Somebody Needs to Be Held Accountable! (Why Not Married?)

[Army of GOD]

Also, notice how my argument is much more blunt and unintellectual than BBS'. I get RIGHT TO da fuckin' point, man.

[BigBallinStalin]

That's because the power of Tebow compels you.


Also,

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5#p3492747

Let's use a concrete example:

Much economic/philosophical discourse during 18th and 19th centuries is "tainted" with Christian thought. There's plenty of mention of God, and maybe even the occasional "god did it" argument within there somewhere. Did religion somehow prevent early economists from figuring out why do people trade? why do nations trade? why are some nations rich and others poor? etc.

If so, how?

I don't see how Christianity halted centuries of economic discourse. It probably had something to do with the gradual rise of the market economy, followed by several centuries of people trying to explain it...

[Phatscotty]

Anyone want to take a stab at why the mother and father of the 10 children do not get married?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Buehler?

Fry?

[AAFitz]

Anyone want to take a stab at why the mother and father of the 10 children do not get married?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Buehler?

Fry?

You're looking for one reason not to get married?

[AAFitz]

One question to Fitz: if science's growth was stunned because of religion, how come the Islamic empires were able to make such great strides in mathematics and science around the time of the dark ages?

EDIT: Not to mention Hindu India, classical Greece, Rome and their religions, classical China and its religion(s), classical Egypt, etc.

Newton himself was a Christian, if I remember correctly.

You are confused. The point is that religion held back much science, not that it held back all of it, or even that it didnt help at times.

You got to the point all right. The wrong one, and kind of embarrassingly so.

[natty dread]

Anyone want to take a stab at why the mother and father of the 10 children do not get married?

Maybe they don't like each other? Maybe people who don't want to be married to each other shouldn't be forced to get married?

Maybe people should have the freedom to choose who they wish to marry and who not? Even if they are, you know, 2nd class citizens?

[thegreekdog]

One question to Fitz: if science's growth was stunned because of religion, how come the Islamic empires were able to make such great strides in mathematics and science around the time of the dark ages?

EDIT: Not to mention Hindu India, classical Greece, Rome and their religions, classical China and its religion(s), classical Egypt, etc.

Newton himself was a Christian, if I remember correctly.

You are confused. The point is that religion held back much science, not that it held back all of it, or even that it didnt help at times.

You got to the point all right. The wrong one, and kind of embarrassingly so.

It's okay to admit that you've lost. You don't have to get into discussions about motivations (e.g. thegreekdog is religious, which is why he's defending religion) or intelligence (e.g. AoG is stupid and therefore should be ignored).

Maybe you lost the question in my last post, but could you please provide specific examples of historical repression of science by religion? Then perhaps we can discuss these "facts" that you've allegedly put forward.

[Baron Von PWN]

Anyone want to take a stab at why the mother and father of the 10 children do not get married?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Buehler?

Fry?

Its a pointless question. Marriage is irrelevant to the situation. If she had married the guy in jail, her situation would be exactly the same, maybe worse as they would likely have gone and had a wedding ceremony bought rings they couldn't afford and so on. What would a ring on her index finger change?

[AAFitz]

Anyone want to take a stab at why the mother and father of the 10 children do not get married?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Buehler?

Fry?

Its a pointless question. Marriage is irrelevant to the situation. If she had married the guy in jail, her situation would be exactly the same, maybe worse as they would likely have gone and had a wedding ceremony bought rings they couldn't afford and so on. What would a ring on her index finger change?

Something else for him to complain about.

[natty dread]

What would a ring on her index finger change?

Well you see, women who are not clearly marked as property of a man are sluts who are unfit to live and/or raise children, so they need to be forcibly married to some young plucky enterpreneur, like scotty himself.

[AAFitz]

One question to Fitz: if science's growth was stunned because of religion, how come the Islamic empires were able to make such great strides in mathematics and science around the time of the dark ages?

EDIT: Not to mention Hindu India, classical Greece, Rome and their religions, classical China and its religion(s), classical Egypt, etc.

Newton himself was a Christian, if I remember correctly.

You are confused. The point is that religion held back much science, not that it held back all of it, or even that it didnt help at times.

You got to the point all right. The wrong one, and kind of embarrassingly so.

It's okay to admit that you've lost. You don't have to get into discussions about motivations (e.g. thegreekdog is religious, which is why he's defending religion) or intelligence (e.g. AoG is stupid and therefore should be ignored).

Maybe you lost the question in my last post, but could you please provide specific examples of historical repression of science by religion? Then perhaps we can discuss these "facts" that you've allegedly put forward.

