First Official GOP President Announcement

If you're too poor, don't buy a car.

If you're too poor, don't buy a home.

If you're too poor, don't goto the bar.

It's a sound bit of advice everywhere else but in the arena of sex where liberals just can't deal with the reality that it has consequences as well.

Just so you know, an argument that disagrees with yours and uses your point of view and its parallels for a base, isnt a strawman. The oddest way to make a rebuttal is claiming a strawman instead of replying to the supposed strawman with an actual response while actually supplying a strawman in response to a supposed strawman addressing a strawman. Strawmanception.

Like, an actual Strawman

also this, which im guilty of as well just now.

If youre poor, dont pursue happiness.

Hokay.

Responding to an argument no one is making.

(Strawman)

What is the pursuit of happiness for the win Alex.

(No its not)

Guess who gave out condoms and birth control to poor people this week? This filthy, socialist hippie right here.

We have normal, flavored, ribbed for her pleasure, magnums and information on getting affordable birth control of your choice! Condoms ain't cheap, yo. 24 bucks a box at your local CVS and 6 dollars for those worthless 3 packs!

No wonder some people are using saranwrap.

Also on a side note, no one uses female condoms. Also, teenagers are the most giddy little buggers when they ask for rubbers. Take as many as you like sport, we know you ain't getting laid anyway!

Yes it is, no one is telling you to not pursue happiness. If happiness is the most risk free sex there is, you are free to pursue that as much as you want. it usually involves some for of birth control. You are free to pursue that birth control and thus the most risk free sex you can.

You're arguing that you're entitled to what ever makes you happy. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

It's available, she just doesn't know anyone there who can give her actual first hand information, I do. There are a few requirements to be officially on the program, first is that you've either already had children or aren't planning on having kids (just in case CYA), second is that you live in one of the cities that's part of the human trial program, which is most of the big ones. So any Indian man can get it done. And if your willing to slip some money across the counter, then you can get the procedure and just not have your name recorded and thus not be required to check in for assessment. I've actually been thinking about taking a trip over there for this since I know people who can take care of the connections.

No, you just said that if you're poor dont do what not poor people do (Buy a car, buy a home, go to the bar. and in extension, have sex.). So it is in fact you telling people not to pursue what their idea of happiness is because of their socioeconomic position. Not to mention, i said nothing about wanting to have my form of happiness handed to me nor being entitled to my own pursuit of happiness (Which constitutionally, i am, but thats a different story all together).

(You just used a strawman and an ad hominem btw)

That's not what I said.

I stipulated that you shouldn't purchase X if you're too poor to afford it. That does not mean you cannot pursue your happiness of acquiring X.

I want a ferrari, it will make me happy. I cannot currently afford a ferrari, somehow I am still pursuing happiness.

We're talking about ***, not a luxury car. Right above the eating and sleeping thing for most people.

The idea that people are going to stop *** because they can't afford condoms is laughable. Humanity will sooner find eternal peace. People will *** anyway, have unplanned children and then it's all of our problems, now isn't it.

If that means taxpayers have to shoulder some purchases of condoms, so be it. I'd throw these things out of a chopper if it meant one less child born to a "woops!" moment.

You did not include the latter part of your statement.


You stipulated not buying at all. Meaning that as a person of low socioeconomic standing i should not ever purchase things that i want if i am of this socioeconomic standing (Slippery slope, but this is the argument you actually presented).

So your pursuit of happiness is more important than anothers because you can afford to pursue your specific pursuit (Even though your specific pursuit will never reach fruition because you cant afford your ferrari)? (This by the way is a strawman by accident and necessity)

He didn't disagree with me. He agreed with me, and argued with me anyway. Your strawmen from that post:


None of these things have anything to do with what I said. They're based on views that he thinks I have. Hence, they are strawmen.

At best its an ad hominem, it doesnt prop up your argument for you to better attack it.

That's not available in India, that is a drug trial in India. With, it seems, an awesome amount of corruption.

If the trials are run like that no wonder the US/FDA is requiring more trials in a different local.

Somewhat off-topic, but some people could say that spending money on a car that is equal to the value of a house, even if the person has the means, is the height of stupidity and impracticality.

I love how this thread has progressively degenerated into a conservative bitching about how others should spend their money, when I'm sure a lot of people here are content living within the means of their current financial state.

Poor to abhorrently excessive and ostentatious! Gogogo! Nothing in between, right?

EDIT: Maybe it's my mom gradually settling in my synapses, but I see a anyone with a stupidly expensive car my thoughts are...

A.) Poor money management skills.

B.) Poor prioritization for the long-term.

