth occuring. Ultimately, the money going to the firm is coming from the firm. The condom maker gets paid, gives the money to the government, the government gives the money to someone who needs a condom who gives it to the condom maker who... The only way to really stimulate an economy is to allow people to keep more of what they actually earn by real productive work. Work that earns a real profit by producing something that actually does something that improves someone else's economic efficiency in some way.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
This is stimulatory because when firms are selling more stuff they employ more people and are more willing to invest. That is as true of condom sellers as it is of any other type of firm.
Except that there is no actual economic growth occuring. Ultimately, the money going to the firm is coming from the firm. The condom maker gets paid, gives the money to the government, the government gives the money to someone who needs a condom who gives it to the condom maker who... The only way to really stimulate an economy is to allow people to keep more of what they actually earn by real productive work. Work that earns a real profit by producing something that actually does something that improves someone else's economic efficiency in some way.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Except that there is no actual economic growth occuring. Ultimately, the money going to the firm is coming from the firm. The condom maker gets paid, gives the money to the government, the government gives the money to someone who needs a condom who gives it to the condom maker who...
The condom maker also gives money to its workers and its owners and suppliers. And the fact that money circulates is true of all economic activity.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only way to really stimulate an economy is to allow people to keep more of what they actually earn by real productive work. Work that earns a real profit by producing something that actually does something that improves someone else's economic efficiency in some way.
To the extent that this makes any sense at all, you are saying that you want more investment expenditure rather than consumption expenditure. Both are needed and both are desirable.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Except that there is no actual economic growth occuring. Ultimately, the money going to the firm is coming from the firm. The condom maker gets paid, gives the money to the government, the government gives the money to someone who needs a condom who gives it to the condom maker who...
The condom maker also gives money to its workers and its owners and suppliers. And the fact that money circulates is true of all economic activity.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only way to really stimulate an economy is to allow people to keep more of what they actually earn by real productive work. Work that earns a real profit by producing something that actually does something that improves someone else's economic efficiency in some way.
To the extent that this makes any sense at all, you are saying that you want more investment expenditure rather than consumption expenditure. Both are needed and both are desirable.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The condom maker also gives money to its workers and its owners and suppliers. And the fact that money circulates is true of all economic activity.
ANd they spend that money on products of other firms, which goes to the government with goes to other people to buy condoms, which goes to the condom firm...
John Carson wrote:
To the extent that this makes any sense at all, you are saying that you want more investment expenditure rather than consumption expenditure. Both are needed and both are desirable.
If buy 'expenditure' you mean people doing something with their own money based upon their own best judgement rather than the government doing it, than I agree completely.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
This is stimulatory because when firms are selling more stuff they employ more people and are more willing to invest. That is as true of condom sellers as it is of any other type of firm.
Except that there is no actual economic growth occuring. Ultimately, the money going to the firm is coming from the firm. The condom maker gets paid, gives the money to the government, the government gives the money to someone who needs a condom who gives it to the condom maker who... The only way to really stimulate an economy is to allow people to keep more of what they actually earn by real productive work. Work that earns a real profit by producing something that actually does something that improves someone else's economic efficiency in some way.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
The wicked witch of the West strikes again. Anybody for term limits?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Work that earns a real profit by producing something that actually does something that improves someone else's economic efficiency in some way.
Like Bernie Madoff?
Shepman wrote:
Like Bernie Madoff?
ummmm, no...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Seriously... Does anybody take this[^] seriously? Opinions on planned parenthood aside, is there anybody out there that really believes this has any business being in the "stimulus plan"?
What do you think people will spend their tax cuts on? The primary idea of a stimulus plan is to ensure that more stuff is purchased. This can come about by the government making the purchases directly or by the government inducing increased spending by the private sector. This is stimulatory because when firms are selling more stuff they employ more people and are more willing to invest. That is as true of condom sellers as it is of any other type of firm. There will no doubt be ideologically-based disagreements about what constitutes desirable government spending. However, in purely economic terms, there is nothing wrong with using family planning expenditures as part of a stimulus package.
