Welcome to the kittyradio.com forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. Remove these ads when you register. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us. | 
08-16-2006, 09:51 AM
| | Registered Member | | Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 329
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by VioletPrue ...There's plenty of stories of single moms who live on wellfare with their 4 kids, they are forced to work shitty jobs that are below minimum wage because our goverment doesn't want to pay them wellfare.... | I guess the moral of that story is don't have kids if you can't afford to bring them up. |
08-16-2006, 09:56 AM
|  | #1 cunt-kicker-in | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Northampton, UK:
Posts: 9,690
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Hoppingdeth I guess the moral of that story is don't have kids if you can't afford to bring them up. | Or send them to work. |
08-16-2006, 10:03 AM
| | Registered Member | | Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 329
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Ophiel Ophiuci Or send them to work. | Yes like Fagin did. |
08-16-2006, 10:09 AM
| | #1 cunt-kicker-in | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Northampton, UK:
Posts: 9,690
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Hoppingdeth Yes like Fagin did. |
OMG ANTI-SEMITE!!!! |
08-16-2006, 10:39 AM
| | Registered Member | | Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 329
| | | |
08-16-2006, 11:33 AM
|  | Is This What My Body Said | | Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,557
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by luftwaffe yes they are able to do so.
one merely purchases wine, pours it in a glass, and then consumes it. Anyone who has a functional mouth and hands can do that. | Except they have a condition where they most likely won't stop until they physically can't.
__________________
"the height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create God in their own image" |
08-16-2006, 11:59 AM
| | new and improved | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Boston
Posts: 299
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by VioletPrue I'm shocked, but I agree with you.
At one point or another, a (recovering) addict CHOOSE to use drugs/drink/whatever, and I NEVER CHOOSE to be in a wheel chair.
I never asked for my illness, and never made the concious choice to get it, it was in my DNA.
I'm not saying I should be treated differently because of it, but if they do treat people with disabilities differently, they should ONLY treat people with REAL disabilities differently, not (recovering) addicts, they are not disabled.
Another example: here in Holland there's a special program in 3 major cities that wants to stimulate (recovering) addicts to keep taking their methadone.
They decided to give each person that vows to take their methadone and don't do drugs 52 ($66) each week on top of their wellfare check.
I'm on wellfare because I'm disabled, but don't qualify for disability money.
I don't get 52 each week, eventhough I don't NEED methadone and don't do drugs.
How is that fair?
Why does someone that at one point CHOOSE to be unhealthy and fuck up their lives so bad that they need wellfare get a bonus for being normal?
Why don't I get a bonus because my life is fucked up because of something that I have no controle over?
There's plenty of stories of single moms who live on wellfare with their 4 kids, they are forced to work shitty jobs that are below minimum wage because our goverment doesn't want to pay them wellfare.
Their kids won't have a mom at home, no matter how young they are, and the little extra money that the mothers make will get swallowed up by daycare for the kids, which leaves them with less money than they had to begin with.
These people need to rely on foodbanks for food, the salvation army for clothes etc. but let's give some fucking addict a bonus of 208 each month!
Luckily we'll get to vote on November 22nd, because this goverment is seriously fucked up. | I also agree-- drug and alcohol addiction ought not to be considered a disablity in the sense of the ADA.
Although I'd be remiss to point out the ADA cannot reasonable be considered 'liberal legislation'. From memory it was co-sponsored by 59 or 60 senators, Orrin Hatch and John McCain among them. Strom Thurmond and Don Nickles voted with 70+ senators to pass it. The first president bush signed it. Hardly the stuff of "liberal legislation".
Let the backpedaling begin!  |
08-16-2006, 06:24 PM
|  | I'm Designer | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,768
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Hoppingdeth I guess the moral of that story is don't have kids if you can't afford to bring them up. | Right, nevermind that someone can become poor AFTER they have kids, like because of a divorce or a death.
Or just bad luck.
Most parents become single after they had kids, not before, that's just a small part of the single parents. |
08-17-2006, 03:56 AM
| | Registered Member | | Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 329
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by VioletPrue Right, nevermind that someone can become poor AFTER they have kids, like because of a divorce or a death.
Or just bad luck.
Most parents become single after they had kids, not before, that's just a small part of the single parents. | Well I suppose I’m talking from a strictly English point of view as England has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in western Europe – and teenagers are normally poor.
There’s definitely a case that all girls (particularly in England) should be forced an injection at the age of 10 years old that prevents their bodies being able to produce a baby. The injection could then wear off at the age of – say 24 – thus solving an age old social underclass problem over night.
Only certain numbers of people will be given the right to have babies before this age, and only if they pass a number of social integration, intelligence and future success forecast tests. These tests would provide 98% accuracy showing that any person born pre-24 baby, would be able to contribute to society in a non negative manner. I’d call the law the 24 Baby Law.