I have no problem admitting when I lost, but here, I won completely. Your argument was only ever, even with a million words that religion while it fully held back science did not hold back science, because something else may have anyways, which is ridiculous.

Galileo was the best example because he was literally under house arrest, and his only crime, was suggesting that the earth was not at the center of the solar system. Any idea whatsoever that countered religious doctrine at the time had to be done in secret, or people had to fear for their lives. Galileo had to be very careful about what he wrote, how he wrote it, and essentially how much he was able to teach us about the universe. Luckilly, the oppression was not full, and we did finally put to rest the ridiculous notion that the earth was at the center of the solar system. Religion held back science.

Even in recent times, religions and churches vehemently opposed the science of in vitro fertilization. They absolutely slowed down that science, putting direct political pressure against it. Now, its embraced as common medicine, but if there was not a religious aspect, there would have been no argument from those people. Their only concern was that it was a sin to play God. Religion held back science.

The main adversary to stem cell research right now, is that it is said to go against gods will. Various religions and church are putting tremendous pressure on politicians to oppose not just funding for stem cell research, but the study and use of it as well. Their only complaint is it is against the will of God. Religion is holding back science.

But most importantly, It always had. The number of examples is possibly infinite, because in that atmosphere, all science is held back, and every little contribution to science, can hold back science completely.

And lets not forget, that there is a formidable religious movement that is trying to ignore all science and instead teach children in school that the earth is 6000 years old. Thats today, and tomorrow, and in some cases, it is very much working. We are in a global environment where other technologically advanced countries are of course arming their kids with the actual knowledge and science of the world...but for the mere sake of protecting their religious beliefs...religions are pushing to hold back science once again.

Your argument, while it got longer each time, is only that something would have held it back anyways, and it wasnt the belief in the supernatural that was to blame, and I simply argue the complete opposite, and that it is completely obvious, when one actually removes the bias of believing in the supernatural. I myself, am of course biased as all we are, but have the benefit, of having both points of view, and do not have to guess as to what it is like to be the other. I have fully experienced both and understand your passion, but have simply moved on to realize however noble it may be, that is in the end, misguided.

Again, I understand your argument, and it was about the only one you could make. But it was completely faulty, because it did in fact, ignore the actual history, and you simply hypothesized that just because religion did hold back science, its not responsible, because other things also did, and something else may have as well.

Its simply a different argument, and not even one I disagree with. Its a valid point, but just a distraction to the main argument, which is did religion hold back science, and that conclusion, can only be "absolutely"

[AAFitz]

What would a ring on her index finger change?

Well you see, women who are not clearly marked as property of a man are sluts who are unfit to live and/or raise children, so they need to be forcibly married to some young plucky enterpreneur, like scotty himself.

Well lets hope Newt becomes president, because if Marriage makes things better....there sure as hell no one more qualified than him for the job. No one has as much experience as him.

Also, maybe he should also encourage gay marriage...all those poor homosexuals out there taxing the system. If they just get married, maybe we can solve the entire economic issues right there. We can let them adopt all the orphans, and we wont need to support them with tax money anymore.

Phatscotty for president slogan:
Save the economy. Get married!

And hell... imagine how much better it could be if we are allowed to marry more than one wife too... You know Romney will be all for it....and Gingrich practically invented the idea.

I can hear the church bells of financial liberty ringing now... WE BEAT THIS THING....Awesome job Scooter.

[PLAYER57832]

The school of economics is just like all the other schools of social science. It can make good general rules for human behaviour, like say supply and demand, but usually cannot answer things absolutely. For instance it is unlikely an Economist would say to you "a 10% tax cut would result in exactly 500 000, jobs". If they did they aren't an economist, they are a business student .

The problem is that while most people using sociological data realize its limitations, too many people using economic data do not.

I don't see why an economist would say we can't solve global warming. They would likely just tell you that you need to make the cost of keeping things the same greater than making changes.

They shouldn't, but too many in the US do. They start by assuming their economic data is "real" and more important.. essentially they just don't believe scientific doomsday predictions for a lot of reasons, only a few of which have much to do with religion.

[thegreekdog]

One question to Fitz: if science's growth was stunned because of religion, how come the Islamic empires were able to make such great strides in mathematics and science around the time of the dark ages?

EDIT: Not to mention Hindu India, classical Greece, Rome and their religions, classical China and its religion(s), classical Egypt, etc.

Newton himself was a Christian, if I remember correctly.