John Carson
Now you're assuming their forward thinking. She said it will cut costs. Meaning kids that would be concieved in the extremely near future won't be an economic burden in at least 9 months from now. 9 months (plus) from now is not stimulus.
John Carson wrote:
there is nothing wrong with using family planning expenditures as part of a stimulus package.
I wouldn't argue that there was anything wrong with it. It just has absolutely nothing to do with stimulus, at least not her described purpose.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Never mind personal positions on abortion... I've never quite understood why liberals are so gung-ho for abortion. A vast portion of aborted babies are black, which are traditionally Democrat ballots. And most are poor, which are traditionally Democrat ballots.
You seem to think politicians have very long planning horizons. I've never seen any evidence of that.
BoneSoft wrote:
I know what you're thinking, it has to do with feminine freedom and the right to choose! BS, every political stance that politicians take, every issue they choose to politicize, is based on two things: Money & Power. Period. So where's the money and power in abortion?
Um...a lot of people are in favour of it?
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
You seem to think politicians have very long planning horizons. I've never seen any evidence of that.
Touche. In grasping for some shred of logic, I over-estimated their ability to think things that effect the people through.
John Carson wrote:
Um...a lot of people are in favour of it?
I'm talking about politicians. And I don't think for an instant that most of them care in the least what the people are in favour of. In fact they make it a point to prove the contrary pretty regularly.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Seriously... Does anybody take this[^] seriously? Opinions on planned parenthood aside, is there anybody out there that really believes this has any business being in the "stimulus plan"? A long term plan to reduce financial burdens by a slight amount that will never be measurable? Sure. Stimulus? Hell no. Does this mean we can all expect a giant box of rubbers in the mail from the government? What on Earth will they do with hundreds of millions of dollars for contraceptives? How is birth control supposed to help stimulate the economy? Pelosi's already been born! On the same little interview, this spoof[^] was pretty entertaining (I thought). Never mind personal positions on abortion... I've never quite understood why liberals are so gung-ho for abortion. A vast portion of aborted babies are black, which are traditionally Democrat ballots. And most are poor, which are traditionally Democrat ballots. Do they figure that there are enough illegal Mexicans, dead people and cartoon characters to pick up the slack at the ballot box now? I know what you're thinking, it has to do with feminine freedom and the right to choose! BS, every political stance that politicians take, every issue they choose to politicize, is based on two things: Money & Power. Period. So where's the money and power in abortion? Seems like they're trying to exterminate a large portion of their voting base.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Never mind personal positions on abortion... I've never quite understood why liberals are so gung-ho for abortion
Abortions are sanctioned medical procedures because in the absence of perfect contraception abortions will happen. Independent of the philosophical/moral quandaries, it's a harm reduction strategy. One dead fetus versus one dead fetus, dead mother, shattered family. Abortion will always be a tragedy. So I'm confused as to why you would decry any movement to improve access and use of contraceptives, or suggest that Pelosi is somehow saying "I like contraception" is equivalent to "I like abortions." It's the exact opposite: increase contraceptive awareness and adherence and abortion rates magically fall. Frankly, in my experience, it's usually the religious right-wingers who are vehemently opposed to harm reduction strategies on absolutist moral principles - and as such take an 'all-or-nothing abstinence' approach to harm reduction in sex, which continues to be a spectacular failure.
- F
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Never mind personal positions on abortion... I've never quite understood why liberals are so gung-ho for abortion
Abortions are sanctioned medical procedures because in the absence of perfect contraception abortions will happen. Independent of the philosophical/moral quandaries, it's a harm reduction strategy. One dead fetus versus one dead fetus, dead mother, shattered family. Abortion will always be a tragedy. So I'm confused as to why you would decry any movement to improve access and use of contraceptives, or suggest that Pelosi is somehow saying "I like contraception" is equivalent to "I like abortions." It's the exact opposite: increase contraceptive awareness and adherence and abortion rates magically fall. Frankly, in my experience, it's usually the religious right-wingers who are vehemently opposed to harm reduction strategies on absolutist moral principles - and as such take an 'all-or-nothing abstinence' approach to harm reduction in sex, which continues to be a spectacular failure.