Society would still need to produce an underclass to survive (we still need cleaners, burger flippers, road sweepers and people to buy scratch cards) so I’d introduce a carefully controlled level of immigration from eastern Europe or the Netherlands to perform these tasks. They would benefit a life of cleaner safer streets, whist enjoying sharing their surroundings with super intelligent English people. They would be paid very well because we’d no longer have the social security costs we currently have (because there’d be no teenage mothers producing new generations of teenage mothers), but the only downside for these immigrants is that they wouldn’t be able to have babies at all in (a terminal injection would be administered). A tough dilemma I’m sure you’d agree – but I believe my society would offer them all the comforts they would need without a desire to re-spawn.
The future's bright – the future's Hopper.  |
08-17-2006, 04:25 AM
| | #1 cunt-kicker-in | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Northampton, UK:
Posts: 9,690
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Hoppingdeth Well I suppose Im talking from a strictly English point of view as England has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in western Europe and teenagers are normally poor. | Really? |
08-17-2006, 05:40 AM
| | Registered Member | | Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 329
| | | Yes. |
08-17-2006, 05:44 AM
| | #1 cunt-kicker-in | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Northampton, UK:
Posts: 9,690
| | | OK, teenagers are poor by contrast to adults, but in terms of disposable income, financial committments etc. I reckon they're not much worse off. |
08-17-2006, 05:45 AM
| | #1 cunt-kicker-in | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Northampton, UK:
Posts: 9,690
| | | As for the Hopper future, instead of importing an underclass, you could just tag every other baby with a tattoo or chip that would designate them officially "a flea-bag". Kinda like in that delightful romp Gattaca. |
08-17-2006, 06:34 AM
| | Registered Member | | Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 329
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Ophiel Ophiuci OK, teenagers are poor by contrast to adults, but in terms of disposable income, financial committments etc. I reckon they're not much worse off. | Speak for yourself sweetheart but no paper round or a Saturday shift staking shelves in a supermarket is going to pay for a baby – and as a working tax payer I don’t want to subsidise that baby either. Quote: |
Originally Posted by Ophiel Ophiuci As for the Hopper future, instead of importing an underclass, you could just tag every other baby with a tattoo or chip that would designate them officially "a flea-bag". Kinda like in that delightful romp Gattaca. | No. That would be unsightly. |
08-17-2006, 06:42 AM
| | #1 cunt-kicker-in | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Northampton, UK:
Posts: 9,690
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Hoppingdeth Speak for yourself sweetheart but no paper round or a Saturday shift staking shelves in a supermarket is going to pay for a baby and as a working tax payer I dont want to subsidise that baby either. | Well no. But you did say "teenagers" are poor, not "teenage mothers". I mean, even if you only fed the baby half what it needs to survive, that's quite a bit if you don't have a baby. Quote:
No. That would be unsightly.
| You could make it something tasteful like a nice tribal design or something. Or one of those ugly things just above the arse that chavvy girls in boob tubes always have - or "whoremarks", as my mate calls them. This has the advantage of being compatable with the current system, as a sizeable percentage of the adult underclass already has one. |
08-17-2006, 07:00 AM
| | Registered Member | | Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 329
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Ophiel Ophiuci Well no. But you did say "teenagers" are poor, not "teenage mothers". I mean, even if you only fed the baby half what it needs to survive, that's quite a bit if you don't have a baby.. | Well yes teenagers are poor – they’re just even poorer when they decide to shit a baby. In fact they’re so poor, I (as someone who doesn’t have\ want a baby), still have to pay for it for them! I don’t see teenagers without babies paying for teenagers with babies because teenagers without babies are still poor and thus don’t have to pay for them.
What I do see is me paying for teenagers having babies and teenagers without babies sitting around picking their arse and moaning all the time.
This is the fairness of our current social system and this is why we need to pass the 24 Baby Law and why you need to vote for me. Quote: |
Originally Posted by Ophiel Ophiuci You could make it something tasteful like a nice tribal design or something. Or one of those ugly things just above the arse that chavvy girls in boob tubes always have - or "whoremarks", as my mate calls them. This has the advantage of being compatable with the current system, as a sizeable percentage of the adult underclass already has one. | Hmm…. You’re looking promising OO. I like your style.
Last edited by Hoppingdeth : 08-17-2006 at 07:02 AM.
|
08-17-2006, 07:03 AM
| | #1 cunt-kicker-in | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Northampton, UK:
Posts: 9,690
| | I used to be dolceygabana. "New Username, New Danger"  |
08-17-2006, 07:36 AM
| | Registered Member | | Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 329
| | I should have known!!!! |
08-17-2006, 08:22 AM
| | #1 cunt-kicker-in | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Northampton, UK:
Posts: 9,690
| | | Well, it is in my member status. |
08-17-2006, 08:35 AM
| | | |
