|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 1, 2024 16:32:34 GMT
Women, and this may be a surprise to you, are the ones who carry babies in order to continue the species. It’s miraculous and worthy of our entire society’s unflinching support. Pretending this is somehow controversial is hilarious. But yet you complain about women living off of the government and having babies. You people are sad idiots There is nothing hypocritical about being pro-family and being against any person or individual living off of taxpayer money. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 1, 2024 16:33:28 GMT
The dimwitted only understand support and condemnation through the eyes of the government. This one in particular will then call others “bootlicker” without any sense of irony.
Feel free to name the agencies or organizations that can effect the issue at scale ..
This is another one of those things you guys really really want but only on your terms and if someone else pays for it ..
If government can’t solve a problem, then what government agency do you propose to solve the problem?!!?!??!!?!!?!? Got’em. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Sept 1, 2024 16:39:07 GMT
Feel free to name the agencies or organizations that can effect the issue at scale ..
This is another one of those things you guys really really want but only on your terms and if someone else pays for it ..
If government can’t solve a problem, then what government agency do you propose to solve the problem?!!?!??!!?!!?!? Got’em.
You got nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Sept 1, 2024 16:57:56 GMT
You’re looking too narrowly. No, I am looking very practically. You can't shame women into having babies as Vance does nor can you use the law to prevent women from having abortions. If you want more babies, then you must use incentives. Lower housing cost, free health care would be a start. People won't do what they can't afford. |
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Sept 1, 2024 16:59:59 GMT
But yet you complain about women living off of the government and having babies. You people are sad idiots There is nothing hypocritical about being pro-family and being against any person or individual living off of taxpayer money. As i said before, personal responsiblity means taking care of what you can. Women don't have babies because they are being personally responsible. They just can't afford it. |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Sept 1, 2024 17:10:26 GMT
Feel free to name the agencies or organizations that can effect the issue at scale ..
This is another one of those things you guys really really want but only on your terms and if someone else pays for it ..
If government can’t solve a problem, then what government agency do you propose to solve the problem?!!?!??!!?!!?!? Got’em. Dodged'em If only I had included "or organizations".. .. .. |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,534
|
Post by thor on Sept 1, 2024 17:47:29 GMT
But yet you complain about women living off of the government and having babies. You people are sad idiots There is nothing hypocritical about being pro-family and being against any person or individual living off of taxpayer money. So you admit that you don't give a shit about tttTTttttHAAAAAaaaaaaAA bbbAAAAbbIIIIEEEessssssssssSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! once they crown. Because money. You are guilty as charged, and we both know it. Jesus sez you're going to Hell: Mt 25:31-46 |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Sept 1, 2024 17:54:17 GMT
Why don't you just read the article and find out. Besides why does it even matter when he said it. In his world of Hyper-Partisan FacePlanting, one is not allowed to examine a comment for meaning..
e.g. That since Trump did not specifically say "go attack the Capitol and stop Biden's certification" on Jan 6th.. means that the dozens of times in the weeks prior where he whistled the same tune to his pack did not inspire his Cult to do so .
