A Darwinian process in the GOP...
 

Former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce stepped down as the
party's first vice-chairman late on Sunday following a firestorm of
criticism leveled against him by both Republicans and Democrats.

Pearce made the comments about the federal-state healthcare program for
the poor amid a broader discussion of welfare abuses during his radio
show earlier this month.

"You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I'd do is get a woman
Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations ..."


- - - - - -
As GOP right-wing-nuts who say what they really think are eliminated
from the party, what are left are the ones smart enough not to say what
they really think. A more dangerous GOP is evolving.

A Darwinian process in the GOP...
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
Former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce stepped down as the
party's first vice-chairman late on Sunday following a firestorm of
criticism leveled against him by both Republicans and Democrats.

Pearce made the comments about the federal-state healthcare program for
the poor amid a broader discussion of welfare abuses during his radio
show earlier this month.

"You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I'd do is get a woman
Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations ..."


- - - - - -
As GOP right-wing-nuts who say what they really think are eliminated from
the party, what are left are the ones smart enough not to say what they
really think. A more dangerous GOP is evolving.

Is actually what would help the most regards welfare.

A Darwinian process in the GOP...
 

On 9/16/14 11:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:20:06 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

"You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I'd do is get a woman
Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations ..."

He implies this would be free to the patient.,
It is actually not a horrible idea. How many kids are born to absentee
fathers in that community? How many girls are incapable of actually
providing proper prenatal care? What is the "accidental" pregnancy
rate?

I know you love to blather about our horrible infant mortality problem
and the plight of our children born out of wedlock but you are
unwilling to look at the root of the problem,
I understand that the bible thumpers who think every sperm is sacred
would want him out but he sounds like the perfect democrat.
Weren't you people raising hell a year or so ago because birth control
WASN'T free?
BTW I also think abortions should be free to Medicaid patients.

That is the cheapest solution for a whole host of social problems.


He was pushing the concept of forced sterilizations, something that was
tried in the past in this wonderful country and also in Nazi Germany.
Interesting how GOPers, even the crazier ones, still oppose making
voluntary, less intrusive birth control available at no or low cost to
low income teens, eh?

A Darwinian process in the GOP...
 

On 9/17/2014 6:43 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/16/14 11:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:20:06 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

"You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I'd do is get a woman
Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations ..."

He implies this would be free to the patient.,
It is actually not a horrible idea. How many kids are born to absentee
fathers in that community? How many girls are incapable of actually
providing proper prenatal care? What is the "accidental" pregnancy
rate?

I know you love to blather about our horrible infant mortality problem
and the plight of our children born out of wedlock but you are
unwilling to look at the root of the problem,
I understand that the bible thumpers who think every sperm is sacred
would want him out but he sounds like the perfect democrat.
Weren't you people raising hell a year or so ago because birth control
WASN'T free?
BTW I also think abortions should be free to Medicaid patients.

That is the cheapest solution for a whole host of social problems.


He was pushing the concept of forced sterilizations, something that was
tried in the past in this wonderful country and also in Nazi Germany.
Interesting how GOPers, even the crazier ones, still oppose making
voluntary, less intrusive birth control available at no or low cost to
low income teens, eh?

Liberals should accept and teach personal responsibility instead of
asking the government to coddle them birth to grave.

A Darwinian process in the GOP...
 

On 9/17/14 10:46 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 06:43:09 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 9/16/14 11:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:20:06 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

"You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I'd do is get a woman
Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations ..."

He implies this would be free to the patient.,
It is actually not a horrible idea. How many kids are born to absentee
fathers in that community? How many girls are incapable of actually
providing proper prenatal care? What is the "accidental" pregnancy
rate?

I know you love to blather about our horrible infant mortality problem
and the plight of our children born out of wedlock but you are
unwilling to look at the root of the problem,
I understand that the bible thumpers who think every sperm is sacred
would want him out but he sounds like the perfect democrat.
Weren't you people raising hell a year or so ago because birth control
WASN'T free?
BTW I also think abortions should be free to Medicaid patients.

That is the cheapest solution for a whole host of social problems.


He was pushing the concept of forced sterilizations, something that was
tried in the past in this wonderful country and also in Nazi Germany.
Interesting how GOPers, even the crazier ones, still oppose making
voluntary, less intrusive birth control available at no or low cost to
low income teens, eh?

I would have no problem if the "force" was simply access to free
services from the public.
There is no shortage of force used by the government, starting with
how they collect the money for these "free" services.


That's not the sort of "force" the GOP lunatic was advocating. I have no
objection to the *offer* of free or low cost birth control to women who
want it. There usually is no need for "surgical" birth control.

A Darwinian process in the GOP...
 

On 9/17/2014 10:58 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/17/14 10:46 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 06:43:09 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 9/16/14 11:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:20:06 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

"You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I'd do is get a
woman
Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations ..."

He implies this would be free to the patient.,
It is actually not a horrible idea. How many kids are born to absentee
fathers in that community? How many girls are incapable of actually
providing proper prenatal care? What is the "accidental" pregnancy
rate?

