|
|
Post by Ff2 on Jun 22, 2016 15:14:43 GMT -5
You don't see any challenges to #1? Of course I do... like I said, these are the hard solutions... not the easy ones. It would probably be easier to temporary sterilize at birth, just like circumcision - you don't get a birth certificate without a sterilization certificate. Well at the very least I give to credit for thinking outside the box. |
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Jun 23, 2016 12:23:58 GMT -5
I could get behind #2-5 in some way shape or form, but pretty sure any type of forced surgical or chemical sterilization of the population would be found unconstitutional  Hell, I dont want you telling me I can't drink the super size soda if I want, I sure dont want you telling me I MUST go through some sort of procedure. Besides, who's to determine what the criteria for long term financial means are? I know people pulling in six figures and living paycheck to paycheck, and others making much less and providing for multiple kids. But hey, its a creative idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Mond the Bagnificient on Jun 23, 2016 12:28:36 GMT -5
I could get behind #2-5 in some way shape or form, but pretty sure any type of forced surgical or chemical sterilization of the population would be found unconstitutional Hell, I dont want you telling me I can't drink the super size soda if I want, I sure dont want you telling me I MUST go through some sort of procedure. Besides, who's to determine what the criteria for long term financial means are? I know people pulling in six figures and living paycheck to paycheck, and others making much less and providing for multiple kids. But hey, its a creative idea. Well, that's why we have the ability to change the constitution.  (edit - wrong emoticon - can't delete it)
I haven't thought it through about the long term financial means definition... but you get the point - I abhor those who pop out kids like they are taking dumps and then ask the state for aid to support them. The easier solution would be to cut off the aid, but then that hurts the child, who is not at fault. I was thinking of something like a mortgage... a gov't Reproduction agency views your credit, assets, income, etc. and makes the determination based on where you live if you can afford another child. Something like that. |
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Jun 24, 2016 8:54:05 GMT -5
I could get behind #2-5 in some way shape or form, but pretty sure any type of forced surgical or chemical sterilization of the population would be found unconstitutional Hell, I dont want you telling me I can't drink the super size soda if I want, I sure dont want you telling me I MUST go through some sort of procedure. Besides, who's to determine what the criteria for long term financial means are? I know people pulling in six figures and living paycheck to paycheck, and others making much less and providing for multiple kids. But hey, its a creative idea. Well, that's why we have the ability to change the constitution. (edit - wrong emoticon - can't delete it)
I haven't thought it through about the long term financial means definition... but you get the point - I abhor those who pop out kids like they are taking dumps and then ask the state for aid to support them. The easier solution would be to cut off the aid, but then that hurts the child, who is not at fault. I was thinking of something like a mortgage... a gov't Reproduction agency views your credit, assets, income, etc. and makes the determination based on where you live if you can afford another child. Something like that. You would trust the government with that responsibility when they are responsible for the problems as it stands? Keep the government out of everything. You need help there should be a short term unemployment and welfare fund that supports itself. Everything else should be from family, friends and charity. There is no sense of family and community anymore because the government wants us to rely on it instead of each other. It is an addiction. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2016 2:02:11 GMT -5
Seriously? Let's hear it then, how do the NYC elites plan on letting the others fight their war again? Have you done anything relevant in your entire life that would make you feel it's ok for you to make such a pompous statement and personal attack? You are the typical internet tough guy, who also wants to pretend you matter, especially on here. Sad........ We invaded Iraq more than once and is a major factor now. Bin Laden lost his shit over Saudi Arabia letting us use their country for air strikes etc. Iraq makes Vietnam look like a love story. Clinton made an executive decision and admits he was wrong for not doing it. After 9-11 we invaded Afghanistan and no one had a problem invading the country that let AQ train freely to prepare for 9-11. Afghanistan would have been difficult enough but no let's invade Iraq too? ?? The U.S. created this shit storm and now we want to blame Obama for leaving Iraq too soon? The Iraqis shouldn't be held responsible for not protecting themselves after the billions we spent there? No invasion of Iraq and there's not vacuum to fill. We can't ignore these realities, No one wants to solve anything else it's "THEIR IDEA", how can we as a nation continue to be so partisan when it comes to simply being rational about what has happened over the last 15 years? We can't make this into we hate an entire religion because it will feed into the BS ISIL/ISIS ideology to recruit, "SEE THEY HATE US".