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 1, 2024 18:26:05 GMT
You’re looking too narrowly. No, I am looking very practically. You can't shame women into having babies as Vance does nor can you use the law to prevent women from having abortions. If you want more babies, then you must use incentives. Lower housing cost, free health care would be a start. People won't do what they can't afford. Wonder why people can’t afford two kids now when they were having 4-6 on average a hundred years ago? |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 1, 2024 18:33:56 GMT
If government can’t solve a problem, then what government agency do you propose to solve the problem?!!?!??!!?!!?!? Got’em. Dodged'em If only I had included "or organizations".. .. .. There are no “organizations” which will mandate it either. It will require a significant cultural change. Brought about by a revival of sorts (preferably) or a catastrophe that reminds humanity of a more significant purpose than hedonism or nihilism. |
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Sept 1, 2024 18:46:53 GMT
No, I am looking very practically. You can't shame women into having babies as Vance does nor can you use the law to prevent women from having abortions. If you want more babies, then you must use incentives. Lower housing cost, free health care would be a start. People won't do what they can't afford. Wonder why people can’t afford two kids now when they were having 4-6 on average a hundred years ago? As I said, it is the economy stupid |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Sept 1, 2024 18:50:05 GMT
No, I am looking very practically. You can't shame women into having babies as Vance does nor can you use the law to prevent women from having abortions. If you want more babies, then you must use incentives. Lower housing cost, free health care would be a start. People won't do what they can't afford. Wonder why people can’t afford two kids now when they were having 4-6 on average a hundred years ago? I suppose that will just have to remain a mystery .. |
|
|
|
Post by slefty on Sept 1, 2024 19:21:25 GMT
Dodged'em If only I had included "or organizations".. .. .. There are no “organizations” which will mandate it either. It will require a significant cultural change. Brought about by a revival of sorts (preferably) or a catastrophe that reminds humanity of a more significant purpose than hedonism or nihilism. So Jesus or blood? |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 1, 2024 19:37:36 GMT
Wonder why people can’t afford two kids now when they were having 4-6 on average a hundred years ago? I suppose that will just have to remain a mystery .. The federal reserve set it up, and the Nixon Shock knocked it down. Those at the top will obviously do better under a system designed for by and for the elites and the connected. The inflationary aspect of it was always going to punish the poor and working class. |
|
greebnurt
Legend
Posts: 5,207
Member is Online
|
Post by greebnurt on Sept 1, 2024 19:52:34 GMT
There is nothing hypocritical about being pro-family and being against any person or individual living off of taxpayer money. So you admit that you don't give a shit about tttTTttttHAAAAAaaaaaaAA bbbAAAAbbIIIIEEEessssssssssSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! once they crown. Because money. You are guilty as charged, and we both know it. Jesus sez you're going to Hell: Mt 25:31-46 This shit that you do is lame af, ND takes away from whatever point it is you're trying to make. I don't expect change, cause you're stuck in your stupidity. Just thought I'd point it out. Carry on with your shirt bus antics. |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Sept 1, 2024 19:54:35 GMT
No, I am looking very practically. You can't shame women into having babies as Vance does nor can you use the law to prevent women from having abortions. If you want more babies, then you must use incentives. Lower housing cost, free health care would be a start. People won't do what they can't afford. Wonder why people can’t afford two kids now when they were having 4-6 on average a hundred years ago? If they could afford it, would they?
Who cares how many kids people are having. That's just weird.
If you want people to have more kids promote policies that encourage that instead of discouraging it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 1, 2024 20:04:27 GMT
There are no “organizations” which will mandate it either. It will require a significant cultural change. Brought about by a revival of sorts (preferably) or a catastrophe that reminds humanity of a more significant purpose than hedonism or nihilism. So Jesus or blood? Sort of? |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 1, 2024 20:05:15 GMT
Wonder why people can’t afford two kids now when they were having 4-6 on average a hundred years ago? If they could afford it, would they?
Who cares how many kids people are having. That's just weird.
If you want people to have more kids promote policies that encourage that instead of discouraging it.
Everybody should care. I understand why nihilists and hedonists don’t. But that’s just stating the problem from a different angle. |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Sept 1, 2024 20:06:28 GMT
If they could afford it, would they?
Who cares how many kids people are having. That's just weird.
If you want people to have more kids promote policies that encourage that instead of discouraging it.
Everybody should care. I understand why nihilists and hedonists don’t. But that’s just stating the problem from a different angle.
Why?
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 1, 2024 20:07:27 GMT
Everybody should care. I understand why nihilists and hedonists don’t. But that’s just stating the problem from a different angle.
Why?
Are you a nihilist? Let me know, so I can craft a response appropriate for a nihilist. |
|
