Mickey Posted March 18, 2006 Author Posted March 18, 2006 Actually condoms only save money if you assume we should pay for the medical care of someone who is sick due to their own irresponsible act and also uninsured. If I don't have collision insurance on my car I'm not going to enter a demolition derby and expect you to pay for it. You really underestimate the number of people in this country who are truly fed up with Government handouts. A big reason the Democrats and liberals are losing ground in this country is because you want to make victims out of everyone. We all know people who take advantage of the handouts. We see the spoiled trust fund kids who travel the country protesting everything and we have grown tired of it. We don't want to be told what to do by a bunch of egotistical celebrities that wouldn't know morals if it kicked them in the @ss. The majority of Americans are hard working people that would only take a handout if it was a last resort. I guess the next step is labeling poorness as a disease so you can start suing people for discrimination. "you can't refuse to give me that Cadilac...I'm a pooraholic". I'd love for the Democrats to have a platform! maybe "eff the worker" or "Helping crack-whores get condoms and drug treatment on you dime" or "screw the job interview, stay home and have more sex with your free condoms, why work when a Conservative can do it for you." 634482[/snapback] You are better than Archie Bunker. He was fictional, you are for real, I love it. And to think one poster got on my case for suggesting that there were those here whose real problem wasn't just with condoms at health clinics, they are against public health clinics to begin with. That is what you are really against, not just condoms so stop beating around the bush and come out of your conservative closet. I take it then that you are against government support for treating any sick person whose illness can be traced to poor choices of their own? Wonderful, that should pretty much end governmental support of all hospitals and medical research facilities from one end of the country to the other. I love the thing about crack whores. Your argument that every woman who gets treatment at a public health clinic is a crack whore is rock solid. I encourage you to make it in every political forum you visit. Really, its a sure-fire winner. Don't listen to anyone who tells you that blue collar workers are increasingly joining the ranks of the uninsured as well as the lines outside public health clinics. Don't listen to anyone who suggests that rural communities increasingly mired in poverty are some of the biggest beneficiaries of public health clinics. Dear God in Heaven let this man be in charge of the Republican Party.
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 18, 2006 Posted March 18, 2006 You are better than Archie Bunker. He was fictional, you are for real, I love it. And to think one poster got on my case for suggesting that there were those here whose real problem wasn't just with condoms at health clinics, they are against public health clinics to begin with. That is what you are really against, not just condoms so stop beating around the bush and come out of your conservative closet. I take it then that you are against government support for treating any sick person whose illness can be traced to poor choices of their own? Wonderful, that should pretty much end governmental support of all hospitals and medical research facilities from one end of the country to the other. I love the thing about crack whores. Your argument that every woman who gets treatment at a public health clinic is a crack whore is rock solid. I encourage you to make it in every political forum you visit. Really, its a sure-fire winner. Don't listen to anyone who tells you that blue collar workers are increasingly joining the ranks of the uninsured as well as the lines outside public health clinics. Don't listen to anyone who suggests that rural communities increasingly mired in poverty are some of the biggest beneficiaries of public health clinics. Dear God in Heaven let this man be in charge of the Republican Party. 634660[/snapback] OK meathead. If you really think I said that every woman who goes to the clinic is a crack whore , you must not be too bright. Just like all the women at the clinic are not sweet women who just need some advice before considering kissing their boyfriend for the first time, some of the women are not upstanding citizens. Are you really that dense or just like the rest of the dopey Liberals who can turn any part of a sentence into whatever they want to hear? It's like dealing with a five year old! So you're saying that since the lines outside public health clinics are long that we should shut them all down? (A little Mickey logic for you there) I sell health insurance and securities for a living and speak to the people you claim to speak for. I am doing much more to help insure the uninsured and educate people on the need for health insurance than you could possibly wrap your cloudy little head around. Bush's HSA accounts are a great way to ease the cost of insurance and encourage retirement savings. Unlike you and most of the other Liberals I do something about the problems in America, instead of just throwing money at it and protesting.