This might be the dumbest thing I've ever read and it's right from the liberal playbook. Fucking dunce. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2016 2:04:33 GMT -5
I was against the invasion of Iraq when it was happening. That is a fact. In your mind one vote mattered more than the others? Oh that's right let's make this a political bs post. Good work. Gee I wonder what kind of world we would be living in if we didn't invade Iraq? We are fighting an ideology and yet Americans kill other Americans daily without claiming it to be done on the behalf of ISIS. We are a violent nation and we have the stats to prove it. and your point is? hillarity and all of the idiots in the demotardic party also backed the invasion of iraq. and so were the idiots at the ny times ike tom friedman. clinton's cia director said the wmd's were a slam dunk. if you want to do the what ifs make sure you know the facts and are honest in your opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Jets Things on Jun 26, 2016 5:43:13 GMT -5
Seriously? Let's hear it then, how do the NYC elites plan on letting the others fight their war again? Have you done anything relevant in your entire life that would make you feel it's ok for you to make such a pompous statement and personal attack? You are the typical internet tough guy, who also wants to pretend you matter, especially on here. Sad........ This might be the dumbest thing I've ever read and it's right from the liberal playbook. Fucking dunce. You're more worried about upsetting them than them destroying us. That makes you a mindless dunce. Do us a favor and stay over there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2016 8:07:14 GMT -5
Impressively simple minded and arrogant to boot. I'm not worried it's common sense, try it some time, or keep on being the #1 d-bag on here. Seriously? Let's hear it then, how do the NYC elites plan on letting the others fight their war again? Have you done anything relevant in your entire life that would make you feel it's ok for you to make such a pompous statement and personal attack? You are the typical internet tough guy, who also wants to pretend you matter, especially on here. Sad........ You're more worried about upsetting them than them destroying us. That makes you a mindless dunce. Do us a favor and stay over there. |
|
|
|
Post by Jets Things on Jun 26, 2016 8:11:46 GMT -5
Impressively simple minded and arrogant to boot. I'm not worried it's common sense, try it some time, or keep on being the #1 d-bag on here. Yours and my definition of "common sense" vary greatly, thankfully. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2016 8:35:01 GMT -5
You are the guy who thinks he is the "smartest man in the room" Impressively simple minded and arrogant to boot. I'm not worried it's common sense, try it some time, or keep on being the #1 d-bag on here. Yours and my definition of "common sense" vary greatly, thankfully. |
|
|
|
Post by Jets Things on Jun 26, 2016 8:50:33 GMT -5
You are the guy who thinks he is the "smartest man in the room" If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong. So no, I don't. I just see the world the way it actually is rather than how one might want it to be. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2016 8:57:09 GMT -5
It's a big world and the countries within EPCOT, aren't actual countries....... You are the guy who thinks he is the "smartest man in the room" If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong. So no, I don't. I just see the world the way it actually is rather than how one might want it to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Jets Things on Jun 26, 2016 10:42:28 GMT -5
It's a big world and the countries within EPCOT, aren't actual countries....... If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong. So no, I don't. I just see the world the way it actually is rather than how one might want it to be. Eh, 4/10. |
|
|
|
Post by 2foolish on Jun 27, 2016 15:06:36 GMT -5
You are the guy who thinks he is the "smartest man in the room" no he just sees reality...u see ideology... |
|
Hell, I dont want you telling me I can't drink the super size soda if I want, I sure dont want you telling me I MUST go through some sort of procedure. Besides, who's to determine what the criteria for long term financial means are? I know people pulling in six figures and living paycheck to paycheck, and others making much less and providing for multiple kids.