I know you love to blather about our horrible infant mortality problem
and the plight of our children born out of wedlock but you are
unwilling to look at the root of the problem,
I understand that the bible thumpers who think every sperm is sacred
would want him out but he sounds like the perfect democrat.
Weren't you people raising hell a year or so ago because birth control
WASN'T free?
BTW I also think abortions should be free to Medicaid patients.

That is the cheapest solution for a whole host of social problems.


He was pushing the concept of forced sterilizations, something that was
tried in the past in this wonderful country and also in Nazi Germany.
Interesting how GOPers, even the crazier ones, still oppose making
voluntary, less intrusive birth control available at no or low cost to
low income teens, eh?

I would have no problem if the "force" was simply access to free
services from the public.
There is no shortage of force used by the government, starting with
how they collect the money for these "free" services.


That's not the sort of "force" the GOP lunatic was advocating. I have no
objection to the *offer* of free or low cost birth control to women who
want it. There usually is no need for "surgical" birth control.

You should have no say in the disbursement of TAXPAYER provided Federal
or State dispersed funds. You are a parasite sucking off the goodwill of
society.

A Darwinian process in the GOP...
 

On 9/17/14 5:21 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:58:13 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 9/17/14 10:46 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 06:43:09 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 9/16/14 11:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:20:06 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

"You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I'd do is get a woman
Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations ..."

He implies this would be free to the patient.,
It is actually not a horrible idea. How many kids are born to absentee
fathers in that community? How many girls are incapable of actually
providing proper prenatal care? What is the "accidental" pregnancy
rate?

I know you love to blather about our horrible infant mortality problem
and the plight of our children born out of wedlock but you are
unwilling to look at the root of the problem,
I understand that the bible thumpers who think every sperm is sacred
would want him out but he sounds like the perfect democrat.
Weren't you people raising hell a year or so ago because birth control
WASN'T free?
BTW I also think abortions should be free to Medicaid patients.

That is the cheapest solution for a whole host of social problems.


He was pushing the concept of forced sterilizations, something that was
tried in the past in this wonderful country and also in Nazi Germany.
Interesting how GOPers, even the crazier ones, still oppose making
voluntary, less intrusive birth control available at no or low cost to
low income teens, eh?

I would have no problem if the "force" was simply access to free
services from the public.
There is no shortage of force used by the government, starting with
how they collect the money for these "free" services.


That's not the sort of "force" the GOP lunatic was advocating. I have no
objection to the *offer* of free or low cost birth control to women who
want it. There usually is no need for "surgical" birth control.

I didn't see any other force implied. I have no problem with making
that a requirement for unwed women on medicaid. If they don't want to
do it, they can pay their own medical bills.

The surgical option is not unreasonable if this is an older woman with
plenty of kids already or even a younger woman who knows she doesn't
want kids..
I would toss in vasectomies in this program too.



Yeah, the Germans felt the same way about forced sterilizations prior to
and during WW II.

A Darwinian process in the GOP...
 

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 6:43:09 AM UTC-4, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/16/14 11:09 PM, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:20:06 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:



"You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I'd do is get a woman

Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations ..."



He implies this would be free to the patient.,

It is actually not a horrible idea. How many kids are born to absentee

fathers in that community? How many girls are incapable of actually

providing proper prenatal care? What is the "accidental" pregnancy

rate?



I know you love to blather about our horrible infant mortality problem

and the plight of our children born out of wedlock but you are

unwilling to look at the root of the problem,

I understand that the bible thumpers who think every sperm is sacred

would want him out but he sounds like the perfect democrat.

Weren't you people raising hell a year or so ago because birth control

WASN'T free?

BTW I also think abortions should be free to Medicaid patients.



That is the cheapest solution for a whole host of social problems.





He was pushing the concept of forced sterilizations, something that was

tried in the past in this wonderful country and also in Nazi Germany.

Interesting how GOPers, even the crazier ones, still oppose making

voluntary, less intrusive birth control available at no or low cost to

low income teens, eh?

Don't you just love the way harry ogles over these people, when he himself was a successful abortion?

A Darwinian process in the GOP...
 

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:30:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

For example Harry, would you favor the government providing free oxygen
tanks and medical care (including surgery) for cigarette smokers?
There's been plenty of warnings presented to the public for decades.

===

Harry would no doubt reply yes if they are registered socialists, err
Democrats, and/or union members.

A Darwinian process in the GOP...
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/17/14 10:46 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 06:43:09 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 9/16/14 11:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:20:06 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

"You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I'd do is get a woman
Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations ..."

He implies this would be free to the patient.,
It is actually not a horrible idea. How many kids are born to absentee
fathers in that community? How many girls are incapable of actually
providing proper prenatal care? What is the "accidental" pregnancy
rate?

I know you love to blather about our horrible infant mortality problem
and the plight of our children born out of wedlock but you are
unwilling to look at the root of the problem,
I understand that the bible thumpers who think every sperm is sacred
would want him out but he sounds like the perfect democrat.
Weren't you people raising hell a year or so ago because birth control
WASN'T free?
BTW I also think abortions should be free to Medicaid patients.