Mickey Posted March 18, 2006 Author Posted March 18, 2006 OK meathead. If you really think I said that every woman who goes to the clinic is a crack whore , you must not be too bright. Just like all the women at the clinic are not sweet women who just need some advice before considering kissing their boyfriend for the first time, some of the women are not upstanding citizens. Are you really that dense or just like the rest of the dopey Liberals who can turn any part of a sentence into whatever they want to hear? It's like dealing with a five year old! So you're saying that since the lines outside public health clinics are long that we should shut them all down? (A little Mickey logic for you there) I sell health insurance and securities for a living and speak to the people you claim to speak for. I am doing much more to help insure the uninsured and educate people on the need for health insurance than you could possibly wrap your cloudy little head around. Bush's HSA accounts are a great way to ease the cost of insurance and encourage retirement savings. Unlike you and most of the other Liberals I do something about the problems in America, instead of just throwing money at it and protesting. 634684[/snapback] I think public health clinics should stock condoms. Your translation of that point: "Helping crack-whores get condoms and drug treatment on you [sic] dime" Crack whores is your example fella, not mine. Just like your comment about the women at these clinics not being upstanding citizens or "not sweet women". Again, your words. If you don't believe that most of the women at these clinics are crack whores or simply loose and immoral, you have a funny way of showing it. If you do, as your words suggest, then stop whining that you are being misunderstood. If you believe that some women are condom worthy and others, the crack whores, aren't, then make that point and tell us how you would pick and choose between the condom worthy and the unworthy. If you are against contraception at the clinics for all then say so and stop throwing in crap about how terrible people are who use these clinics because you are denying the service to all of them, the good the bad and the crack whores who so haunt you. As for your fascination with crack whores and women who are not sweet enough or upstanding citizens enough to be deserving of a condom, seems to me that those are the people we most want to be using condoms if we were at all concerned about controlling STD's. Duh. Any doctor will tell you that if you want to stop the spread of disease, the first people you give condoms to are the whores. Looking at the numbers of uninsured Americans I'm not surprised that you are out there solving the problem, that certainly explains why it is getting worse: "In a report released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau, 45.8 million people were without medical coverage in 2004, an increase of 859,000 people from the year before. The percentage of uninsured people hovered at 15.7 percent in both 2003 and 2004." Uninsured 8/30/05 Keep up the good work.
Taro T Posted March 18, 2006 Posted March 18, 2006 Really? You haven't seen posts against all government give aways? You haven't seen posts about how the only legitimate government endeavors are defending the seas, the land and delivering the mail? You haven't seen posts against all government entitlements and social programs? Where would all that lead to if not to shutting down public health clinics? Didn't you read the posts which flat out accused poor people of loading up on cheeseburgers at mcdonald's and cases of bud light rather than making wiser spending choices? Did you not read the posts stating that all poor people are poor because they are lazy and lousy decisions makers? Did you read KRC's imitation of poor people pronouncing "Government" as "Gubiment"? Why do you think he did that if not to say that all people in need of public health services are stupid? What do you think is behind those sentiments? Do you think the holders of those sentiments are any happier about providing free drug and alcohol addiction treatments to the poor what with their lazy, lousy, stupid ways? This is a great issue for democrats because it brings out the nasty streak on the right that true moderate swing voters have rejected in the past. I am sure some aren't against public health clinics but if they are against family planning services being available at them then they are at least against having effective public health clinics. Tell you what, call some of the public clinics in your area and ask to talk a physician there. Ask the doc if he or she thinks that a properly stocked health clinic should or should not have contraceptives. I know, actually consulting a medical professional about the best way to deliver health services is just plain silly. Why do that when we can leave it up to a state legislator in thrall to intelligently designed fundamentalists to micromanage a health clinic. Why let the doctors decide how best to spend their budget? Certainly health care decision are better made on the floor of a state house than in a doctor's office. Who cares anyway. They are just a bunch of stupid, lazy poor people. That is the message running through this thread loud and clear. 634367[/snapback] Mickey, as much as you appear to wish to believe that all conservatives are selfish monsters that want to see the poor die from treatable diseases, it is not true. That several people on this board have posted against providing condoms in publicly funded clinics does not automatically mean that they think public health clinics should all be closed.
