LadySkinsFan Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Ah, poor men, having to rely on women to make reproductive choices! If only these poor men exercised their own reproductive choices instead of relying on those mean women who take advantage of a man by not taking birth control. Men who don't want children should take care of their own reproductive choices. Then they wouldn't be stuck making those child support payments for 18 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 And the men's aspect is possibly the most infurriating point in the whole process. Somehow, society has decided that a man should have no say over whether or not a pregnancy is brought to term, but then, once it is, he's suddenly responssible for paying for it. . Yes, somehow society has decided that if a child actually exists, we need to be concerned with the needs of that child. How shocking. How infuriating. How dreadfully unfair. The "food" needs of some child I didn't even want are cutting into my Budweiser money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Yes, somehow society has decided that if a child actually exists, we need to be concerned with the needs of that child. How shocking. How infuriating. How dreadfully unfair. The "food" needs of some child I didn't even want are cutting into my Budweiser money. LIGHT BULB! We should increase welfare so that the hardworking men don't have to support the child they don't want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 boo hoo... yes, men throughout history, and contining today, are teh ones taking the brunt of the finacnial and social impact from children without married cohabitating parents... (ignoring all evidence, of course--- and no, the anecdotal story of a specific dedicated hard-working man who loses half of his paycheck and is still unable to see his children DOESN"T overwhelm the fact that by far the single biggest path to poverty for children (and for young women as well) in america is non-participating fathers) And the reason they are non-particpating is because the law, and society, have decided that fathers are not necessary, but paychecks are. LIGHT BULB! We should increase welfare so that the hardworking men don't have to support the child they don't want. Wrong. We should spend money on free birth control and abortions, remove all restrictions on those items, and then say that if you have a child under those circumstances, you will not receive any social welfare to support your choice. If you are opposed to abortion, you should probably have thought about that before not taking advantage of free birth control and having sex. And if you are so opposed, you can seek assistance from the so called "pro-life" groups. Who will hate you because you are poor. Ah, poor men, having to rely on women to make reproductive choices! If only these poor men exercised their own reproductive choices instead of relying on those mean women who take advantage of a man by not taking birth control. Men who don't want children should take care of their own reproductive choices. Then they wouldn't be stuck making those child support payments for 18 years. Except women have made the laws so that it is NOT our reproductive choice. Sex is not part of it, otherwise you would be able to put the same restrictions on sex that you do on abortion. You can't, it's unconsititutional. Women want the choice to control their own bodies, they have to accept the consequences of those choices. Otherwise, men should have equal say over the pregnancy that was their choice. That would be equality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 This is why the country becomes so polarized. VA had been pretty moderate Republican for years, but then the Reps thought we weren't Republican enough, so they started forcing wing-nuts down our throats, so we reacted by going moderate Democrat, and I guess that's not enough for the Dems, so now they're going wing-nut Democrat, leaving us stuck with wing-nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 And the reason they are non-particpating is because the law, and society, have decided that fathers are not necessary, but paychecks are. Wrong. We should spend money on free birth control and abortions, remove all restrictions on those items, and then say that if you have a child under those circumstances, you will not receive any social welfare to support your choice. If you are opposed to abortion, you should probably have thought about that before not taking advantage of free birth control and having sex. And if you are so opposed, you can seek assistance from the so called "pro-life" groups. Who will hate you because you are poor. Except women have made the laws so that it is NOT our reproductive choice. Sex is not part of it, otherwise you would be able to put the same restrictions on sex that you do on abortion. You can't, it's unconsititutional. Women want the choice to control their own bodies, they have to accept the consequences of those choices. Otherwise, men should have equal say over the pregnancy that was their choice. That would be equality. LOL. Screw the needs of the innocent baby. That doesn't factor in at all. Men's rights logic is always so compelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 This is why the country becomes so polarized. VA had been pretty moderate Republican for years, but then the Reps thought we weren't Republican enough, so they started forcing wing-nuts down our throats, so we reacted by going moderate Democrat, and I guess that's not enough for the Dems, so now they're going wing-nut Democrat, leaving us stuck with wing-nuts. Virginia is a reflection of the country. The country's political party primaries have become polarized. This was predicted two hundred years ago by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson when they warned Americans about having only two political parties. Each side drifted towards their biggest supporters. For the Dems, that has always been the poor who don't think it's fair that rich people get to stay rich and that they have so much money that they can afford to give more of it away. The GOP, on the other hand, has drifted towards what was once its base: The religious conservative. They will continue to drift until their own voters punish them for their extremism. LOL. Screw the needs of the innocent baby. That doesn't factor in at all. Men's rights logic is always so compelling. Funny, it's not a baby until the mother makes the choice that it is. Why am I paying for her choice when there were options to terminate the pregnancy? Why is it I have to pay