That is the cheapest solution for a whole host of social problems.


He was pushing the concept of forced sterilizations, something that was
tried in the past in this wonderful country and also in Nazi Germany.
Interesting how GOPers, even the crazier ones, still oppose making
voluntary, less intrusive birth control available at no or low cost to
low income teens, eh?

I would have no problem if the "force" was simply access to free
services from the public.
There is no shortage of force used by the government, starting with
how they collect the money for these "free" services.


That's not the sort of "force" the GOP lunatic was advocating. I have no
objection to the *offer* of free or low cost birth control to women who
want it. There usually is no need for "surgical" birth control.

He was saying you want free living. Get birth control. You want to pay
for your fun? No birth control required. And he was not saying has to be
surgical. Maybe after 5 kids with no dad, maybe we should consider
surgical. And if we can prove some guy is daddy to 3 or more kids and does
not provide any support. Mandatory vasectomy.

A Darwinian process in the GOP...
 

On 9/17/14 10:40 PM, Califbill wrote:

And if we can prove some guy is daddy to 3 or more kids and does
not provide any support. Mandatory vasectomy.



Sieg Heil!

A Darwinian process in the GOP...
 

wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:25:29 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 9/17/14 10:40 PM, Califbill wrote:

And if we can prove some guy is daddy to 3 or more kids and does
not provide any support. Mandatory vasectomy.



Sieg Heil!

Maybe we should just be more aggressive about making people pay child
support.

That makes sense.
--
Posted from my iPhone

A Darwinian process in the GOP...
 

On 9/18/2014 11:46 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:25:29 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 9/17/14 10:40 PM, Califbill wrote:

And if we can prove some guy is daddy to 3 or more kids and does
not provide any support. Mandatory vasectomy.



Sieg Heil!

Maybe we should just be more aggressive about making people pay child
support.

That makes sense.

Easier said than done. Most of these gals don't know who the daddy is.

A Darwinian process in the GOP...
 

On Thursday, September 18, 2014 10:24:31 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:25:29 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:



On 9/17/14 10:40 PM, Califbill wrote:



And if we can prove some guy is daddy to 3 or more kids and does

not provide any support. Mandatory vasectomy.







Sieg Heil!



Maybe we should just be more aggressive about making people pay child
support.

If someone doesn't have a job and is living off the gov dole, where is that money going to come from? After all, if they aren't responsible enough to take care of the children they sire, a job would be a stretch.

So who's paying for that baby again? Oh yeah... taxpayers.

A Darwinian process in the GOP...
 

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 7:35:11 AM UTC-4, Harrold wrote:
On 9/17/2014 6:43 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:




Liberals should accept and teach personal responsibility instead of

asking the government to coddle them birth to grave.

Personal responsibility is not in the liberal vocabulary?

A Darwinian process in the GOP...
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/17/14 10:40 PM, Califbill wrote:

And if we can prove some guy is daddy to 3 or more kids and does
not provide any support. Mandatory vasectomy.



Sieg Heil!

Maybe if you paid your taxes, you might be concerned.

A Darwinian process in the GOP...
 

F.O.A.D. wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:25:29 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 9/17/14 10:40 PM, Califbill wrote:

And if we can prove some guy is daddy to 3 or more kids and does
not provide any support. Mandatory vasectomy.



Sieg Heil!

Maybe we should just be more aggressive about making people pay child
support.

That makes sense.

And how are they going to pay child support. They are on welfare, and
instead of going to work for money, they go to work nailing the local
beaver.

A Darwinian process in the GOP...
 

On 9/18/14, 12:43 PM, wrote:
On 18 Sep 2014 15:46:31 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:25:29 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 9/17/14 10:40 PM, Califbill wrote:

And if we can prove some guy is daddy to 3 or more kids and does
not provide any support. Mandatory vasectomy.



Sieg Heil!

Maybe we should just be more aggressive about making people pay child
support.

That makes sense.

The problem is you would oppose any effective measures in that
direction. Throwing them in jail is no help, it is just another person
on the public dole.


There's plenty of cleanup work not being done in most cities...trashed
up lots, abandoned houses, derelict factories...good honest work and if
the hourly rate is decent, it will support the daddy and help out his kids.

A Darwinian process in the GOP...
 

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 9/18/14, 12:43 PM, wrote:
On 18 Sep 2014 15:46:31 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:25:29 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 9/17/14 10:40 PM, Califbill wrote:

And if we can prove some guy is daddy to 3 or more kids and does
not provide any support. Mandatory vasectomy.



Sieg Heil!

Maybe we should just be more aggressive about making people pay child
support.

That makes sense.

The problem is you would oppose any effective measures in that
direction. Throwing them in jail is no help, it is just another person
on the public dole.


There's plenty of cleanup work not being done in most cities...trashed up
lots, abandoned houses, derelict factories...good honest work and if the
hourly rate is decent, it will support the daddy and help out his kids.

And the unions oppose using conscripted labor. Since they seem to own the
state houses, they get what they bought.