Alaska Darin Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 Dear God in Heaven let this man be in charge of the Republican Party. 634660[/snapback] So your particular band of idiots, led by Howard Dean, can finally control a branch of the federal government again? Whoopie.
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 I think public health clinics should stock condoms. Your translation of that point: "Helping crack-whores get condoms and drug treatment on you [sic] dime" Crack whores is your example fella, not mine. Just like your comment about the women at these clinics not being upstanding citizens or "not sweet women". Again, your words. If you don't believe that most of the women at these clinics are crack whores or simply loose and immoral, you have a funny way of showing it. If you do, as your words suggest, then stop whining that you are being misunderstood. If you believe that some women are condom worthy and others, the crack whores, aren't, then make that point and tell us how you would pick and choose between the condom worthy and the unworthy. If you are against contraception at the clinics for all then say so and stop throwing in crap about how terrible people are who use these clinics because you are denying the service to all of them, the good the bad and the crack whores who so haunt you. As for your fascination with crack whores and women who are not sweet enough or upstanding citizens enough to be deserving of a condom, seems to me that those are the people we most want to be using condoms if we were at all concerned about controlling STD's. Duh. Any doctor will tell you that if you want to stop the spread of disease, the first people you give condoms to are the whores. Looking at the numbers of uninsured Americans I'm not surprised that you are out there solving the problem, that certainly explains why it is getting worse: "In a report released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau, 45.8 million people were without medical coverage in 2004, an increase of 859,000 people from the year before. The percentage of uninsured people hovered at 15.7 percent in both 2003 and 2004." Uninsured 8/30/05 Keep up the good work. 634763[/snapback] You may really be the most annoying, least inteligent person I have ever tried to comunicate with. This will be my last response to you because you obviously have no interest in actually reading what I write, but would rather rewrite it after twisting all my words around. I never said we should pick and choose who gets free service at a health clinic. I have no fascination with crack whores, it was simply an attempt at a humorous slogan. Government should not provide these services in most instances. If you would like to buy condoms for the poor, by all means buy them. Set up a privately funded clinic and save the world. In fact I hear Canada has a great helath care system, since the mean old government here doesn't care about people, move there. Wait 6 months to get an appointment for anything that is not life threatining and enjoy the benefits of universal medical coverage. As far as helping people get health insurance, how many people has your moronic babble helped. Stop bitching about all the poor victims and help them find jobs. If you really want to change minds, you should really start listening to what people say, not just hearing what you want to hear. Just my opinion, but if you would rather fill your time posting more "so your saying..." posts go ahead.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 So your particular band of idiots, led by Howard Dean, can finally control a branch of the federal government again? Whoopie. 634791[/snapback] I'm still waiting for the race card to get played. Elections are getting closer. Oh wait...that might not pan out too good this time.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 I'm still waiting for the race card to get played. Elections are getting closer. Oh wait...that might not pan out too good this time. 634795[/snapback] Waiting? Did you miss that congressional success in the war on terror where they kept the towel-heads out of our ports?
Ghost of BiB Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 Waiting? Did you miss that congressional success in the war on terror where they kept the towel-heads out of our ports? 634822[/snapback] I thought everyone had to hate Mexicans again. Camel Jockeys were last week. Old news now. It's been a week.
