Universal Birth ControlFollow

And once again, you manage to miss the entire point.


You are proposing that we spend money on a government program even if it does not have any single positive effect.

Again. We should not be creating new spending programs just for the sake of creating them. If you could show me that this would reduce the problem at hand (or any problem for that matte), I'd support it. But you can't do that, and apparently you don't even care either...

Sorry. I call that insane.

How is that a positive effect Smash? Seriously. That's like saying "providing the opportunity for everyone to have access to model trains is a positive effect".


What positive effect? On what? What "thing" are we affecting positively by doing this? How does providing free birth control make people's lives better? Or is there some other criteria you're using?


I'm not kidding. I have no freaking clue why you think this is a good idea.

How is that a positive effect Smash? Seriously. That's like saying "providing the opportunity for everyone to have access to model trains is a positive effect".


No, it's like saying "providing food for all citizens has a positive effect" Welcome to 16 posts ago. Thus we come full circle in terms of your obliviousness.


What positive effect? On what? What "thing" are we affecting positively by doing this? How does providing free birth control make people's lives better? Or is there some other criteria you're using?


It makes their lives better because it provides access to a basic human right, control over one's body. It allows women who don't want to get pregnant to have sex for pleasure. Oh no!!! I realize you're horrified by the thought of empowered women enjoying sex for it's own sake, but there you go.


I'm not kidding. I have no freaking clue why you think this is a good idea.


I know, how could you possibly understand when I've explained it 7 times now? For you to understand why I think it's a good idea at this point, you'd have to have the reading comprehension of a toddler. Clearly you're about 36 years away from that judging by the current rate of of your capacity to learn.

Gah! bangs head on desk

It's amazing to me that I constantly talk about how so many liberals support larger government for the sake of larger government, and you all insist that it's not about that and I'm crazy for even bringing it up. Then we have a thread like this where you argue for *exactly* the sort of "big government for big goverment's sake" that I talk about.

Creating a government program just because people will use it isn't a good reason to do it. You need to show not only that the program will general some positive effect, but that the positive effect is worth the cost of the program.

Your statement could apply to anything. A government program to hand out free ice-cream is just as valid according to your argument. People would make use of that too, but I don't think it would be a good use of government funds. I suppose we could provide free blow jobs to everyone as well, but that's also not something I think the government should be funding.

We should not be funding things just because we can. We should be funding things because we must. This just isn't one of those situations. Not by a long shot.



Sigh. Enter Liberal Twist Around number 7.

I'm not arguing to shut down a program. I'm arguing *against* the creation of a new program that others are arguing for. Can you see the difference? I'm arguing against increasing spending on something that has never been shown to ever have a single positive benefit. The burden is on those who are arguing for this universal birth control idea to show that it's something worth funding. Not the other way around...

Sheesh!


What' staggering about this is that no one has countered my argument that increased availability to birth control has never been shown to decrease the rate of children born to poor single mothers in this country. Not one person has countered that. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Yet Smash continues to argue that we should do it anyway. I'm just trying to figure out why he thinks that's a good idea. Again. I think that the determinating factor for funding something like this is measurable results. I think that *all* federal funding should be based on that criteria. If you create a program to do something (and every program should have some purpose, right?), you should be measuring the success of the program and determining if it's having the effect it's supposed to have. Far too often, that part is just kinda ignored. The result of which is that we end up with a huge government with tons of programs that don't do what they were intended to do, and seem to exist purely for the sake of existing.


Silly me for arguing against the creation of yet another one. Now. If you can state exactly what the purpose of this program would be and then show facts and data that this program would fullfill that purpose, I'd gladly reconsider my position. But we've already had that discussion, and no one has been able to do it yet. Coming in at the end of the discussion and proclaiming that we should do it because, well... we can and people would use it, kinda misses the whole point.

What were numbers 1-6? Is there some Ann Coulter written guide about these somewhere?

It's like a word accident.

Ooh. I geddit!

You're a puzzle aren'tcha!

Is there a 1-900 number I can phone to guess what fUcking planet you're from?

Wait, wait, wait.

Is this defense OF Missie? or defense FROM Missie?

Sorry, but sometimes your typos are just too good to pass up.

In my defence, can I just say that she had lost some weight and a couple of legs by the time I married her