[rnen]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=SD Realtor]

– a few hundred million for STD prevention.
[/quote]

What’s with the outrage over STD prevention? Are you social conservatives afraid that if STDs are cured that people will just go nuts having sex everywhere? Are you aware that AIDs and other STDs can be transmitted at birth?

I think STD prevention is a very good thing. It’s much more cost-effective than STD treatment (50 cents for a condom v. a costly trip to the doc).

I feel like this is one of those issues that Republicans use to get religious nutjobs up in arms. Just the mere mention of family planning, STD prevention, or anything other than missionary sex with your wife-who-was-your-first with the lights out and religious nutjobs go all batty.

Use your head: a few hundred million for STD prevention isn’t going to break us and may actually end up saving money in the long run. Compare that to the trillions in bank bailouts where the banks just keep going back and back to the trough with hundreds of billions of taxpayer bailout money evaporating on a regular basis.

If nothing else, think of TG who’s constantly at risk from potentially unclean strange. [/quote]

I do not think the problem is so much spend money on STD prevention as what the hell is it doing in a stimulis bill?

[rnen]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=SD Realtor]

– a few hundred million for STD prevention.
[/quote]

What’s with the outrage over STD prevention? Are you social conservatives afraid that if STDs are cured that people will just go nuts having sex everywhere? Are you aware that AIDs and other STDs can be transmitted at birth?

I think STD prevention is a very good thing. It’s much more cost-effective than STD treatment (50 cents for a condom v. a costly trip to the doc).

I feel like this is one of those issues that Republicans use to get religious nutjobs up in arms. Just the mere mention of family planning, STD prevention, or anything other than missionary sex with your wife-who-was-your-first with the lights out and religious nutjobs go all batty.

Use your head: a few hundred million for STD prevention isn’t going to break us and may actually end up saving money in the long run. Compare that to the trillions in bank bailouts where the banks just keep going back and back to the trough with hundreds of billions of taxpayer bailout money evaporating on a regular basis.

If nothing else, think of TG who’s constantly at risk from potentially unclean strange. [/quote]

I do not think the problem is so much spend money on STD prevention as what the hell is it doing in a stimulis bill?

[rnen]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=SD Realtor]

– a few hundred million for STD prevention.
[/quote]

What’s with the outrage over STD prevention? Are you social conservatives afraid that if STDs are cured that people will just go nuts having sex everywhere? Are you aware that AIDs and other STDs can be transmitted at birth?

I think STD prevention is a very good thing. It’s much more cost-effective than STD treatment (50 cents for a condom v. a costly trip to the doc).

I feel like this is one of those issues that Republicans use to get religious nutjobs up in arms. Just the mere mention of family planning, STD prevention, or anything other than missionary sex with your wife-who-was-your-first with the lights out and religious nutjobs go all batty.

Use your head: a few hundred million for STD prevention isn’t going to break us and may actually end up saving money in the long run. Compare that to the trillions in bank bailouts where the banks just keep going back and back to the trough with hundreds of billions of taxpayer bailout money evaporating on a regular basis.

If nothing else, think of TG who’s constantly at risk from potentially unclean strange. [/quote]

I do not think the problem is so much spend money on STD prevention as what the hell is it doing in a stimulis bill?

[rnen]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=SD Realtor]

– a few hundred million for STD prevention.
[/quote]

What’s with the outrage over STD prevention? Are you social conservatives afraid that if STDs are cured that people will just go nuts having sex everywhere? Are you aware that AIDs and other STDs can be transmitted at birth?

I think STD prevention is a very good thing. It’s much more cost-effective than STD treatment (50 cents for a condom v. a costly trip to the doc).

I feel like this is one of those issues that Republicans use to get religious nutjobs up in arms. Just the mere mention of family planning, STD prevention, or anything other than missionary sex with your wife-who-was-your-first with the lights out and religious nutjobs go all batty.

Use your head: a few hundred million for STD prevention isn’t going to break us and may actually end up saving money in the long run. Compare that to the trillions in bank bailouts where the banks just keep going back and back to the trough with hundreds of billions of taxpayer bailout money evaporating on a regular basis.