Mickey Posted March 19, 2006 Author Posted March 19, 2006 You may really be the most annoying, least inteligent person I have ever tried to comunicate with. This will be my last response to you because you obviously have no interest in actually reading what I write, but would rather rewrite it after twisting all my words around. I never said we should pick and choose who gets free service at a health clinic. I have no fascination with crack whores, it was simply an attempt at a humorous slogan. Government should not provide these services in most instances. If you would like to buy condoms for the poor, by all means buy them. Set up a privately funded clinic and save the world. In fact I hear Canada has a great helath care system, since the mean old government here doesn't care about people, move there. Wait 6 months to get an appointment for anything that is not life threatining and enjoy the benefits of universal medical coverage. As far as helping people get health insurance, how many people has your moronic babble helped. Stop bitching about all the poor victims and help them find jobs. If you really want to change minds, you should really start listening to what people say, not just hearing what you want to hear. Just my opinion, but if you would rather fill your time posting more "so your saying..." posts go ahead. 634794[/snapback] Awwww, and I was having so much fun watching you run away from your crack whore comment, your "not sweet" comment and your "not upstanding citizen comment". I vote for politicians that want to expand health insurance opportunities to cover more of the uninsured while you vote for the knuckleheads on whose watch the ranks of the uninisured have increased by leaps and bounds. I didn't vote for the guy who screwed about 235,000 veterans out of VA health coverage: "Nearly 1.7 million American veterans were uninsured in 2003, according to a study by Harvard Medical School researchers. The number of uninsured veterans has increased by 235,159 since 2000. Many are now uninsured because of a Bush administration order that deprived most middle-income veterans of Veterans Administration health coverage. The study was based on analyses of government surveys. Veterans were only classified as uninsured if they neither had health insurance nor received ongoing care at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals or clinics. Many of the 1.694 million uninsured veterans in 2003 were barred from VHA care because of a 2003 Bush Administration order that halted enrollment of most middle income veterans. Others were unable to obtain VHA care due to waiting lists at some VHA facilities, unaffordable co-payments for VHA specialty care, or the lack of VHA facilities in their communities. An additional 3.90 million members of veterans’ households were also uninsured and ineligible for VHA care." Keep bragging about how much you do for the uninsured...by voting for Bush?
VABills Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 Awwww, and I was having so much fun watching you run away from your crack whore comment, your "not sweet" comment and your "not upstanding citizen comment". I vote for politicians that want to expand health insurance opportunities to cover more of the uninsured while you vote for the knuckleheads on whose watch the ranks of the uninisured have increased by leaps and bounds. I didn't vote for the guy who screwed about 235,000 veterans out of VA health coverage: "Nearly 1.7 million American veterans were uninsured in 2003, according to a study by Harvard Medical School researchers. The number of uninsured veterans has increased by 235,159 since 2000. Many are now uninsured because of a Bush administration order that deprived most middle-income veterans of Veterans Administration health coverage. The study was based on analyses of government surveys. Veterans were only classified as uninsured if they neither had health insurance nor received ongoing care at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals or clinics. Many of the 1.694 million uninsured veterans in 2003 were barred from VHA care because of a 2003 Bush Administration order that halted enrollment of most middle income veterans. Others were unable to obtain VHA care due to waiting lists at some VHA facilities, unaffordable co-payments for VHA specialty care, or the lack of VHA facilities in their communities. An additional 3.90 million members of veterans’ households were also uninsured and ineligible for VHA care." Keep bragging about how much you do for the uninsured...by voting for Bush? 634895[/snapback] You have some facts right, but you have some wrong, or limited in what you are saying. Remember a vet is anyone with 24 months active service. So I am a vet, category 8 level eligible for VA health care services. But too be honest I will never get them, because well I am category 8. That said, your numbers are skewed by that fact alone. Also, i didn't hear any complaints from you when Clinton enacted the first limits on eligibility in 1999 for vets. The fact is there has been a limit on income for 7 years now. Nor did I hear you complain when Clinton cut burial service benefits for vets which at one time included a burial details, and 21 gun salute. At least he didn't get his way as he wanted to get rid of the National cemetary system where vets like myself get a well deserved by free plot and grave marker.
Mickey Posted March 19, 2006 Author Posted March 19, 2006 That's what makes this country great. Every state doesn't have to follow your rules. The people of the state elect their reps who then makes laws that represent the value system of the majority in that state. I know you and a lot of democrats who can't seem to undertsand that concept that majority makes the decisions. If the people don;t think they are being represented, then elect new people next time. These folks are in Missouri, last time I checked you didn't live there, so this really doesn't affect you. If you are so bothered, move there and run for office or at least vote for the person who best represents you values. If your candidate loses because most people don;t like him, then guess what Mickey, he loses, and you have to abide by whatever stupid laws the people democratically elected representative comes up with. 634184[/snapback] Thanks for the lecture in democracy. Why haven't we heard that before when conservatives have bitched about something in California or New York? Please, if I am the first person here to raise a question or objection about an issue arising outside of the jurisdiction where I live, I apologize. I had no idea I was breaking such new ground.
