Unduly oppressive is exactly what it is at the moment by subsidizing irresponsibility and punishing responsibility, taking from the productive class and giving it to a growing class of perpetual moochers, by squeezing out competitors in schooling and dooming kids to lives as future moochers by giving them an insufficient education.

All for our own good, you say! Well, it's good for someone, all right.

1) I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you mean that moderate people apply it more effectively, you're probably right, but there has been a huge surge in abstinance education over the last serveral years. Some of those practices flat out discount methods of birthcontrol as being effective and condemn others. These women are the most likely to contribute to the welfare problem in this society.

2)You can't blame the government for the ignorance of its children. That is an educational failure that is more on the parents than on the system itself. While I maintain that cultural and religous influence play huge parts here, those are communal and not established by the our state and or federal government. Essentially, you're argument only strengthens mine.

3)Where were we discussing divorce rates in this? This is about contraceptives and female choice.

4)What does it matter? Once again this discussion is about female choice and contraceptives, marriage is not a factor here. The only thing I aimed to show here was that people who are not properly educated on contraception or who are told its taboo (huge in the Catholic church) tend to have more kids they can't afford and that the cost per child is more expensive from a welfare perspective then providing contraception. Actually I would say that these married familes might actually be doing more damage then single women.

Also you're still not demonstrating how contraception eliminates consequences...people who use contraception properly don't have kids, and have about the same, if not lower rate, of STD's...As it stands (given details of my sexual history above) I've not so much as had a case of the crabs in the 16 years or so I've been sexually active. I can verify this too because when I was not married, I had myself tested on a regular basis...

If anything you are demonstrating that contraception and education are effective tools. Healthy sexual actiivity also has many demonstrated postive effects as well, which are well documented...

P.S. Out of my many partners over the years...I've yet to cheat on anyone.

Im not confused at all. Romney is saying poor people who receive assistance fromt he government and end up paying no income tax after deductions are freeloaders who dont take responsibility for their lives. He used a blanket term saying "47% pay no income tax" then lumped all those people into the aforementioned categories of not taking responisbility for their lives.

So what Im saying is, these people obviously dont have capital gains which are taxed, cause theyre poor right? So in essence if it werent for Romneys cap gains, which he admitted in the debate are his entirety of taxes, hed pay no other federal taxes after deductions.

So the only reason Romney pays taxes are because his wealth of money, is making him more money. If it werent for that hed pay no other taxes.

Yes, basically all his income is from investments. He'd be essentially retired if he hadn't been running for president for about a decade now. So if there were no cap gains tax, he'd pay no taxes. But there is, so he does. What does any of this have to do with anything at all?

It just shows that his generalization of "people who pay no income tax" is off base because only the slightest change to his money making him money would put him in that category.

The same as how veterans, unemployed, struggling families, wounded soldiers, elderly etc. may all pay no income tax and to say they have no motivation and/or indifference to their situations so theyre all voting for obama cause theyre lazy etc, is an awful thing to feel if youre going to be president.

So my idea here is generalizing people who are weak and lower than you, holding contempt for them and then asking them to be their boss and in control of their livelihoods when you display such an arrogance to the finite variables involved with their situations and conditions is utterly ridiclous.

Its one more example of romneys horrid world view, kicking balls down the road for foreign poloicy because it "cant get done", this 47% comment about how everyone with assistance or no income tax are leechers and not down on their luck good people. these views are not appropriate for the presidency. Great for a business man, thats why he was successful, he could divide lives, profit then run on a generally small scale with little consequence generally speaking. He cant do those things as president. 

Its sort of pointless discussing this because he simply wont win, but its fun to digress from time to time, i suppose.

Taxing his primary source of income at 0% is the "slightest change"? Okay...

This is just silliness. You previously claimed he's not paying anything in income taxes. The only reason you would do that is because you don't understand that capital gains is a form of income. Admit you were wrong and move on.

It's hilarious that he's such a horrible candidate (and he is terribly lame, IMO) and he's still neck and neck with Obama despite so much of the media outright campaigning for Obama yet again. Says a lot about what a shitty fucking president O has been, I guess.

Edit: And the idea that the president is the boss of us and should be controlling our lives made me hurl. The citizenry is the boss, not the other way around.

You're making the assumption that I'm against birth control or sex education, I'm actually for both. Being that using multiple forms of birth control can cost less than $1 a day for most people I'm against the government paying for it, and I believe that sex education should encourage people who are in a position where they can't "afford" to have children to abstain.

Where the government subsidizes poor decisions is by enforcing discriminatory child support laws and by paying welfare to single mothers. There was a recent news story of a ex-con who fathered 30 children with 11 different women who were all on welfare. The reason this kind of situation can exist is because the government has gotten involved with eliminating the risk of making poor decisions. If these women had to work, or were forced to live with relatives because they were unwilling or unable to work, it is likely that they would have never had children with this man; and even if they did it is likely that they would have had no more than 1.

I never said you were...my claim is that you are against government subsidized birth control and you've made a couple of comments about abortion which I won't go into in the interest of keeping this fun (which it is by the way...got me through a really long afternoon of testing SQL scripts so thanks for that.)

My only claim here, or at least my core claim, is that government subsidized birth control is cheaper than welfare in all cases...which I'm pretty sure is true...I would obviously, like most people, prefer a system where everyone worked and everyone paid... but that being said, it can be minimized, but not eliminated. There will always be a percetage of people that will be dependent on some kind of support from the government...some of it is necessary...

On the dude with 30 children...WHHUUUUTTTTT!!!! However, ultimately in this situation, the outcome you're suggesting is ultimately unknowable by any reasonable standard. Once again I point to my past in the sticks...stupid people are a product of their environment, not their governmen...

Romney is right of course. Basically half of this country is supporting the other half, and it's only going to keep growing as more and more of the "boomer" generation retires and less and less college kids are able to secure jobs outside of McDonalds and Walmart.

Turns out all those people chanting "we are the 99%!" at Occupy Wall Street protests are actually the 47%.

They'll have to give us the jobs eventually. And then boy are we ever going to screw them over.

They know who *they* are.