2008 wasn't that long ago, people.

I didn't stipulate not ever buying anything. I said that if you are too poor, don't buy a car. The obvious implication being that spending money one doesn't have isn't wise. If I had stipulated one not ever buying anything because they're currently poor I would have said something more like.

"If you are poor currently, you should never ever buy x even if you somehow become rich"


Meanwhile you responded by insisting what I was saying was that if you cannot afford X you cannot pursue happiness. (strawman) Specifically by saying in what I assumed to be sarcasm:

"If you're poor, don't pursue happiness.

Hokay."

Strawmanning and moving the goal posts. Congratulations, you completely missed your own point and mine.

You never had one.

No, lackwits, your side decided to start bitching about Planned Parenthood using a trivial amount of money to kill a few unwanted fetuses. You were a direct part of that.

I keep asking for an explanation of why it's more sensible to make people weaker, stupider, less secure, and more burdened at a higher net cost than it would be to do the opposite and you keep flailing around. I'll help all of you right-wing twits out with why you're having such trouble here: neither option is amenable to your party line because your party is schizophrenic, and I mean that in both the medical and the colloquial sense. Also, making people more educated and less fearful would get them to vote Democrat.

In between your erratic waffling, I've brought up other fundamental problems not being adequately addressed by your party line and rolled my eyes at the weak rebuttals.

I argue with most of you often enough and the secret is that I can see when I'm doing poorly, even though I soldier on. I haven't been doing so in this argument which, frankly, has me really worried. Not that I consider any of you to be effective thinkers or debaters (except Ravael when he's not parroting someone else's thoughts), but this has been particularly bad.

I did, but you apparently moved the straw goalposts so far that youve completely missed it.

Ok, I'll take the bait, what's you're point again?

I mean its simple to understand. You just backpedal on your own point and move the goalposts later anyway. My point is still relevantly valid to your original statements.

oh, and then semantics on top of it all.

Your point is that I backpedal and revise my own points and change the goalposts?

If so then you are incorrect, I offer clarification when what I say is misinterpreted and not properly responded to as is frequently the case.

No, my point was clearly stated in the first place. Your point has been spiraled away from your original point.

If you are poor, dont buy a car
If you are poor, Dont buy a house
If you are poor dont go to the bar

We can thusly extend this logic to

If you are poor, dont procreate
If you are poor, dont go to the movies
If you are poor, dont buy food
if you are poor, dont prepare said food
if you are poor, dont start a business

And then we can just summarize this into two points instead of a multitude of largely willingfully stupid points

if you are poor, dont pursue happiness
if you are poor, dont pursue the american dream.

Ergo, you missed the point entirely because you mentally stopped short. Then rebounded, then backpedaled, then moved the goal posts, then used semantics against your own point.

It was clear, you intend to ignore the origin of the logic instead of combating said logic with an actual response.

Sex is a recreational activity. If it was some god given, or inalienable right, rape wouldn't be a crime in society.

If you're too poor to buy a pack of condoms for $5, then masturbate.

Um, sex for procreation or pleasure or at the same time both is not a recreational activity. And if it is in your pursuit of happiness to have sex with anyone willing, then by your constitutional rights it is your god given right to pursue that happiness regardless of the consequences and regardless of anyone elses pursuit of happiness. The reason you can even have sex with anyone outside of your class is because you have the "Liberty" to do so. In other countries at the time and probably still now (Lol Caste system) You would have to intermingle with members of your assigned class/have the wealth to offer for fornication.

So like Nausi here, you completely miss the basic ideals of this country and the point of said ideals to further your rather flawed point.

Sorry I didn't realize common sense went out the window on this one.

By all means if you're too poor to raise a child, too poor to buy a pack of condoms, then you might as well *** all the time cause the government will end up screwing you anyway. Then CPS can come and take your children away since you can't feed them.

Whatever you do, don't try to better your situation. Just let people who work for a living take care of you and whatever mess you create. Cause we're all one big happy family, right?

When do we start signing Kumbaya?

Ok, I said what I said, and what I didn't say is something I didn't say. When you "assume" what I said means something else, or when you "summarize" what you assume I said into your two condensed statements, you're putting words in my mouth. You're creating the straw man. Presumably because you'd rather argue against that instead of what I said.

I then provided clarification that what I said was to mean that one shouldn't spend money they don't have. You presumably don't like that answer and AGAIN create the straw man by saying I am not in fact offering clarification and instead "moving the goal posts".

I meant what I meant. You certainly can pretend I didn't and pretend that you knew what I meant or you can accept that I knew what I meant.