Alaska Darin Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 Awwww, and I was having so much fun watching you run away from your crack whore comment, your "not sweet" comment and your "not upstanding citizen comment". I vote for politicians that want to expand health insurance opportunities to cover more of the uninsured while you vote for the knuckleheads on whose watch the ranks of the uninisured have increased by leaps and bounds. I didn't vote for the guy who screwed about 235,000 veterans out of VA health coverage: "Nearly 1.7 million American veterans were uninsured in 2003, according to a study by Harvard Medical School researchers. The number of uninsured veterans has increased by 235,159 since 2000. Many are now uninsured because of a Bush administration order that deprived most middle-income veterans of Veterans Administration health coverage. The study was based on analyses of government surveys. Veterans were only classified as uninsured if they neither had health insurance nor received ongoing care at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals or clinics. Many of the 1.694 million uninsured veterans in 2003 were barred from VHA care because of a 2003 Bush Administration order that halted enrollment of most middle income veterans. Others were unable to obtain VHA care due to waiting lists at some VHA facilities, unaffordable co-payments for VHA specialty care, or the lack of VHA facilities in their communities. An additional 3.90 million members of veterans’ households were also uninsured and ineligible for VHA care." Keep bragging about how much you do for the uninsured...by voting for Bush? 634895[/snapback] Gee, how come that champion of veteran's issues John Kerry isn't proposing new leftislation to fix all these inequities? All those other Democrats who you puff your chest out for? Probably because he's a lying hypocrite spin doctor, just like the majority of people who pull that lever for the democrats election after election.
Mickey Posted March 19, 2006 Author Posted March 19, 2006 You have some facts right, but you have some wrong, or limited in what you are saying. Remember a vet is anyone with 24 months active service. So I am a vet, category 8 level eligible for VA health care services. But too be honest I will never get them, because well I am category 8. That said, your numbers are skewed by that fact alone. Also, i didn't hear any complaints from you when Clinton enacted the first limits on eligibility in 1999 for vets. The fact is there has been a limit on income for 7 years now. Nor did I hear you complain when Clinton cut burial service benefits for vets which at one time included a burial details, and 21 gun salute. At least he didn't get his way as he wanted to get rid of the National cemetary system where vets like myself get a well deserved by free plot and grave marker. 634926[/snapback] If Clinton had his way, there would have been universal coverage so that would have solved that problem.
Mickey Posted March 19, 2006 Author Posted March 19, 2006 Mickey, as much as you appear to wish to believe that all conservatives are selfish monsters that want to see the poor die from treatable diseases, it is not true. That several people on this board have posted against providing condoms in publicly funded clinics does not automatically mean that they think public health clinics should all be closed. 634772[/snapback] I asked you 10 questions in that post, you haven't answered one. Since you seem to think I am making this up, lets look at some of the comments from your conservative bretheren: AD: "Sorry about taking away this particular giveaway. Personally I'd like to see governments stop ALL giveaways. It's the road to ruin." Gee, now where oh where did I get the idea that those who oppose this actually oppose the whole idea of a public health clinic, not just condoms? Must just be because I "wish to believe" it. Nope, its because I can read. KRC: "The responsible choice is to get the protection instead of the six-pack of beer, the cup of coffee each day, the McDonalds run, etc." Does he not imply that poor people are wasting money on junk food and beer rather than condoms? He doesn't consider that maybe there wasn't even enough money for rent, or heat or prescription medication, or other necessities of life let alone for a condom. Nope, they must be wasting it on beer and junk food. Chkwing344: "..."well Cletus, I would have used a condom, but the evil Government won't pay for my condoms, beer, and cigarettes so I guess I don't