for a kid to eat and survive because a woman decided that she wanted a kid she knew she couldn't afford it in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 stick and move stick and move emphasis on the move My opponent is rather shifty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Funny, it's not a baby until the mother makes the choice that it is. Why am I paying for her choice when there were options to terminate the pregnancy? Why is it I have to pay for a kid to eat and survive because a woman decided that she wanted a kid she knew she couldn't afford it in the first place? Because the baby needs to eat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Because the baby needs to eat. Then the pro life organizations that claim that all life is precious can feed it, instead of spending billions trying to pass unconstitutional laws. The Catholic Church could probably lead the way on that if they stopped giving millions redecorating a bishop's house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Even though it was directed at Texas originally..this cartoon feels on point here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Maybe we should consider allowing euthanasia for children like the Dutch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Then the pro life organizations that claim that all life is precious can feed it, instead of spending billions trying to pass unconstitutional laws. "It" still needs to eat, no matter what political point you are trying to make. It's your child and it needs to eat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 "It" still needs to eat, no matter what political point you are trying to make. It's your child and it needs to eat. Sounds like the parent's problem. She probably should have thought of that before deciding to have a child. It should not be society's responsibility to pay for a child because the mother decided to have one despite knowing she could not provide for it. That right there is reason enough to take the child away and give it to parents that want a child and can care for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Maybe we should consider allowing euthanasia for children like the Dutch. Adults would be better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 This is why the country becomes so polarized. VA had been pretty moderate Republican for years, but then the Reps thought we weren't Republican enough, so they started forcing wing-nuts down our throats, so we reacted by going moderate Democrat, and I guess that's not enough for the Dems, so now they're going wing-nut Democrat, leaving us stuck with wing-nuts. I don't think McCaulife is a wing nut, the guy is just an incompetent boob with a great personality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I don't think McCaulife is a wing nut, the guy is just an incompetent boob with a great personality. He's pretty far left. You could tell that by the fact that he brought up gun control, saying how he wants to instutute what Colorado and Maryland have passed, in a state that has been pro-gun for a long time. The fact that he would even mention screams far left. Either that, or he has the worst campaign staff ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 He's pretty far left. You could tell that by the fact that he brought up gun control, saying how he wants to instutute what Colorado and Maryland have passed, in a state that has been pro-gun for a long time. The fact that he would even mention screams far left. Either that, or he has the worst campaign staff ever. What do those states have? Colorado is very pro-gun. Not every gun law is "far left." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 (nevermind! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 What do those states have? Colorado is very pro-gun. Not every gun law is "far left." Colorado was pro-gun. Now they have an AWB, universal background checks, magazine restrictions. Gun control seems to be the bastion of the left right now. Maryland and NY's most recent legislation pretty much established that. Hence why Bloomberg has been backing Mcauliffe financially to the tune of over a million bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Virginia is a reflection of the country. The country's political party primaries have become polarized. This was predicted two hundred years ago by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson when they warned Americans about having only two political parties.I'm not familiar with what Jefferson had to say about Political Parties off the top of my head, but Washington was against them altogether, not just having only two of them. A stance I 100% support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 It's elections like these that reaffirm my move cross country 14 years ago. Yeah, California seems to have it all figured out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Yeah, California seems to have it all figured out. Not sure what the dig was..but I don't recall the past few governors elections in California being fronted by extremists (or really even 1 extremist). Perhaps Meg Whitman was one..but she got the trouncing she deserved (if she really was one). We'll see if Cuckoo gets trounced in Virginia like his party deserves for nominating him. Probably not though since a lot of old Virginia would vote anyone with a "R" in front of his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Let's put it this way..how does a GOPer win (twice) landslide elections in a heavily liberal state like NJ for Governor and how does a GOPer in a heavily conservative state like Virginia lose (badly most likely) the Gov race to a Dem? Until the GOP discovers what the voters are telling them...I tend to think they are a lost cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I see these two nominations and I think about the joke: If I'm camping out in the woods with some friends and a bear comes to investigate, how fast do I have to run to safely out run the bear? Now some may try to figure out exactly how fast a bear can run, but the real answer is I need only be faster than the slowest of my friends out there camping with me. In this race, it seems to be coming down to a race from the bear with each candidate trying to walk the line and be only the second most extreme. We have a former party chairman of the Democratic party during the Clinton years versus a very vocal social conservative doubter of modern science. This should be a barn burner, and I'll be surprised if it ends with a hungry bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.