RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Your tax dollars hard at work--promoting marriage(48 posts)

Your tax dollars hard at work--promoting marriageColnagoFE
Jan 14, 2004 8:30 AM
Now really...is this the best use for tax $ and the president's time? Why do I think this is just a prelude to trying to ban gay marriages or at least appease the conservatives into thinking the marriage issue is on Bush's plate? http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~11676~1889581,00.html
Have to get approval of MJ first. Hey, MJ,...94Nole
Jan 14, 2004 8:37 AM
is the Denver Post okay? I need ot be sure that it's on the approved list of believable publications before I read this article and scramble my brain with journalistic jibberish.
Denver Post is fine - USA Today is for morons - nmMJ
Jan 14, 2004 8:40 AM
I can think of one excuse to read USA Today:czardonic
Jan 14, 2004 11:06 AM
You passed a hotel front desk on the way to the can.
could be a very positive thingDougSloan
Jan 14, 2004 8:40 AM
There are vast numbers of children born to unwed mothers, who never have the benefit of a stable, mother and father, home life. Having parents marry and become stable to foster a stable home environment for children has got to be good for the kids, probably better than the alternative, at least. I see nothing wrong with a leader encouraging this.

Don't know if it has any hidden motive to oppose gay marriage. I think it is a positive enough message to stand on it's own, though.

Doug
I just find it a poor use of tax dollarsColnagoFE
Jan 14, 2004 8:46 AM
For one, the issue of unwed mothers among some populations is a very complex one--not likely to be changed by some snappy advertising campaign or "exapmples" of a good marriage. I just think this screams election year politicking.
I just find it a poor use of tax dollarsbill105
Jan 14, 2004 9:00 AM
anything he does will scream election year politics to you. the fact is in addition to a stable home and chance at a better life, married couples who work and contribute to the economy are more likely to pay taxes and need less govt assistance than a single mom w/child. sorry, but its true.
it upsets you that single mothers get welfare?MJ
Jan 14, 2004 9:06 AM
before you start taking shots at poor single mothers siphoning off your tax money perhaps you coud address the $20b of US welfare given to agribusiness

then we can really discuss welfare, entitlement and "free trade" - any other approach amounts to thinly veiled racism

the best way to prevent single mothers and their huge drain on your tax dollars is to have effective sex education rather than the just wait approach which, by all accounts, is proving to be a roaring success

sorry but it's true
Nothing like a Brit trying to tell us how our own welfareNo_sprint
Jan 14, 2004 9:30 AM
system works. Sorry, it's not needed! Stick to your own country. Your obsession with the U.S. is unhealthy.

Secondly, read his post, he's obviously not upset. He simply made a comparison.
Will a feel-good advertising campaign accomplish that?ColnagoFE
Jan 14, 2004 9:39 AM
I'm picturing some cheezy ad campaign that is supposed to appeal to low-income families and champion the benefits of marriage. Can't see it being effective in a million years. I'd have to agree with MJ that spending those $ on sex education and easy access to birth control might be a more effective use of the $. Now agribusiness subsidies are another matter. I grew up in Iowa so I'm pretty familiar with them and why they are needed. Totally different than welfare but I can see how someone from another country might think differently about it.
i still thinkbill105
Jan 14, 2004 9:46 AM
its done for the right reasons. lets wait and see what kind of cheezyness comes out of it before its thrown out at face value. you mention easy access to birth control, for who and under what circumstances?
you're still wrongMJ
Jan 14, 2004 9:52 AM
why, if you are genuinely concerned about single mother siphoning off your tax dollars, are you identifying circumstances for easy access to borth control - EVERYONE should have easy access to birth control - how simple is that? from a tax perspective you can sleep well at night knowing you won't have to pay for all those dark skinned baby's that are draining your tax dollars

your position is a cliche

of course welfare for agri-business lives on and you seem to ignore that entirely... it's always different when sex gets involved - you have a hang up or what?