have a choice. I'm sure as hell not giving up my scratch offs or budwieser so I guess I'll have to have some more unwanted children. Hey at least the Government will give me $500 for each brat the wife pops out! Maybe I could sell my food stamps and WIC checks while collecting unemployment and welfare due to this horrible back injury that keeps me from working, but for some reason doesn't affect my softball prowess." If you really manage to screw up your life so bad that you can't afford contraceptives and basic necessities, you are either incredibly lazy or incredibly unfortunate. The vast majority fall into the lazy catagory. Even worse than KRC. What kind of attitude would you suggest is behind the author of that caricature? Poor people who can't afford condoms have to be beer drinking, cigarette smoking, unemployed, welfare cheating, food stamp collecting, disability fraud. Oh yeah, and lazy too. Is there any stereotype left out there? Would you call that fair, balanced, intellectually objective? JSP: "How about we let the Government sterilize the poor?" Conservatives? Mean? Perish the thought. Chknwing334: "How many times have you seen someone at the food store spend their cash on beer and cigarettes and their food stamps on food?" Hard to argue with the scientific nature of that observation but I might point out that maybe the only time he ever comes into contact with such poor people is in a convenience store. Insufficient sample size. Maybe he should hang out at a public health clinic and ask the folks there how many times they weren't able to pay their rent, put food on the table, buy decent clothes or pay for bus fare let alone condoms or oral contraceptives or whatever. KRC: "WHERE IS MY GUBMENT CHECK, DAMMIT!!" Is this not a caricature of poor people as being ungrateful, rude, greedy and stupid? I'd like to hear your spin free explanation of that comment. Chknwing344: "... many poor people do deserve to be poor. You want to skip school to smoke and drink and hang out?" Again, another caricature of poor people. His hate for them is palpable, it practically drips from every one of his posts. JSP: "Sterilization does, and it'd be a hell of alot cheaper than supporting welfare babies or buying a lifetime supply of condoms or BC pills." Bib: "I was a serious advocate of that [sterilization of the poor] for a while, back when welfare was totally out of control. I don't think that is an answer now..." To be fair, Bib has apparently changed his sterilizing ways and thinks that "...our society should be advanced enough to reach out and help it's citizens when it's justified, and temporarily." On the other hand, he keeps soliciting me for sexual favors so I am not sure what to think. Chknwing344: "Actually condoms only save money if you assume we should pay for the medical care of someone who is sick due to their own irresponsible act and also uninsured. " Sounds to me like he doesn't think we should provide care for sick people unless he approves of the way they got sick. I asked him if this meant that he would withdraw medical care for anyone who got sick where the illness could be traced to making poor choices. He didn't answer. So I don't know if he is only concerned with irresponsible acts by poor people or if that concern includes people in his own income bracket who perhaps get lung cancer from smoking and end up being treated in a hospital which is partly subsidized by the goverment or benefits from cancer research paid for by the government. He wasn't willing to clarify that. You are right, besides their own words, I had no basis whatsoever for thinking that conservatives see poor people as ignorant, lazy, greedy, ungrateful, rude and obnoxious fornicating louts who should be sterilized at those free clinics just before we shut them down.
Alaska Darin Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 If Clinton had his way, there would have been universal coverage so that would have solved that problem. 634930[/snapback] You mean like it has in Canada, which has virtually the same percentage of people without health care as the US? It's amazing after all the data that I've presented here that you'll continue to pretend that government anything on a large scale isn't a disaster. Canada has a smaller population than California and Texas but can't get health care costs under control, nor can they provide even average care to the majority of it's citizens, yet we're going to pull it off because we've got American ingenuity and liberal ideology on our side. Too funny.