You are confused. The point is that religion held back much science, not that it held back all of it, or even that it didnt help at times.

You got to the point all right. The wrong one, and kind of embarrassingly so.

It's okay to admit that you've lost. You don't have to get into discussions about motivations (e.g. thegreekdog is religious, which is why he's defending religion) or intelligence (e.g. AoG is stupid and therefore should be ignored).

Maybe you lost the question in my last post, but could you please provide specific examples of historical repression of science by religion? Then perhaps we can discuss these "facts" that you've allegedly put forward.

I have no problem admitting when I lost, but here, I won completely. Your argument was only ever, even with a million words that religion while it fully held back science did not hold back science, because something else may have anyways, which is ridiculous.

Galileo was the best example because he was literally under house arrest, and his only crime, was suggesting that the earth was not at the center of the solar system. Any idea whatsoever that countered religious doctrine at the time had to be done in secret, or people had to fear for their lives. Galileo had to be very careful about what he wrote, how he wrote it, and essentially how much he was able to teach us about the universe. Luckilly, the oppression was not full, and we did finally put to rest the ridiculous notion that the earth was at the center of the solar system. Religion held back science.

Even in recent times, religions and churches vehemently opposed the science of in vitro fertilization. They absolutely slowed down that science, putting direct political pressure against it. Now, its embraced as common medicine, but if there was not a religious aspect, there would have been no argument from those people. Their only concern was that it was a sin to play God. Religion held back science.

The main adversary to stem cell research right now, is that it is said to go against gods will. Various religions and church are putting tremendous pressure on politicians to oppose not just funding for stem cell research, but the study and use of it as well. Their only complaint is it is against the will of God. Religion is holding back science.

But most importantly, It always had. The number of examples is possibly infinite, because in that atmosphere, all science is held back, and every little contribution to science, can hold back science completely.

And lets not forget, that there is a formidable religious movement that is trying to ignore all science and instead teach children in school that the earth is 6000 years old. Thats today, and tomorrow, and in some cases, it is very much working. We are in a global environment where other technologically advanced countries are of course arming their kids with the actual knowledge and science of the world...but for the mere sake of protecting their religious beliefs...religions are pushing to hold back science once again.

Your argument, while it got longer each time, is only that something would have held it back anyways, and it wasnt the belief in the supernatural that was to blame, and I simply argue the complete opposite, and that it is completely obvious, when one actually removes the bias of believing in the supernatural. I myself, am of course biased as all we are, but have the benefit, of having both points of view, and do not have to guess as to what it is like to be the other. I have fully experienced both and understand your passion, but have simply moved on to realize however noble it may be, that is in the end, misguided.

Again, I understand your argument, and it was about the only one you could make. But it was completely faulty, because it did in fact, ignore the actual history, and you simply hypothesized that just because religion did hold back science, its not responsible, because other things also did, and something else may have as well.

Its simply a different argument, and not even one I disagree with. Its a valid point, but just a distraction to the main argument, which is did religion hold back science, and that conclusion, can only be "absolutely"

Are you purposefully not using personal pronouns to describe religious repression of science?

Are you purposefully ignoring my very brief descriptions of my two arguments?

Are you purposefully ignoring my request for historical examples?

Here... two succinct arguments:

(1) The people are the actors and the ones to take blame, not the tool with which they repress.

This my main argument and one that you've completely ignored, especially with respect to my explanation that religion was created by men and used by men.

(2) Scientific advancement was not repressed by religion, but by other factors; please provide historic examples.

This is BBS's main argument. I'm less concerned with whether people repressed science using the tool of religion (but with ulterior motives) and more concerned with the people aspect.

As to your stem cell research example - Explain how religion is repressing such research and not something else specifically or something else disguised with the tool of religion.

As for Galileo - His scientific research wasn't repressed and it certainly wasn't repressed by religion, especially since the man himself was a practicing Catholic.

As for in vitro fertilization - You're going to be have to be more specific as to how it was repressed by religion. I'm not seeing it.

EDIT - For what it's worth, you have wrote voluminous posts that essentially say only one thing - Religion repressed science. You can keep typing that same thing over and over again in varying ways, but that's really all your saying.

[PLAYER57832]

The only whammo is me stating the fact that religion, and religious beliefs held back scientific discoveries, and that no matter how much you or anyone else may not want to acknowledge it....it happened, and its obvious that it did.

It was a good effort to try to distract from that fact, but it was only a distraction at best.

