Things that you have taken seriously today (Political version)

[Methais]

But it's the man that decides to create the child. By not getting a vasectomy and choosing to ejaculate inside a woman, you've consented to creating and caring for that child.

Not always. But in those situations, hot sauce has your back:

[Suppressed Poet]

But it's the man that decides to create the child. By not getting a vasectomy and choosing to ejaculate inside a woman, you've consented to creating and caring for that child.

I think you are downplaying the power of the pussy. It easily defeats a man’s ability to make rational decisions.

Also, what about men who suffer from a medical condition that causes premature ejaculation like PB? Doesn’t seem fair to legislate discrimination towards those with disabilities. Some men just have a weak pull out game.

[Shaps]

I think you are downplaying the power of the pussy. It easily defeats a man’s ability to make rational decisions.

Also, what about men who suffer from a medical condition that causes premature ejaculation like PB? Doesn’t seem fair to legislate discrimination towards those with disabilities. Some men just have a weak pull out game.

Suck a dick! Save a baby!

New approach, for a new age!

[Flap]

Not always. But in those situations, hot sauce has your back:

LOL amazing

[Suppressed Poet]

Suck a dick! Save a baby!

New approach, for a new age!

But…

[~Rocktar~]

Not always. But in those situations, hot sauce has your back:

Gods that is fucking funny! Sad though that you have to go to such lengths to protect yourself from gold diggers. Kudos on him. Just wait to someone comes out with a condom pack with a additional disposal method that makes it clear those fuckers are dead and you can kiss your gold digging ways goodbye.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

My only question is really... does he carry around hot sauce for that specific purpose? This is a rich man problem and something I'd have never even thought of.

[Neveragain]

Leaving aside your frequent abuse of the word "science"- which always seems to point to some personal belief or some decades old high school biology class level of understanding of the world...

First- women *CAN* bear chidden. That does not mean that you have a right to force us to bear children or that it's our primary purpose: regardless of any personal choices we've made that led to the pregnancy. You do not have control over our bodies any more than we have control over yours. And you need to get that through your head ASAP because what you just said is ugly and perverse. Also hugely hypocritical. I don't see you trying to outlaw vasectomies. A man's body was designed to inseminate, after all. Any other argument is anti-science, right? Heck, I guess we should outlaw condoms too. They actively interfere with a man's biological purpose, if we're operating under the "It can happen, therefore it must happen" rule you have set in place.

Now since one can be anti-choice without believing that women are just birthing cattle, let's get to the real crux of the issue: "It's not my responsibility to help take care of children, but it's absolutely my right to force women to have them" is problematic at best.

My advice is that if you want to stay hands off, stay hands off. It's not fair to put your own beliefs about someone else's pregnancy over theirs and then to run away when it comes time to deal with the consequences of the birth. In fact it's cruel and callous. There are A LOT of ways to reduce the number of abortions in this country that don't require you to force someone to carry a child they aren't ready to carry and/or force a child to live its life in poverty because it was born into a household that couldn't afford them:

Comprehensive sexual health education (vs abstinence-based), free and easy access to birth control, free or heavily subsidized child care, and free access to health care- especially sexual health are just a few of those things- all of which conservatives vehemently oppose.

And that begs the question: is this *really* about reducing abortions? Or is it about punishing women for having sex and daring to demand to be treated as equals?

Using pure science, that's exactly what men and women are supposed to do, make babies to insure the survival of the species.

Or do you agree that humans are unique among all other living creatures?

P.S. I don't think you know what the word "free" means. Babies are not punishment. It's also not a woman's body, it's a unique human being with it's own unique set of DNA. I.E. You are a science denier.

[Parkbandit]

Also, what about men who suffer from a medical condition that causes premature ejaculation like PB?

Your mom needs to shut her filthy whore mouth until I tell her to open it.

I'll reiterate this to her tonight.

[Seran]

Not surprisingly, the Republican demanded 800 billion in Paycheck Protection Program loans didn't do much to protect jobs, while most of it just went to line the pockets of the ultra wealthy. Thank you Marco Rubio for your support of the uber wealthy.

Meanwhile, money which went out to families in the form of stimulus payments was spent and massively boosted the economy. Even extended unemployment benefits which was rife with fraud, largely was spent to boost the economy.

But overall, the Paycheck Protection Program was extremely inefficient. For every $1 in wages that it prevented from being lost, it handed out $3.13 that went somewhere else, Dr. Dalton found. The analysis by Dr. Autor’s group, circulated for comment last month by the National Bureau of Economic Research, put the cost of saving a job for a year at $169,300 — far more than the $58,200 average compensation for those jobs, according to the group’s calculations.

https://dnyuz.com/2022/02/01/little-...ted-paychecks/