Taro T Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 I asked you 10 questions in that post, you haven't answered one. Since you seem to think I am making this up, lets look at some of the comments from your conservative bretheren: AD: "Sorry about taking away this particular giveaway. Personally I'd like to see governments stop ALL giveaways. It's the road to ruin." Gee, now where oh where did I get the idea that those who oppose this actually oppose the whole idea of a public health clinic, not just condoms? Must just be because I "wish to believe" it. Nope, its because I can read. KRC: "The responsible choice is to get the protection instead of the six-pack of beer, the cup of coffee each day, the McDonalds run, etc." Does he not imply that poor people are wasting money on junk food and beer rather than condoms? He doesn't consider that maybe there wasn't even enough money for rent, or heat or prescription medication, or other necessities of life let alone for a condom. Nope, they must be wasting it on beer and junk food. Chkwing344: "..."well Cletus, I would have used a condom, but the evil Government won't pay for my condoms, beer, and cigarettes so I guess I don't have a choice. I'm sure as hell not giving up my scratch offs or budwieser so I guess I'll have to have some more unwanted children. Hey at least the Government will give me $500 for each brat the wife pops out! Maybe I could sell my food stamps and WIC checks while collecting unemployment and welfare due to this horrible back injury that keeps me from working, but for some reason doesn't affect my softball prowess." If you really manage to screw up your life so bad that you can't afford contraceptives and basic necessities, you are either incredibly lazy or incredibly unfortunate. The vast majority fall into the lazy catagory. Even worse than KRC. What kind of attitude would you suggest is behind the author of that caricature? Poor people who can't afford condoms have to be beer drinking, cigarette smoking, unemployed, welfare cheating, food stamp collecting, disability fraud. Oh yeah, and lazy too. Is there any stereotype left out there? Would you call that fair, balanced, intellectually objective? JSP: "How about we let the Government sterilize the poor?" Conservatives? Mean? Perish the thought. Chknwing334: "How many times have you seen someone at the food store spend their cash on beer and cigarettes and their food stamps on food?" Hard to argue with the scientific nature of that observation but I might point out that maybe the only time he ever comes into contact with such poor people is in a convenience store. Insufficient sample size. Maybe he should hang out at a public health clinic and ask the folks there how many times they weren't able to pay their rent, put food on the table, buy decent clothes or pay for bus fare let alone condoms or oral contraceptives or whatever. KRC: "WHERE IS MY GUBMENT CHECK, DAMMIT!!" Is this not a caricature of poor people as being ungrateful, rude, greedy and stupid? I'd like to hear your spin free explanation of that comment. Chknwing344: "... many poor people do deserve to be poor. You want to skip school to smoke and drink and hang out?" Again, another caricature of poor people. His hate for them is palpable, it practically drips from every one of his posts. JSP: "Sterilization does, and it'd be a hell of alot cheaper than supporting welfare babies or buying a lifetime supply of condoms or BC pills." Bib: "I was a serious advocate of that [sterilization of the poor] for a while, back when welfare was totally out of control. I don't think that is an answer now..." To be fair, Bib has apparently changed his sterilizing ways and thinks that "...our society should be advanced enough to reach out and help it's citizens when it's justified, and temporarily." On the other hand, he keeps soliciting me for sexual favors so I am not sure what to think. Chknwing344: "Actually condoms only save money if you assume we should pay for the medical care of someone who is sick due to their own irresponsible act and also uninsured. " Sounds to me like he doesn't think we should provide care for sick people unless he approves of the way they got sick. I asked him if this meant that he would withdraw medical care for anyone who got sick where the illness could be traced to making poor choices. He didn't answer. So I don't know if he is only concerned with irresponsible acts by poor people or if that concern includes people in his own income bracket who perhaps get lung cancer from smoking and end up being treated in a hospital which is partly subsidized by the goverment or benefits from cancer research paid for by the government. He wasn't willing to clarify that. You are right, besides their own words, I had no basis whatsoever for thinking that conservatives see poor people as ignorant, lazy, greedy, ungrateful, rude and obnoxious fornicating louts who should be sterilized at those free clinics just before we shut them down. 634939[/snapback] 12 actually. And most of your questions were what I considered to be rather absurd and / or off topic, so I intentionally tried to stay on the original topic. That topic being that I have not seen posts by conservatives stating that they want to ban all public health clinics. A broader version of the topic would be that you seemed to be taking logical liberties in traveling down the road from 'Missouri shouldn't be