the "right reason" should read reasons I agree with due to my conservative fundamentalist morality
easy access for birth controlColnagoFE
Jan 14, 2004 9:57 AM
for all...regardless of parental consent and no age limit required. sure this flies in the face of some religions' beliefs, but it could prevent some unwanted pregnancies.
easy access for birth controlbill105
Jan 14, 2004 10:01 AM
youre right in the opinion that it flies in the face of some religions. more to the point it flies in the face of most parents. youre way out on the fringe on this one.
until you get over yourselfMJ
Jan 14, 2004 10:07 AM
enjoy the teenage pregnancy rate and single mothers dependant on welfare and quit your griping about your precious tax dollars - you know the two are linked - it's pretty obvious - to think it's not is just plain wrong

how hypocritical are you? complaining about single mothers and refusing unerstricted access to birth control - maybe you have a plan you're waiting to spring on everbody?
The Abuse Twins weigh in! nmBottomBracketShell
Jan 14, 2004 10:08 AM
Agreed, he is definitely a small minority on this one.No_sprint
Jan 14, 2004 10:11 AM
No problem though. If there were a majority that felt similarly, I suppose policy would be different.
they do - the majority didn't vote for Bush smart guy - nmMJ
Jan 14, 2004 10:16 AM
More British wisdom all about our system huh?No_sprint
Jan 14, 2004 10:22 AM
You guys certainly steered us in the right direction in regards to WMD and Iraq! Thanks! Please, more of your wisdom...
great points - man you're on fireMJ
Jan 14, 2004 10:51 AM
and, er, that was Blair who's suffering now - most folks here were aganist the war - maybe you remember the largest peace march in history held in London before the war?

funny that Bush would just go along with what Blair said so easily? is that the hallmark of great leader?

now why don't you challenge me to a fight and brag about it to your friends?
and now for something completely different...ColnagoFE
Jan 14, 2004 11:06 AM
Grim Reaper: Englishmen, you're all so f*cking pompous. None of you have got any balls!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grim Reaper: Shut up, you American! You Americans, all you do is talk, and talk, and say "let me tell you something" and "I just wanna say." Well, you're dead now, so shut up!
well said - nmMJ
Jan 14, 2004 1:27 PM
How does it fly "in the face of most parents"?Tri_Rich
Jan 14, 2004 10:30 AM
Access to birth control in no way promotes promiscuity.
Monty Python quote timeColnagoFE
Jan 14, 2004 10:57 AM
Harry Blackitt: That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen-seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas...
[sniff]
Harry Blackitt: ... and, Protestantism doesn't stop at the simple condom! Oh, no! I can wear French Ticklers if I want.
Mrs. Blackitt: You what?
Harry Blackitt: French Ticklers. Black Mambos. Crocodile Ribs. Sheaths that are designed not only to protect, but also to enhance the stimulation of sexual congress.
Mrs. Blackitt: Have you got one?
Harry Blackitt: Have I got one? Uh, well, no, but I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, 'Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.'
Mrs. Blackitt: Well, why don't you?
Harry Blackitt: But they-- Well, they cannot, 'cause their church never made the great leap out of the Middle Ages and the domination of alien Episcopal supremacy.
How does it fly "in the face of most parents"?bill105
Jan 14, 2004 1:12 PM
youre dreaming or very out of touch.
maybe so...but I'm a parent tooColnagoFE
Jan 14, 2004 10:51 AM
and I don't think a kid should be punished for having a bad parent who won't allow them access to basic birth control methods. I would hope that my kids (now 2 and 8) could talk to me freely about birth control and sex. I sure couldn't with my parents. They were more of the "just say no to sex" type. While I don't want my kids out there having sex till they are ready, I think it is insane to withold basic devices and methods from them that can help prevent unwanted pregnancy and some STDs--including AIDS.
I agree...Tri_Rich
Jan 14, 2004 12:01 PM
Children should be given all the information and allowed to make the decisions for themselves. If you have done a good job as a parent you should trust your kids.