- F
Without necessarily agreeing (or disagreeing) with you on any given topic, I find your writing to be consistently above average!! Keep up the good work!
-------------------------------------------------------- Knowledge is knowing that the tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in fruit salad!!
-
Without necessarily agreeing (or disagreeing) with you on any given topic, I find your writing to be consistently above average!! Keep up the good work!
-------------------------------------------------------- Knowledge is knowing that the tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in fruit salad!!
-
BoneSoft wrote:
In her special case, I wouldn't be opposed to a retro-active abortion. That is, if she'd be willing to take one for the team.
See? Even you. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
You understand that was a joke, right? ;) I don't wish death on anybody, not even Teddy Kenedy. [edit] See, now only a complete jackass would vote that down. What was so horribly offensive in that post? Grow some nuggets and present your argument. [/edit]
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
modified on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:27 AM
-
I'd settle for term limits...it's horrifying to think she could live to be 90 or more.
It's one of the thoughts that keep me up at night.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Never mind personal positions on abortion... I've never quite understood why liberals are so gung-ho for abortion
Abortions are sanctioned medical procedures because in the absence of perfect contraception abortions will happen. Independent of the philosophical/moral quandaries, it's a harm reduction strategy. One dead fetus versus one dead fetus, dead mother, shattered family. Abortion will always be a tragedy. So I'm confused as to why you would decry any movement to improve access and use of contraceptives, or suggest that Pelosi is somehow saying "I like contraception" is equivalent to "I like abortions." It's the exact opposite: increase contraceptive awareness and adherence and abortion rates magically fall. Frankly, in my experience, it's usually the religious right-wingers who are vehemently opposed to harm reduction strategies on absolutist moral principles - and as such take an 'all-or-nothing abstinence' approach to harm reduction in sex, which continues to be a spectacular failure.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
One dead fetus versus one dead fetus, dead mother, shattered family.
How do you figure that? Millions of women carry pregnancies to term all the time. Oh wait, are we playing like the less than 1% of all abortions that actually are to save the mother are the majority?
Fisticuffs wrote:
So I'm confused as to why you would decry any movement to improve access and use of contraceptives
Where did I do that?
Fisticuffs wrote:
or suggest that Pelosi is somehow saying "I like contraception" is equivalent to "I like abortions."
Nope, contraception was specifically mentioned, but I got the impression that planned parenthood in general was on the table. Especially given the fact that the Mexico City Policy was repeal in the last day or two as well. Maybe contraception was the only thing. The point, however, was not about contraception or abortion... The point was what does any of that have to do with economic stimulus?
Fisticuffs wrote:
It's the exact opposite: increase contraceptive awareness and adherence and abortion rates magically fall.
Yes! Which the religious right has tried to push all along (well some, some still hold onto the idea that abstinence is feasible in this day and age). Which the Democrats have pushed some, but only very quietly so as (seemingly) not to disturb the tide of abortion in this country.
Fisticuffs wrote:
it's usually the religious right-wingers who are vehemently opposed to harm reduction strategies on absolutist moral principles
In my experience, most of those don't have a problem with contraception so much as they dislike it being presented in school. Again... Contraception is not the issue here. The issue is how in the hell it has anything to do with stimulus. The answer, of course, is it has nothing to do with stimulus. So what is she geting at? With such a vacuous argument, she seems to thing the American public is vastly retarded.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Work that earns a real profit by producing something that actually does something that improves someone else's economic efficiency in some way.
Like Bernie Madoff?