I have to respectfully disagree, though that is a view that has been taught and believed frequently. In fact, what actually happened in the Dark Ages and then the Middle Ages was far more complex than you put forward. While you point to religion as suppressing, religious institutions, particular monasteries were, in fact areas of scholarship. We saw the beginnings of much agriculture science, etc there. Certain areas where restricted, but only for a time. Its no more true to say that religion held back science than it is to say that alchemy held it back.

Overshadowing all that was what greekdog indicated, the power bit. What you saw was a solidification of power and wealth in a few, who then turned and used most every method to suppress the masses. However, the church was one of the few areas where people could go to escape that to some extent, though that route was absolutely limited.

The biggest limitation on society then was the overall environment. Science was stymied because the base of data was just not encorporated and absorbed by society at that point. There was no ready platform for the later masters. But, the church was very much a part of that foundation as much as it was a part of suppression.

[PLAYER57832]

BBS has a flawless victory so far in this thread, just so everyone knows.

In his mind, anyway.. in his own mind.

[PLAYER57832]

That's because the power of Tebow compels you.


Also,

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5#p3492747

Let's use a concrete example:

Much economic/philosophical discourse during 18th and 19th centuries is "tainted" with Christian thought. There's plenty of mention of God, and maybe even the occasional "god did it" argument within there somewhere. Did religion somehow prevent early economists from figuring out why do people trade? why do nations trade? why are some nations rich and others poor? etc.

If so, how?

I don't see how Christianity halted centuries of economic discourse. It probably had something to do with the gradual rise of the market economy, followed by several centuries of people trying to explain it...

LOL.. ironically enough, this is just wrong. Jews attained power (and also bad feelings/abuse) in part because they were able to loan money, which Christians were then not able to do, it being called the sin of "usary". This prohibition had to be overcome before your hallowed market systems could truly flourish. Its really a pretty fascinating study .

[Army of GOD]

Oh God, AAFitz is being so cute in this thread.

[Phatscotty]

What would a ring on her index finger change?

Well you see, women who are not clearly marked as property of a man are sluts who are unfit to live and/or raise children, so they need to be forcibly married to some young plucky enterpreneur, like scotty himself.

Well lets hope Newt becomes president, because if Marriage makes things better....there sure as hell no one more qualified than him for the job. No one has as much experience as him.

Also, maybe he should also encourage gay marriage...all those poor homosexuals out there taxing the system. If they just get married, maybe we can solve the entire economic issues right there. We can let them adopt all the orphans, and we wont need to support them with tax money anymore.

Phatscotty for president slogan:
Save the economy. Get married!

And hell... imagine how much better it could be if we are allowed to marry more than one wife too... You know Romney will be all for it....and Gingrich practically invented the idea.

I can hear the church bells of financial liberty ringing now... WE BEAT THIS THING....Awesome job Scooter.

or, maybe, just maybe, you can't get as much money from welfare if you are married.

I knew you guys would dodge this one. "a ring on her index finger"? "women are sluts"? "homosexuals"? Very nice

just maybe, you get more money from welfare if you are not married.

[Army of GOD]

What would a ring on her index finger change?

Well you see, women who are not clearly marked as property of a man are sluts who are unfit to live and/or raise children, so they need to be forcibly married to some young plucky enterpreneur, like scotty himself.

Man, took forever but we finally got our appeal to sexism.

[thegreekdog]

What would a ring on her index finger change?

Well you see, women who are not clearly marked as property of a man are sluts who are unfit to live and/or raise children, so they need to be forcibly married to some young plucky enterpreneur, like scotty himself.

Well lets hope Newt becomes president, because if Marriage makes things better....there sure as hell no one more qualified than him for the job. No one has as much experience as him.

Also, maybe he should also encourage gay marriage...all those poor homosexuals out there taxing the system. If they just get married, maybe we can solve the entire economic issues right there. We can let them adopt all the orphans, and we wont need to support them with tax money anymore.

Phatscotty for president slogan:
Save the economy. Get married!

And hell... imagine how much better it could be if we are allowed to marry more than one wife too... You know Romney will be all for it....and Gingrich practically invented the idea.

I can hear the church bells of financial liberty ringing now... WE BEAT THIS THING....Awesome job Scooter.

or, maybe, just maybe, you can't get as much money from welfare if you are married.

I knew you guys would dodge this one. "a ring on her index finger"? "women are sluts"? "homosexuals"? Very nice

just maybe, you get more money from welfare if you are not married.

This is such a weird argument you're having. I don't think anyone's motivation for not getting married is "I can get me $30 more per month in welfare." There is a distinct disincentive to being on welfare (as opposed to unemployment compensation, where there isn't a disincentive for months).