On the other hand you could say kids are going to rebel, so let them do it in the safest way possible.
maybe so...but I'm a parent toobill105
Jan 14, 2004 12:13 PM
so if your 8 yr old comes home and tells your they are having sex you give them condoms? beautiful.
maybe so...but I'm a parent tooNo_sprint
Jan 14, 2004 12:20 PM
Maybe he puts her on the pill so they can ride bareback.
You're a pig.Alex-in-Evanston
Jan 14, 2004 12:54 PM
You're talking about his children. Is there a line you won't cross in your ugliness?

Alex
*Ugliness* is a good word for it.BottomBracketShell
Jan 14, 2004 1:01 PM
There's no one more morally toxic posting here. A very dark and disturbed individual.
Sex isn't ugly in my opinion. YMMV. nmNo_sprint
Jan 14, 2004 1:07 PM
I'm sure you think your porn collection is beautiful. nmBottomBracketShell
Jan 14, 2004 1:15 PM
I don't think it would come to that at 8 yrs....but yes (nm)ColnagoFE
Jan 14, 2004 12:53 PM
as i said, fringe (nm)bill105
Jan 14, 2004 1:08 PM
great arguments - nmMJ
Jan 14, 2004 9:41 AM
it upsets you that single mothers get welfare?Jusme
Jan 14, 2004 10:45 AM
the best way to prevent single mothers and their huge drain on your tax dollars is to have effective sex education

Are you implying that minoritys need a special program to learn that unptotected sex makes babies? What thinly veiled racism!
White House spends tax dollars on you, billBottomBracketShell
Jan 14, 2004 9:14 AM
Right here:

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/inhalants/
Another possible hidden motivetorquer
Jan 14, 2004 1:01 PM
The New York Times implies in its coverage this morning that Bush was throwing a bone to the religious right, so that he won't have to invest any more political capital in the missionary-position-only constitutional amendment. Time will tell if this is so, or only wishfull thinking by Pravda-on-the-Hudson.

I agree with you, Doug, that a stable home environment with two parents is much better than the alternatives, not least so because of the economic advantages. Its also a positive message that should apply when the two parents are of the same sex, but I guess this administration just can't connect those particular dots.
agreeDuane Gran
Jan 15, 2004 8:26 AM
I can't see how this could be negative. Society has an interest in stable family units. Personally I would like to see the President come out stronger on the issue and address the tax penalties for marriage. A sizable number of Americans could contribute more to the retirement of each partner if they weren't married. I doubt anyone will make a marriage decision based on this issue alone, but as a matter of fairness it should be resolved.
re:Falsely promotes marriage as the right thingjrm
Jan 14, 2004 9:53 AM
be a creator do what the bible sez is right. its more like multiply, find god and consume just like any good republican would do.

i dont think that the government and a small group of jesus freaks should be able to promote one belief system over another using government money.
good pointColnagoFE
Jan 14, 2004 10:01 AM
Using tax $ to promote marriage could be seen as promoting a specific religion--especially if gay marriages are not included in that description of marriage.
Just what the Malibu/Manhattan connection think.No_sprint
Jan 14, 2004 10:03 AM
Spend time at just about everywhere in between and you'll realize just who the majority is.

It's plain to see, but one must travel to do so.

The M & M ers blind themselves by surrounding themselves with one another. Then they make silly assumptions.
Just what the Malibu/Manhattan connection think.bill105
Jan 14, 2004 10:05 AM
kind of like the media
yes there is a huge liberal conspiracy in the media just look at USA Today - nmMJ
Jan 14, 2004 10:09 AM
Exactly. nmNo_sprint
Jan 14, 2004 10:09 AM
unrealgtx
Jan 14, 2004 10:13 AM
$1.5 billion could buy a lot of food
<------------------ ROFL ! ! ! !CARBON110
Jan 14, 2004 10:30 AM
Man you guys brightn up my day....THANKS !