If nothing else, think of TG who’s constantly at risk from potentially unclean strange. [/quote]

I do not think the problem is so much spend money on STD prevention as what the hell is it doing in a stimulis bill?

[rnen]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=SD Realtor]

– a few hundred million for STD prevention.
[/quote]

What’s with the outrage over STD prevention? Are you social conservatives afraid that if STDs are cured that people will just go nuts having sex everywhere? Are you aware that AIDs and other STDs can be transmitted at birth?

I think STD prevention is a very good thing. It’s much more cost-effective than STD treatment (50 cents for a condom v. a costly trip to the doc).

I feel like this is one of those issues that Republicans use to get religious nutjobs up in arms. Just the mere mention of family planning, STD prevention, or anything other than missionary sex with your wife-who-was-your-first with the lights out and religious nutjobs go all batty.

Use your head: a few hundred million for STD prevention isn’t going to break us and may actually end up saving money in the long run. Compare that to the trillions in bank bailouts where the banks just keep going back and back to the trough with hundreds of billions of taxpayer bailout money evaporating on a regular basis.

If nothing else, think of TG who’s constantly at risk from potentially unclean strange. [/quote]

I do not think the problem is so much spend money on STD prevention as what the hell is it doing in a stimulis bill?

[rnen]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=rnen]Yep, thats the answer alright…. have the government control a single bank. That would solve all our problems, I mean look how successful the past administrations, BOTH Dem. and Rep., have been at running any programs. The astounding results of the Social Security program is all I need to see! How could we all have been so blind to the obvious answer to all of these problems… bigger and better government. Hey, we already have two people that could step in and run the bank so success would be assured and good times and prospierity for all would result… Barney Frank and Chuck Shumer!!

[/quote]

Not sure if you’ve been living under a rock or not, but pretty much all the big banks would be out of business if it weren’t for government/taxpayer dollars propping them up. The same fate would probably befall most of the small banks too. So what exactly is the point of your ridiculous rant?[/quote]

I guess under your rock the government had nothing to do with the whole lending fiasco? No legislation passed and pressure applied to banks to lend money to those who had no business getting loans? Frank, Shumer, Waters and the like did not further the problem by not only berating the regulators but blocking any type of reform. In case you did not have access to this gem from Frank under your rock I think you may find this interesting:
“These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Do we need to rethink the banking system as a whole? Absolutely. Do we need to put regulations and controls on the banking system? With out a doubt. Do we want the government to decide who qaulifies for a loan? Gee, maybe not such a good idea.

Just imagine the shape we would be in if the likes of Frank, Shumer and Waters dictated lending policies.

[rnen]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=rnen]Yep, thats the answer alright…. have the government control a single bank. That would solve all our problems, I mean look how successful the past administrations, BOTH Dem. and Rep., have been at running any programs. The astounding results of the Social Security program is all I need to see! How could we all have been so blind to the obvious answer to all of these problems… bigger and better government. Hey, we already have two people that could step in and run the bank so success would be assured and good times and prospierity for all would result… Barney Frank and Chuck Shumer!!

[/quote]

Not sure if you’ve been living under a rock or not, but pretty much all the big banks would be out of business if it weren’t for government/taxpayer dollars propping them up. The same fate would probably befall most of the small banks too. So what exactly is the point of your ridiculous rant?[/quote]

I guess under your rock the government had nothing to do with the whole lending fiasco? No legislation passed and pressure applied to banks to lend money to those who had no business getting loans? Frank, Shumer, Waters and the like did not further the problem by not only berating the regulators but blocking any type of reform. In case you did not have access to this gem from Frank under your rock I think you may find this interesting:
“These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Do we need to rethink the banking system as a whole? Absolutely. Do we need to put regulations and controls on the banking system? With out a doubt. Do we want the government to decide who qaulifies for a loan? Gee, maybe not such a good idea.

Just imagine the shape we would be in if the likes of Frank, Shumer and Waters dictated lending policies.