In sum - please stop.

[Phatscotty]

Well you see, women who are not clearly marked as property of a man are sluts who are unfit to live and/or raise children, so they need to be forcibly married to some young plucky enterpreneur, like scotty himself.

Well lets hope Newt becomes president, because if Marriage makes things better....there sure as hell no one more qualified than him for the job. No one has as much experience as him.

Also, maybe he should also encourage gay marriage...all those poor homosexuals out there taxing the system. If they just get married, maybe we can solve the entire economic issues right there. We can let them adopt all the orphans, and we wont need to support them with tax money anymore.

Phatscotty for president slogan:
Save the economy. Get married!

And hell... imagine how much better it could be if we are allowed to marry more than one wife too... You know Romney will be all for it....and Gingrich practically invented the idea.

I can hear the church bells of financial liberty ringing now... WE BEAT THIS THING....Awesome job Scooter.

or, maybe, just maybe, you can't get as much money from welfare if you are married.

I knew you guys would dodge this one. "a ring on her index finger"? "women are sluts"? "homosexuals"? Very nice

just maybe, you get more money from welfare if you are not married.

This is such a weird argument you're having. I don't think anyone's motivation for not getting married is "I can get me $30 more per month in welfare." There is a distinct disincentive to being on welfare (as opposed to unemployment compensation, where there isn't a disincentive for months).

In sum - please stop.

No, there is a distinct disincentive to get married.

FYI, it's my opinion this is the poster child for welfare abuse in the ugliest way. I know it isn't pretty to look at, but we have to look at what the system promotes.

[AAFitz]

One question to Fitz: if science's growth was stunned because of religion, how come the Islamic empires were able to make such great strides in mathematics and science around the time of the dark ages?

EDIT: Not to mention Hindu India, classical Greece, Rome and their religions, classical China and its religion(s), classical Egypt, etc.

Newton himself was a Christian, if I remember correctly.

You are confused. The point is that religion held back much science, not that it held back all of it, or even that it didnt help at times.

You got to the point all right. The wrong one, and kind of embarrassingly so.

It's okay to admit that you've lost. You don't have to get into discussions about motivations (e.g. thegreekdog is religious, which is why he's defending religion) or intelligence (e.g. AoG is stupid and therefore should be ignored).

Maybe you lost the question in my last post, but could you please provide specific examples of historical repression of science by religion? Then perhaps we can discuss these "facts" that you've allegedly put forward.

I have no problem admitting when I lost, but here, I won completely. Your argument was only ever, even with a million words that religion while it fully held back science did not hold back science, because something else may have anyways, which is ridiculous.

Galileo was the best example because he was literally under house arrest, and his only crime, was suggesting that the earth was not at the center of the solar system. Any idea whatsoever that countered religious doctrine at the time had to be done in secret, or people had to fear for their lives. Galileo had to be very careful about what he wrote, how he wrote it, and essentially how much he was able to teach us about the universe. Luckilly, the oppression was not full, and we did finally put to rest the ridiculous notion that the earth was at the center of the solar system. Religion held back science.

Even in recent times, religions and churches vehemently opposed the science of in vitro fertilization. They absolutely slowed down that science, putting direct political pressure against it. Now, its embraced as common medicine, but if there was not a religious aspect, there would have been no argument from those people. Their only concern was that it was a sin to play God. Religion held back science.

The main adversary to stem cell research right now, is that it is said to go against gods will. Various religions and church are putting tremendous pressure on politicians to oppose not just funding for stem cell research, but the study and use of it as well. Their only complaint is it is against the will of God. Religion is holding back science.

But most importantly, It always had. The number of examples is possibly infinite, because in that atmosphere, all science is held back, and every little contribution to science, can hold back science completely.

And lets not forget, that there is a formidable religious movement that is trying to ignore all science and instead teach children in school that the earth is 6000 years old. Thats today, and tomorrow, and in some cases, it is very much working. We are in a global environment where other technologically advanced countries are of course arming their kids with the actual knowledge and science of the world...but for the mere sake of protecting their religious beliefs...religions are pushing to hold back science once again.

Your argument, while it got longer each time, is only that something would have held it back anyways, and it wasnt the belief in the supernatural that was to blame, and I simply argue the complete opposite, and that it is completely obvious, when one actually removes the bias of believing in the supernatural. I myself, am of course biased as all we are, but have the benefit, of having both points of view, and do not have to guess as to what it is like to be the other. I have fully experienced both and understand your passion, but have simply moved on to realize however noble it may be, that is in the end, misguided.

