Democrat: ' Help the economy, kill your baby "

2009-01-26 11:51:06

#1

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6832|Global Command

Source

Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren said:

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

New budget fix=abortions.

2009-01-26 11:55:19

#2

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,984|6935|949

In other news:

Captian Obvious informs bf2s member that Nancy Pelosi is a cold-hearted bitch.

More developing...

2009-01-26 12:36:33

#3

PureFodder: Member; +225|6589

Isn't this about contraception, not abortion.

2009-01-26 12:42:03

#4

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6832|Global Command

That's a double negative.

2009-01-26 12:59:04

#5

Wreckognize: Member; +294|6788

As a pro deather, I support this.

2009-01-26 13:45:02

#6

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6845|Texas - Bigger than France

Wow. Irony.

Perhaps the Senator from California will consider deporting illegals to reduce the population instead...

2009-01-26 14:12:05

#7

CC-Marley: Member; +407|7132

Pug wrote:
Wow. Irony.

Perhaps the Senator from California will consider deporting illegals to reduce the population instead...

That is a good idea. Even though she is in the House.

Last edited by CC-Marley (2009-01-26 14:12:43)

2009-01-26 14:15:04

#8

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6708|North Carolina

PureFodder wrote:
Isn't this about contraception, not abortion.

2009-01-26 14:19:04

#9

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6593|Éire

You left part of your Pelosi quote out I think... I didn't see her mention abortion as a cost cutting measure anywhere?

2009-01-26 14:23:30

#10

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7019

She said that less kids equals more money for states basically... I interpret that as, Hey poor people heres some condoms, stop having kids.
We know how many kids you need.
She really is going to be a pain in Baracks ass as long as she is in office. She is a hypocritical, dottering old retard.

"PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government. "

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-01-26 14:26:36)

Love is the answer

2009-01-26 14:30:19

#11

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6845|Texas - Bigger than France

CC-Marley wrote:
Pug wrote:
Wow. Irony.

Perhaps the Senator from California will consider deporting illegals to reduce the population instead...
That is a good idea. Even though she is in the House.

Oh no

slits wrists

2009-01-26 15:03:58

#12

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6456|what

"Help the economy, kill your baby"

"Help the economy, use protection"

2009-01-26 15:06:21

#13

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,984|6935|949

[TUF]Catbox wrote:
She said that less kids equals more money for states basically... I interpret that as, Hey poor people heres some condoms, stop having kids.
We know how many kids you need.
She really is going to be a pain in Baracks ass as long as she is in office. She is a hypocritical, dottering old retard.

"PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government. "

She is implying that contraceptives will save the states money because it will influence the amount of children receiving welfare and/or other state aid. Whether or not that is a qauntifiable truism I have no idea. It's Pelosi pandering to her supposed constituents (government-approved and subsidized contraceptives are a decidedly lefty platform), but really its one of those things that Democrats support with no real reasoning why.

For what it's worth, allowing state subsidies and even full cost offset for contraception is a great initiative, especially seeing as abstinence-only education has been proven to be virtually worthless.

2009-01-26 15:22:52

#14

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6904|132 and Bush

Then we will have to bail out huggies, gerber, some pediatricians, etc..

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-01-26 15:23:07

#15

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7019

I think it's a great idea to educate poor and low income folks on contraceptives. The problem is that they are least likely to use them.
If it's not obvious, i think Nancy Peloser is a hypocritical out of touch... i know what's good for you, Stain...lol

Love is the answer

2009-01-26 15:25:57

#16

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5889

[TUF]Catbox wrote:
I think it's a great idea to educate poor and low income folks on contraceptives. The problem is that they are least likely to use them.
If it's not obvious, i think Nancy Peloser is a hypocritical out of touch... i know what's good for you, Stain...lol

Um then why don't we just add more funding into free condoms?

Also I'm pretty sure she isn't being a hypocrite since she could actually afford to keep care of her kids.

2009-01-26 15:27:58

#17

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6832|Global Command

uevjHEYFFQ wrote:
[TUF]Catbox wrote:
I think it's a great idea to educate poor and low income folks on contraceptives. The problem is that they are least likely to use them.
If it's not obvious, i think Nancy Peloser is a hypocritical out of touch... i know what's good for you, Stain...lol
Um then why don't we just add more funding into free condoms?

Also I'm pretty sure she isn't being a hypocrite since she could actually afford to keep care of her kids.

yup, being a blood sucking parasite politician pays pretty well.

What price would you take for your soul?

2009-01-26 15:30:29

#18

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5889

ATG wrote:
uevjHEYFFQ wrote:
[TUF]Catbox wrote:
I think it's a great idea to educate poor and low income folks on contraceptives. The problem is that they are least likely to use them.
If it's not obvious, i think Nancy Peloser is a hypocritical out of touch... i know what's good for you, Stain...lol
Um then why don't we just add more funding into free condoms?