[rnen]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=rnen]Yep, thats the answer alright…. have the government control a single bank. That would solve all our problems, I mean look how successful the past administrations, BOTH Dem. and Rep., have been at running any programs. The astounding results of the Social Security program is all I need to see! How could we all have been so blind to the obvious answer to all of these problems… bigger and better government. Hey, we already have two people that could step in and run the bank so success would be assured and good times and prospierity for all would result… Barney Frank and Chuck Shumer!!

[/quote]

Not sure if you’ve been living under a rock or not, but pretty much all the big banks would be out of business if it weren’t for government/taxpayer dollars propping them up. The same fate would probably befall most of the small banks too. So what exactly is the point of your ridiculous rant?[/quote]

I guess under your rock the government had nothing to do with the whole lending fiasco? No legislation passed and pressure applied to banks to lend money to those who had no business getting loans? Frank, Shumer, Waters and the like did not further the problem by not only berating the regulators but blocking any type of reform. In case you did not have access to this gem from Frank under your rock I think you may find this interesting:
“These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Do we need to rethink the banking system as a whole? Absolutely. Do we need to put regulations and controls on the banking system? With out a doubt. Do we want the government to decide who qaulifies for a loan? Gee, maybe not such a good idea.

Just imagine the shape we would be in if the likes of Frank, Shumer and Waters dictated lending policies.

[rnen]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=rnen]Yep, thats the answer alright…. have the government control a single bank. That would solve all our problems, I mean look how successful the past administrations, BOTH Dem. and Rep., have been at running any programs. The astounding results of the Social Security program is all I need to see! How could we all have been so blind to the obvious answer to all of these problems… bigger and better government. Hey, we already have two people that could step in and run the bank so success would be assured and good times and prospierity for all would result… Barney Frank and Chuck Shumer!!

[/quote]

Not sure if you’ve been living under a rock or not, but pretty much all the big banks would be out of business if it weren’t for government/taxpayer dollars propping them up. The same fate would probably befall most of the small banks too. So what exactly is the point of your ridiculous rant?[/quote]

I guess under your rock the government had nothing to do with the whole lending fiasco? No legislation passed and pressure applied to banks to lend money to those who had no business getting loans? Frank, Shumer, Waters and the like did not further the problem by not only berating the regulators but blocking any type of reform. In case you did not have access to this gem from Frank under your rock I think you may find this interesting:
“These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Do we need to rethink the banking system as a whole? Absolutely. Do we need to put regulations and controls on the banking system? With out a doubt. Do we want the government to decide who qaulifies for a loan? Gee, maybe not such a good idea.

Just imagine the shape we would be in if the likes of Frank, Shumer and Waters dictated lending policies.

[rnen]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=rnen]Yep, thats the answer alright…. have the government control a single bank. That would solve all our problems, I mean look how successful the past administrations, BOTH Dem. and Rep., have been at running any programs. The astounding results of the Social Security program is all I need to see! How could we all have been so blind to the obvious answer to all of these problems… bigger and better government. Hey, we already have two people that could step in and run the bank so success would be assured and good times and prospierity for all would result… Barney Frank and Chuck Shumer!!

[/quote]

Not sure if you’ve been living under a rock or not, but pretty much all the big banks would be out of business if it weren’t for government/taxpayer dollars propping them up. The same fate would probably befall most of the small banks too. So what exactly is the point of your ridiculous rant?[/quote]

I guess under your rock the government had nothing to do with the whole lending fiasco? No legislation passed and pressure applied to banks to lend money to those who had no business getting loans? Frank, Shumer, Waters and the like did not further the problem by not only berating the regulators but blocking any type of reform. In case you did not have access to this gem from Frank under your rock I think you may find this interesting:
“These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Do we need to rethink the banking system as a whole? Absolutely. Do we need to put regulations and controls on the banking system? With out a doubt. Do we want the government to decide who qaulifies for a loan? Gee, maybe not such a good idea.

Just imagine the shape we would be in if the likes of Frank, Shumer and Waters dictated lending policies.

[rnen]

I had this discussion with my very liberal sister inlaw. IMHO having 8 more kids when you have 6 at home, 3 of which are special needs, and have no way to support them is not only irresponsible but selfish beyond words. She was quite taken aback by the remark, her reply being ” so only the wealthy should have kids?”