Again, I understand your argument, and it was about the only one you could make. But it was completely faulty, because it did in fact, ignore the actual history, and you simply hypothesized that just because religion did hold back science, its not responsible, because other things also did, and something else may have as well.

Its simply a different argument, and not even one I disagree with. Its a valid point, but just a distraction to the main argument, which is did religion hold back science, and that conclusion, can only be "absolutely"

Are you purposefully not using personal pronouns to describe religious repression of science?

Are you purposefully ignoring my very brief descriptions of my two arguments?

Are you purposefully ignoring my request for historical examples?

Here... two succinct arguments:

(1) The people are the actors and the ones to take blame, not the tool with which they repress.

This my main argument and one that you've completely ignored, especially with respect to my explanation that religion was created by men and used by men.

(2) Scientific advancement was not repressed by religion, but by other factors; please provide historic examples.

This is BBS's main argument. I'm less concerned with whether people repressed science using the tool of religion (but with ulterior motives) and more concerned with the people aspect.

As to your stem cell research example - Explain how religion is repressing such research and not something else specifically or something else disguised with the tool of religion.

As for Galileo - His scientific research wasn't repressed and it certainly wasn't repressed by religion, especially since the man himself was a practicing Catholic. I would expect that the majority of the scientists throughout history were similarly repressed by religion. The fact that they also happened to believe in a God hardly means they can not be scientists, since plenty including some of the most famous have been. If you have mistaken my comment that all religion has repressed science you simply have misunderstood the statement. I simply showed that religion and religious beliefs have stiffled science, which it has, and for thousands of years.

As for in vitro fertilization - You're going to be have to be more specific as to how it was repressed by religion. I'm not seeing it.

EDIT - For what it's worth, you have wrote voluminous posts that essentially say only one thing - Religion repressed science. You can keep typing that same thing over and over again in varying ways, but that's really all your saying.

Yes. That is all Im saying, and using examples of it. As far as Galileo being a catholic, its a ridiculous argument that it wasnt repressed, because he was. The fact that he was religious does not mean the the religious power of the time did not repress him, which they did.

The fact that you cant see it, simply isnt my problem. It happened it repressed science, the examples are there, and if you simply choose to ignore them, so be it. Religious people ignore reasonable facts all the time. Its hardly unexpected.

[AAFitz]

What would a ring on her index finger change?

Well you see, women who are not clearly marked as property of a man are sluts who are unfit to live and/or raise children, so they need to be forcibly married to some young plucky enterpreneur, like scotty himself.

Well lets hope Newt becomes president, because if Marriage makes things better....there sure as hell no one more qualified than him for the job. No one has as much experience as him.

Also, maybe he should also encourage gay marriage...all those poor homosexuals out there taxing the system. If they just get married, maybe we can solve the entire economic issues right there. We can let them adopt all the orphans, and we wont need to support them with tax money anymore.

Phatscotty for president slogan:
Save the economy. Get married!

And hell... imagine how much better it could be if we are allowed to marry more than one wife too... You know Romney will be all for it....and Gingrich practically invented the idea.

I can hear the church bells of financial liberty ringing now... WE BEAT THIS THING....Awesome job Scooter.

or, maybe, just maybe, you can't get as much money from welfare if you are married.

I knew you guys would dodge this one. "a ring on her index finger"? "women are sluts"? "homosexuals"? Very nice

just maybe, you get more money from welfare if you are not married.

This is such a weird argument you're having. I don't think anyone's motivation for not getting married is "I can get me $30 more per month in welfare." There is a distinct disincentive to being on welfare (as opposed to unemployment compensation, where there isn't a disincentive for months).

In sum - please stop.

This was simply presented as a pardody of the entire situation and how ridiculous the statement of marriage is to the conversation. This woman is obviously and completely taking advantage of the system and obviously it should be structured to limit this as much as possible. My point however, is that the waste on this end, is dwarfed by the real waste at the upper level and that this kind of example is just used in an attempt to discredit the entire welfare system, which, as explained before, actually does feed money into the economy at least, and hopefully, the children get some benefit out of it, though Im not actually arguing they do in a case this ridiculous.

As far as stopping, I absolutely hope you dont feel obliged to read anything you are uncomfortable with. In sum, GFY as far at the stop comment goes.

[Army of GOD]

hahahaha AntiAircraftfitz makes me smile

"It's true because it's fact. Only religious people would argue otherwise."