Also I'm pretty sure she isn't being a hypocrite since she could actually afford to keep care of her kids.
yup, being a blood sucking parasite politician pays pretty well.

What price would you take for your soul?

Well that's fair enough.

Hmm price for my soul? I don't know. I would first have to see the offers I'll get then haggle up from there.

2009-01-26 15:32:46

#19

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7019

uevjHEYFFQ wrote:
[TUF]Catbox wrote:
I think it's a great idea to educate poor and low income folks on contraceptives. The problem is that they are least likely to use them.
If it's not obvious, i think Nancy Peloser is a hypocritical out of touch... i know what's good for you, Stain...lol
Um then why don't we just add more funding into free condoms?

Also I'm pretty sure she isn't being a hypocrite since she could actually afford to keep care of her kids.

What's the cutoff for being able to afford a baby and does Nancy and friends determine that?
I imagine a lot of families would be ineligible?

Love is the answer

2009-01-26 15:36:05

#20

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5889

[TUF]Catbox wrote:
uevjHEYFFQ wrote:
[TUF]Catbox wrote:
I think it's a great idea to educate poor and low income folks on contraceptives. The problem is that they are least likely to use them.
If it's not obvious, i think Nancy Peloser is a hypocritical out of touch... i know what's good for you, Stain...lol
Um then why don't we just add more funding into free condoms?

Also I'm pretty sure she isn't being a hypocrite since she could actually afford to keep care of her kids.
What's the cutoff for being able to afford a baby and does Nancy and friends determine that?
I imagine a lot of families would be ineligible?

I guess being able to afford to have a baby would probably start at not living off public assistance and having a stable job.

I think a lot of people are ineligible for being parents, not based off of money alone.

2009-01-26 15:37:32

#21

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6593|Éire

[TUF]Catbox wrote:
She said that less kids equals more money for states basically... I interpret that as, Hey poor people heres some condoms, stop having kids.
We know how many kids you need.
She really is going to be a pain in Baracks ass as long as she is in office. She is a hypocritical, dottering old retard.

"PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government. "

That's completely different to advocating abortion though. Also, would you really care if there were less layabouts in trailer parks across the US?

Was there no exciting news this week?

2009-01-26 15:38:25

#22

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6456|what

I thought it was only religious nutters who equated contraception to murder.

2009-01-26 15:46:58

#23

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7019

Braddock wrote:
[TUF]Catbox wrote:
She said that less kids equals more money for states basically... I interpret that as, Hey poor people heres some condoms, stop having kids.
We know how many kids you need.
She really is going to be a pain in Baracks ass as long as she is in office. She is a hypocritical, dottering old retard.

"PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government. "
That's completely different to advocating abortion though. Also, would you really care if there were less layabouts in trailer parks across the US?

Was there no exciting news this week?

slow news week...lol What if i started a thread and called it...
"Should we limit poor peoples ability to have children to help stabilize the economy?"
people would be pissed and tell me that i have no right to tell people who can and can't have kids... right?

and i agree that less layabouts would be great. would really help to ease the burden on states,but i don't think the govt should decide who can have kids or not.

Love is the answer

2009-01-26 15:50:29

#24

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6593|Éire

[TUF]Catbox wrote:
Braddock wrote:
[TUF]Catbox wrote:
She said that less kids equals more money for states basically... I interpret that as, Hey poor people heres some condoms, stop having kids.
We know how many kids you need.
She really is going to be a pain in Baracks ass as long as she is in office. She is a hypocritical, dottering old retard.

"PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government. "
That's completely different to advocating abortion though. Also, would you really care if there were less layabouts in trailer parks across the US?

Was there no exciting news this week?
slow news week...lol What if i started a thread and called it...
"Should we limit poor peoples ability to have children to help stabilize the economy?"
people would be pissed and tell me that i have no right to tell people who can and can't have kids... right?

and i agree that less layabouts would be great. would really help to ease the burden on states,but i don't think the govt should decide who can have kids or not.

Maybe I missed something... is she forcing people to use contraception? Good luck enforcing that Nancy, get yourself some rubber gloves!

2009-01-26 16:05:40

#25

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5889

Well I have A Modest Proposal for this whole world recession issue. Why don't we all just sell our children as food for the Chinese?

BF2S Forums Democrat: ' Help the economy, kill your baby "

Pug wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

Pug wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

uevjHEYFFQ wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

ATG wrote:

uevjHEYFFQ wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

uevjHEYFFQ wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

uevjHEYFFQ wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Braddock wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Braddock wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Board footer