Beyond the money, coming from a family of 9 kids I can tell you that the competition for attention creates a challenge for both the parents and the kids. How can she possibly provide a resonable amount of attention to each of her children???

It is a tough issue, we can not just cut her loose and have the innocent children she so selfishly brought into this world suffer yet I am not sure we should go so far as to enforce child quotas.

It does chap my ass that the CA tax payer is going to end up paying the way for these kids just because this woman clearly has some mental issues.

An arguement could be made for putting the 8 up for adoption as IMHO she is not going to be able to care for them.

Ughhh…. getting ready to take some knocks for the last remark.

[rnen]

I had this discussion with my very liberal sister inlaw. IMHO having 8 more kids when you have 6 at home, 3 of which are special needs, and have no way to support them is not only irresponsible but selfish beyond words. She was quite taken aback by the remark, her reply being ” so only the wealthy should have kids?”

Beyond the money, coming from a family of 9 kids I can tell you that the competition for attention creates a challenge for both the parents and the kids. How can she possibly provide a resonable amount of attention to each of her children???

It is a tough issue, we can not just cut her loose and have the innocent children she so selfishly brought into this world suffer yet I am not sure we should go so far as to enforce child quotas.

It does chap my ass that the CA tax payer is going to end up paying the way for these kids just because this woman clearly has some mental issues.

An arguement could be made for putting the 8 up for adoption as IMHO she is not going to be able to care for them.

Ughhh…. getting ready to take some knocks for the last remark.

[rnen]

I had this discussion with my very liberal sister inlaw. IMHO having 8 more kids when you have 6 at home, 3 of which are special needs, and have no way to support them is not only irresponsible but selfish beyond words. She was quite taken aback by the remark, her reply being ” so only the wealthy should have kids?”

Beyond the money, coming from a family of 9 kids I can tell you that the competition for attention creates a challenge for both the parents and the kids. How can she possibly provide a resonable amount of attention to each of her children???

It is a tough issue, we can not just cut her loose and have the innocent children she so selfishly brought into this world suffer yet I am not sure we should go so far as to enforce child quotas.

It does chap my ass that the CA tax payer is going to end up paying the way for these kids just because this woman clearly has some mental issues.

An arguement could be made for putting the 8 up for adoption as IMHO she is not going to be able to care for them.

Ughhh…. getting ready to take some knocks for the last remark.

[rnen]

I had this discussion with my very liberal sister inlaw. IMHO having 8 more kids when you have 6 at home, 3 of which are special needs, and have no way to support them is not only irresponsible but selfish beyond words. She was quite taken aback by the remark, her reply being ” so only the wealthy should have kids?”

Beyond the money, coming from a family of 9 kids I can tell you that the competition for attention creates a challenge for both the parents and the kids. How can she possibly provide a resonable amount of attention to each of her children???

It is a tough issue, we can not just cut her loose and have the innocent children she so selfishly brought into this world suffer yet I am not sure we should go so far as to enforce child quotas.

It does chap my ass that the CA tax payer is going to end up paying the way for these kids just because this woman clearly has some mental issues.

An arguement could be made for putting the 8 up for adoption as IMHO she is not going to be able to care for them.

Ughhh…. getting ready to take some knocks for the last remark.

[rnen]

I had this discussion with my very liberal sister inlaw. IMHO having 8 more kids when you have 6 at home, 3 of which are special needs, and have no way to support them is not only irresponsible but selfish beyond words. She was quite taken aback by the remark, her reply being ” so only the wealthy should have kids?”

Beyond the money, coming from a family of 9 kids I can tell you that the competition for attention creates a challenge for both the parents and the kids. How can she possibly provide a resonable amount of attention to each of her children???

It is a tough issue, we can not just cut her loose and have the innocent children she so selfishly brought into this world suffer yet I am not sure we should go so far as to enforce child quotas.

It does chap my ass that the CA tax payer is going to end up paying the way for these kids just because this woman clearly has some mental issues.

An arguement could be made for putting the 8 up for adoption as IMHO she is not going to be able to care for them.

Ughhh…. getting ready to take some knocks for the last remark.

[Author]

Posts