providing free condoms' to "(t)here are plenty here who oppose the very idea of a public health clinic ..." I will play your game though. Here are your questions and my answers Mr. Prosecutor. Really? Yes really. You haven't seen posts against all government give aways? Unlike you, I don't necessarily consider a health clinic a "give away". I am not certain what logic you are using but it is flawed, IMHO. You haven't seen posts about how the only legitimate government endeavors are defending the seas, the land and delivering the mail? No. You haven't seen posts against all government entitlements and social programs? I've seen a lot of posts about reducing / eliminating a lot of federal entitlement programs. I have also read a lot of conservative posters here that tend to oppose a permanent welfare state but do not have problems with providing temporary help to those that are down on their luck. You are absurdly reducing their positions. Something which you have been observed to do with increasing frequency of late. Where would all that lead to if not to shutting down public health clinics? Please see previous answer for understanding the reason that I am not dignifying this one with an answer. Didn't you read the posts which flat out accused poor people of loading up on cheeseburgers at mcdonald's and cases of bud light rather than making wiser spending choices? What in the world does that have to do with doing away with all public clinics? Did you not read the posts stating that all poor people are poor because they are lazy and lousy decisions makers? No, I did not. Once again you are exaggerating and it is distracting from your point. Did you read KRC's imitation of poor people pronouncing "Government" as "Gubiment"? So, KRC's "Gubiment" statement is proof that he wants all public clinics eliminated? Why do you think he did that if not to say that all people in need of public health services are stupid? I actually think he was busting on you more than the poor, but if that isn't the reason, I don't know why he did that. What do you think is behind those sentiments? Your making exaggerations when they are not necessary. Do you think the holders of those sentiments are any happier about providing free drug and alcohol addiction treatments to the poor what with their lazy, lousy, stupid ways? Again, I do not see your logical leap from 'if Missouri wants to stop government condom handouts' to 'all public health clinics must be eliminated.' I also fail to see where this question addresses the elimination of public health clinics, except in an exaggerated tangential manner. Why let the doctors decide how best to spend their budget? I am not even going to attempt to touch this question as it has nothing to do with my point that you are exaggerating peoples' positions. It also has nothing to do with a perceived belief by you that conservatives want to shut down all public health clinics. And to address your new questions, what do any of them have to do with the original premise that I do not see where "(t)here are plenty here who oppose the very idea of a public health clinic ..."?
KRC Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 You may really be the most annoying, least inteligent person I have ever tried to comunicate with. This will be my last response to you because you obviously have no interest in actually reading what I write, but would rather rewrite it after twisting all my words around. 634794[/snapback] You have to realize that it is Mickey's typical tactic to lie, distort and generally be woefully dishonest with the posters here. That is why it is a complete waste of time dealing with him. Your last sentence is a perfect description of his posting style. This is the last post I will be making in this thread, because there is obviously a fundamental difference in definitions of "personal responsibility." I believe that personal responsibility is just that: personal. Not a group effort, but personal. Personal responsibility means that you are solely responsible for your actions, deeds, etc. Others believe that personal responsibility involves others picking up the tab.
KRC Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 I thought everyone had to hate Mexicans again. Camel Jockeys were last week. Old news now. It's been a week. 634865[/snapback] What happened to hating the Asians? Did I miss hating the Asians?
KRC Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 KRC: "The responsible choice is to get the protection instead of the six-pack of beer, the cup of coffee each day, the McDonalds run, etc." Does he not imply that poor people are wasting money on junk food and beer rather than condoms? He doesn't consider that maybe there wasn't even enough money for rent, or heat or prescription medication, or other necessities of life let alone for a condom. Nope, they must be wasting it on beer and junk food. KRC: "WHERE IS MY GUBMENT CHECK, DAMMIT!!" Is this not a caricature of poor people as being ungrateful, rude, greedy and stupid? I'd like to hear your spin free explanation of that comment. 634939[/snapback] Holy hell, you have taken lying to a whole new level. Why do people even post here? We can just have you make sh-- up, attribute it to anyone you feel like and post it. I am tired of your crap. You have no desire to actually have conversations with people. You purposely lie and distort people's views. You are done.
Recommended Posts